New Stadium Details And Discussions

[TheWallYid]

on SSC, a guy took a series of stills yesterday showing when they did the second in-fill it only took a few mins, i think it will be like most of the other jobs we pick up on camera, they take their time doing the first few, perfecting the technique and then when they have the resources they knock it out pretty quick.

This plays havoc with my OCD but I have faith they are following a schedule and it will get done when it needs to...

Saw a rumour that these infills would include LED's can anyone confirm?

 

[parj]

Saw a rumour that these infills would include LED's can anyone confirm?

Options to light the roof were being looked at. It might be installed later, if needed to support timelines, as it's not vital for stadium opening. But it's a stunning addition.

 

[Lilbaz]

Saw a rumour that these infills would include LED's can anyone confirm?

Sombody said there would be a few suprises.

 

[parj]

you don't have to be a fan to be working on the stadium project

Wearing a red shirt to WHL is the equivalent of leaving a giant turd in the boardroom

 

[Dov67]

The financial crash in 2008 made it impossible to borrow money to finance the scheme, because suddenly lenders required a 25% margin instead of a 12% margin. It wasn't peculiar to the NDP, it was every new development everywhere. So THFC threatened to take the club off to Stratford unless the NDP could be made viable again and the obvious first step toward doing that was letting the club off the S.106 obligation to provide 30%-50% affordable housing. It wasn't just a reduction in affordable housing - they persuaded Haringey to accept an extra 100+ units of private housing as well.

Since then, as economic conditions in the development industry gradually improved, THFC has become involved in several affordable housing schemes nearby, but not on the main stadium site.

Haringey is a strange, bifurcated borough and the council's affordable housing policy reflects that. The western half of Haringey is relatively affluent (Crouch Hill, etc.), so the council seeks 30%+ affordable housing, of which 70% should be rented. However, the eastern half of Haringey is not only poor, it also includes huge areas of virtually-unbroken social-rented housing estates. So the council's policy is (a) to be more flexible about the overall % of affordable housing and (b) to encourage 70% of the affordable housing to be for intermediate incomes (mainly shared ownership until recently, but that's no longer affordable at all because of property values). The idea is to encourage more economically active households into eastern Haringey.

Like other Labour local authorities in London, Haringey is starting to develop its own council housing again on a modest scale, but much of it in the eastern half of the borough will be intermediate. I was told that by the relevant officer in Haringey's housing department.



Demanding that developers provide "planning gain" - contributing toward local infrastructure in return for them making money from local infrastructure - goes back to the 1990 Town & Country Planning Act and before. Providing a % of affordable housing has been an established part of planning gain for all those years. The Blair/Brown government greatly increased this mechanism, because it was a way of building more affordable housing with less grant and thus staying within the Tory spending limits Brown adopted in 1997. It worked very well - we in the housing associations built a hell of a lot of very good housing in conjunction with private developers, as well as a great deal on our own. Then the coalition government terminated the central government capital grants system that made this work (as you implied in your post) and opened a variety of loopholes for developers to reduce or eliminate on-site affordable housing, since when the whole system has come into disrepute and has become ineffective at delivering affordable housing on any meaningful scale.

Fine.....but that local infrastructure did not just fall out of the sky. The government, local and central has no money and no assets - whatever it has in its possession comes from what it collects by force of law from residents and businesses (i.e. private money). The infrastructure is paid for out of taxes collected from THFC and every other local business & resident. So THFC has to pay for the infrastructure and pay again for benefitting from the infrastructure that its taxes have already paid for.

 

[brasil_spur]

Hey guys, so the massive progress in the last few days isn't a surprise given the deadline that's looming on some news from the club. In fact seeing grass and the slogans on the outside of the building make sense.

Don't want to get too into things here, but i would expect that there might be something happening tomorrow

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Fine.....but that local infrastructure did not just fall out of the sky. The government, local and central has no money and no assets - whatever it has in its possession comes from what it collects by force of law from residents and businesses (i.e. private money). The infrastructure is paid for out of taxes collected from THFC and every other local business & resident. So THFC has to pay for the infrastructure and pay again for benefitting from the infrastructure that its taxes have already paid for.

That's the way the system works. There are similar examples. You pay tax on your income and then you also pay sales tax when you spend what's left of your income.

Multiple times, I've had private-developer clients ranting on at me in outrage, saying that the requirement to provide affordable housing is "a tax on development", the assumption being that this is a scandal and I should share their outrage at the whole concept, or more likely that I would deny that it is anything of the kind. They're always surprised when I say "Of course it is. And?"

Residential property development has been a staggeringly profitable undertaking in London over the past 30+ years. Developers' margins (not building contractors' margins) are commonly 25% or much more. It's a high-risk endeavour, so you'd expect it to be a high-margin business, but the development industry has pursued a number of strategies over the past 20 years to make out that margins are much smaller than they really are and to ignore the effect of property inflation and "hope value" on their profits. I know this because it's part of what I do: I write viability assessments for developers. I know the tricks and I'm fed up with them, which is why I'm developing other projects instead at present, so I don't have to do viability assessments anymore.

