The death of the high street.

[So]

We went Christmas shopping in Leicester last week. The shops were all but empty. Today we went shopping in Nottingham, which was busier than Leicester, but there were plenty of empty shops, lots of people who I doubt had any money to spend and not one queue at any till.

House of Fraser was FAIRLY busy because it is closing down and everything was reduced. Debenhams gave the impression of being on its backside. John Lewis had very few shoppers.

We bought a book from Waterstones. One book. There were many things we needed, but could not find. We decided to buy online over the weekend and went for lunch.

Whilst we were shopping the cleaner was at home taking in goods we'd ordered online.

The death of the high street has been mooted for several years, but I saw no real evidence. This year, for the first time, it seems like it is really happening. Or at least where we shop.

Has anyone else had the same experience, or are we just shopping in the wrong places?

[So]

PurpleMoonlight said:

It's not all joy online though.

I have been sent the wrong item. Postage back is free, but I still have to get it to the post office which involves the cost of driving to town and parking.

Agreed. Online delivery round here is still crap from any supplier who doesn't use DPD, and DPD seems increasingly rare.

[So]

menousername said:

2. Feasiability. Councils will be slow, if not fail altogether, to give it the necessary free parking and ease of accessibility.

Very true. The rot started locally when the local council put in a tram system and started making it more difficult for car owners to access the city. So they are shipping in those with little money, whilst alienating those who have more.

[So]

As Gizlaroc points out, renting units below the last rent can cause lots of problems, particularly if there is bank lending involved.

Commercial property value is a function of the rent (in part). If the landlord drops the rent the property effectively falls in value and it may breach lending covenants. Furthermore it gets the banks wondering about the true value of other stock owned by the landlord and financed by them.

I would not want a lot of retail property on our books at the moment.

[So]

saaby93 said:

More here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d24Tuc7X58
longer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn3p7by5F0I

He needs to do fewer of these. He doesn't know how to come across well.

[So]

Tempest_5 said:

Seriously though, one of the streets into the centre of one of my local towns (Chichester) down here on the South coast is gradually becoming a gentrified mix of bland similar "architecture" flats and retirement homes. It's just depressing, the level of daylight drops due to the increased height and it all looks the same. It's not quite encroached on the town centre yet but it's altering the feel of that area.

Not as bad as this though,

https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/legen...

https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/owner...

To be fair though, when I used to go on holiday near Chi in the 1970s and 80s it was pretty grim. It needed something doing to it.

[So]

Tempest_5 said:

If you found it grim I think you will find they have made it worse.

I might take my children there soon actually.

Are the Witterings / Bosham / Del Quay still nice?

[So]

V6 Pushfit said:

The High Street would be a winner in most areas if you could park and pop in to a shop. Most round here have such restrictive parking controls people just don’t bother.

Ah, a hobby horse of mine.

In the 90s I used to drive into Nottingham, park right in the centre on the street, outside a cafe, and go for coffee. I'd then shop in the small, individual clothes shops, before having lunch in one of the many restaurants and bars. The afternoon would then involve more shopping and I'd return to my car early evening to drive home. I might repeat the process in the evening for drinking / clubbing, leaving my car there and collecting it the following day. My credit cards were usually hammered, with every penny flowing into the coffers of Nottingham's businesses. I spent hundreds every single weekend.

In 2018, the cafe outside which I used to park is boarded up and has been for some time. If I tried to park outside it, a traffic warden would ticket me within seconds. So I have to queue for one of the car parks, the nearest being Fletcher Gate, which stinks of urine, is filthy and is frequented by beggars asking for change. They sit right by the ticket machines.

The cafes have now mostly gone, to be replaced by Caffe Nero and the like. Bridlesmith Gate, which used to be home to many nice shops is becoming abandoned, ditto Clumber Street. All the independent clothes shops have gone, as has Paul Smith's original shop. The choice of restaurants is still okay, but you've got to stray outside the immediate centre to find them.

I wouldn't dream of leaving my car in Fletcher Gate car park overnight, and if I did it would certainly be expensive.

So, what has happened? Is it the Internet causing the problem? Not in my estimation. It's because Nottingham City Council has made the city inaccessible and unappealing for people with money, whilst encouraging people with little money to go into the city. The demographic of people using the city has greatly changed and those who now go there cannot support the type of shops, bars and restaurants that make a city centre a pleasant place to be.

[So]

Jonesy23 said:

The High Street has been stuffed by being unattractive and uncompetitive. Parking charges, taxes, mobs of the unemployable filling their day at the pub, unattractive retail offers - it all adds up so unless it's something for specialist as a shop or service people don't bother. And this is something that has been true for decades.


And apparently the answer to other people finding an alternative business model with lower costs isn't to respond to this by fixing the problems but to slap a tax on to try to ruin their model for them.

Quite why anyone should listen to any half arsed idea from a shark like Ashley I don't know. He might do things to help himself but the health of retailers or the High Street in general is something that never enters his head except as an opportunity for further scavenging.

And why does anyone think that a tax slapped on top is going to do anything but hurt the consumer who pays it? It won't make the High Street better unlike (for example) increased investment and lower costs.

As for turnover taxes - surely the domain of the financially illiterate who can't understand the difference between turnover and profit? Any time those pop up they just flag another idiot. If you really want their money then be the place they funnel their operating 'expenses' into, not away from.

Whilst I agree that Ashley should shut up and focus on selling hoodies, you haven’t understood what he was saying about turnover tax. He was suggesting taxation upon businesses based upon WHERE they derive their turnover.

He should not have said half of what he said though and I think he and the select committee deserved each other in that exchange.

[So]

Brooking10 said:

poo at Paul's said:

So said:

saaby93 said:

More here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d24Tuc7X58
longer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn3p7by5F0I

He needs to do fewer of these. He doesn't know how to come across well.

He doesn't actually have a fking clue, does he? His team of advisers, may well do, but he fking doesn't. Not a scooby.

It’s the complete inverse. He is very sharp and has generally poor quality people around him.

I clicked on the first link and not have yet looked st the second. There was. Itching in his first engage I would disagree with. In fact the questioning MP seemed to have very little grasp as to the commercials of the situation.

Look at the second. I’ve yet to see the last 15 minutes, but Ashley doesn’t come across well. Admittedly the audience were a shower, but there is a way of talking to these people that Ashley doesn’t understand.

[So]

Brooking10 said:

TheStigsWeeBrother said:

So said:

Brooking10 said:

poo at Paul's said:

So said:

saaby93 said:

More here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d24Tuc7X58
longer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn3p7by5F0I

He needs to do fewer of these. He doesn't know how to come across well.

He doesn't actually have a fking clue, does he? His team of advisers, may well do, but he fking doesn't. Not a scooby.

It’s the complete inverse. He is very sharp and has generally poor quality people around him.

I clicked on the first link and not have yet looked st the second. There was. Itching in his first engage I would disagree with. In fact the questioning MP seemed to have very little grasp as to the commercials of the situation.

Look at the second. I’ve yet to see the last 15 minutes, but Ashley doesn’t come across well. Admittedly the audience were a shower, but there is a way of talking to these people that Ashley doesn’t understand.

He treated them with the contempt the questions deserved.

I would agree. Ridiculously ill informed and deliberately emotive line of questioning.

Agreed, but someone of MA's calibre should have been able to deal with those herberts far more classily than he did.

[So]

I've found out today that Carluccios in Nottingham city centre is closing imminently. It's in an area where lots of shops are closed. It's a shame, because it was actually alright.

[So]

sparkythecat said:

So said:

As Gizlaroc points out, renting units below the last rent can cause lots of problems, particularly if there is bank lending involved.

Commercial property value is a function of the rent (in part). If the landlord drops the rent the property effectively falls in value and it may breach lending covenants. Furthermore it gets the banks wondering about the true value of other stock owned by the landlord and financed by them.

I would not want a lot of retail property on our books at the moment.

But if the value of the property is a function of rental income, and the property is standing empty for a prolonged period, with no rental income coming in, then surely its value must be falling anyway.
Or are you saying that you can ascribe an arbitrary and unattainable rental income to a property in order enhance its valuation?

Broadly speaking the current rent can be assumed to be at least the last rent unless proven otherwise.

In reality it’s a bit more complicated than that, but it is why landlords sometimes prefer an empty property to one re-let at a lower figure.

[So]

The Surveyor said:

And you would be completely wrong.

The slow-down on the high street is not influenced by parking any more today than it was a decade ago. The closing of shops on todays high-street is running in parallel with the closure of similar shops in the out-of-town shopping centres where parking is, and has always been free.

We have changed the way we shop as a nation, that is the change which is seeing the death of the high-street, and the death of the out-of-town shopping centres. The wider economic climate is dictating that we are happier to take the risk (albeit very small) of internet shopping to save a few quid rather than going to a shop and buying it face-to-face like we used to do. Margins in retail have always been tight, the rise of Amazon, ASOS, ao, Very, and all the other on-line retailers has squeezed those margins even tighter, and along with a general down-turn in spending, that is the reason shops are closing now. It has nothing to do with parking charges, nothing.

Have you got some data to support that?