During boom times, a developer is raking in 30% ROI from a typical high-end or mid-market development. That kind of cash-in will typically go on for 10-15 years. Then there will be a correction, prices will stall and buyers will desert the market: the well-capitalised developer will just circle the horses, land-bank the sites yet to be built and sit out the crash; the poorly-capitalised or reckless developer, who has been basing forecasts on hope value and falsifying margins to the lenders, will go bust, because they have let the bull market get into their heads.

There is nothing genuinely controversial about a tax on excessive profits in the residential development sector. In a stable market with an adequate supply of land, the cost would come off the value of the development land anyway, not off developers' profits. Most reputable developers account for their affordable housing obligations at the start of a project, although they tend to be optimistic about how much they can negotiate away! Only the inexperienced, the ideological or the mega-greedy think it's an imposition.

 

[Coq_Au_Ginge]

todays vid from Tottenham Stadium Updates

 

[thinktank]

Welling up tbh.

 

[Dougal]

I’m starting to think Cillian O’Dare isn’t signing

 

[coys200]

Dan k is a good guy but I don’t buy this. What difference will 48 hrs make ?

 

[LexingtonSpurs]

Someone on SSC (Dirtybob) has spotted smoothing of the eaves. He's been completely ignored for some reason but I think it's a great spot! View attachment 38749

Someone pointed this out here yesterday...

 

[offside_ruel_fox]

Hey guys, so the massive progress in the last few days isn't a surprise given the deadline that's looming on some news from the club. In fact seeing grass and the slogans on the outside of the building make sense.

Don't want to get too into things here, but i would expect that there might be something happening tomorrow

Come on you can’t leave us hanging like that. Spill!

 

[Lilbaz]

Come on you can’t leave us hanging like that. Spill!

I think he can.

 

[coys200]

Big week will know first home game and exactly when moving in. Bloody exciting ?

 

[tony0379]

Come on you can’t leave us hanging like that. Spill!

Probably test dates

 

[brasil_spur]

Come on you can’t leave us hanging like that. Spill!

Haha, it's not that exciting, but keep an eye on the websites tomorrow I'm also putting 2+2 together and i might well be wrong on that. Things are always changing.

 

[worcestersauce]

Someone pointed this out here yesterday...

On the subject of filling the gaps, by the looks of things on interactive camera stream 5, guys have been working on the rooftop above the east stand continuously for a couple of days.
That part of the roof has been done for a week or two but it looks like they are working on the gaps between the panels so it appears they are at the finishing stage for the eves and roof now. The roof rim around the south end has been completed this morning so more than three quarters done and just the north end to finish now.

 

[Coq_Au_Ginge]

Maybe of interest to some?

 

[Dov67]

That's the way the system works. There are similar examples. You pay tax on your income and then you also pay sales tax when you spend what's left of your income.

Multiple times, I've had private-developer clients ranting on at me in outrage, saying that the requirement to provide affordable housing is "a tax on development", the assumption being that this is a scandal and I should share their outrage at the whole concept, or more likely that I would deny that it is anything of the kind. They're always surprised when I say "Of course it is. And?"

Residential property development has been a staggeringly profitable undertaking in London over the past 30+ years. Developers' margins (not building contractors' margins) are commonly 25% or much more. It's a high-risk endeavour, so you'd expect it to be a high-margin business, but the development industry has pursued a number of strategies over the past 20 years to make out that margins are much smaller than they really are and to ignore the effect of property inflation and "hope value" on their profits. I know this because it's part of what I do: I write viability assessments for developers. I know the tricks and I'm fed up with them, which is why I'm developing other projects instead at present, so I don't have to do viability assessments anymore.

During boom times, a developer is raking in 30% ROI from a typical high-end or mid-market development. That kind of cash-in will typically go on for 10-15 years. Then there will be a correction, prices will stall and buyers will desert the market: the well-capitalised developer will just circle the horses, land-bank the sites yet to be built and sit out the crash; the poorly-capitalised or reckless developer, who has been basing forecasts on hope value and falsifying margins to the lenders, will go bust, because they have let the bull market get into their heads.

There is nothing genuinely controversial about a tax on excessive profits in the residential development sector. In a stable market with an adequate supply of land, the cost would come off the value of the development land anyway, not off developers' profits. Most reputable developers account for their affordable housing obligations at the start of a project, although they tend to be optimistic about how much they can negotiate away! Only the inexperienced, the ideological or the mega-greedy think it's an imposition.

so everyone in govt should be just be honest about it and say we're taxing you because we can. This bullshit about using local infrastructure when those businesses are the ones who have paid for that infrastructure is disingenuous and dishonest.