[So]

The Surveyor said:

Only anecdotal from a recent RICS Market Survey which focussed on the retail sector. It shows a continued decline within both Prime and Secondary retail areas with rental expectations dropping whilst availability increases. It makes no distinction or reference to areas with expensive, cheap, or free parking as all areas are similarly struggling.

A walk around any out-of-town shopping centre will show that there are a similar number of empty units as there are on the high-street.

Have you got a link to the specific report you’re referring to by any chance please?

[So]

The Surveyor said:

Lemming Train said:

The Surveyor said:

Nobody is rebelling against LA policy,

You clearly need some spectacles as there are numerous people in this thread alone that have said they won't pay to park and will drive to a retail park where there aren't any parking charges, and nor will they be forced into using public transport either.

Which has always been the case. Ever since the first out-of-town retail parks opened over 30 years ago, that has been the case. It's an old argument and has been churned out for decades. Yes, some people prefer to drive to an out-of-town park rather than drive to the High Street, it's not new and it's not rocket science. Also, busses do visit out-of-town shopping centres as well as high-streets you know, the White rose Centre you mentioned has a bus terminal, as has the Metro Centre near me (along with a train station) so it's not a public transport policy conspiracy either. But, all that isn't what is causing the current downturn is it?

Now what do you think has changed over the last few years which caused the retail sector to fold, what has changed which is causing retailers like House of Frazer to shut their outlets in BOTH out-of-town shopping centres and the high-street. I'll give you a clue, it isn't the constant grumbling about "it used to be 40p to park here 20 years ago".

I've been doing some brief reading, and whilst not entirely conclusive the evidence seems to suggest that free parking increases footfall and revenue in town centres. Ergo, paid parking reduces these factors.

But I'd be interested to see the RICS report stating that out of town shopping is struggling as much as town centre.

[So]

Johnnytheboy said:

soxboy said:

Parking (and the cost) does play a part. The answer is not free all day parking on high streets, traders want some creative thinking whereby for example there are spaces that are free for an hour, in order to attract people just popping in.

That's the absolute key.

It's not just the availability of parking but the ability to pop in that I look for.

If parking starts at £4.00 for two hours: forget it.

In a trial, two hours free parking appears to have helped businesses.

http://www.vale4business.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

[So]

Lemming Train said:

Never underestimate the amount of noise that your fellow human beings generate from performing the most menial of tasks. I live in a (ground floor) flat currently in what one would consider to be a fairly decent area with nice quiet surroundings and the residents all having full time jobs. But holy fk, the complete lack of consideration for anyone but themselves quickly gets tiring. I think I'm the only person in the block of 8 that actually holds the door handle until the doors close rather than just flinging them open and walking off letting them slam closed with an almighty bang, even at 2 in the morning. And has everyone suddenly gone deaf in the past decade because everyone seems to be incapable of having a normal conversation with someone right next to them without bellowing at them. What's that all about then?

Not a pleasant experience if you enjoy some peace and quiet.

Could you get the door closers adjusted properly?

[So]

Lemming Train said:

So said:

Could you get the door closers adjusted properly?

The internal doors are all fire doors including the ones into the properties and so they all have the hydraulic arm thingy on them to close them, but like nearly all doors that have these, the damper is st and doesn't do anything for last 6 inches so the spring slams the door home from there. It's easily solved if people engage their brain and show a little consideration by spending a few seconds 'holding' the door as it closes.

They are hydraulic closers and they typically have two adjusting screws on them. One of the screws adjusts the first 80% of travel, the other screw adjusts the remaining travel. It sounds very much as though the ones in your flats have got the second stage adjuster adjusted incorrectly. If the fire doors fit properly there is no reason why a closing door should make much more noise than the latch clicking shut.

[So]

sparkythecat said:

So said:

sparkythecat said:

So said:

As Gizlaroc points out, renting units below the last rent can cause lots of problems, particularly if there is bank lending involved.

Commercial property value is a function of the rent (in part). If the landlord drops the rent the property effectively falls in value and it may breach lending covenants. Furthermore it gets the banks wondering about the true value of other stock owned by the landlord and financed by them.

I would not want a lot of retail property on our books at the moment.

But if the value of the property is a function of rental income, and the property is standing empty for a prolonged period, with no rental income coming in, then surely its value must be falling anyway.
Or are you saying that you can ascribe an arbitrary and unattainable rental income to a property in order enhance its valuation?

Broadly speaking the current rent can be assumed to be at least the last rent unless proven otherwise.

In reality it’s a bit more complicated than that, but it is why landlords sometimes prefer an empty property to one re-let at a lower figure.

Wasn't it similar financial shenanigans that led to the sub prime mortgage scandal and spin offs 10 years ago?

Not really.