The Regeneration of Tottenham Thread

Dougal

Staff
Staff
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
51,433
Thread starter #1
As we near the end of the Stadium Build (I think), it's worth a look at the rest of the Northumberland Development Project, the regeneration of the area in general and who is, or has been responsible for doing so. This isn't just a local thread for local people but if we can keep the discussion on what's going on outside the shiny new turnstiles that would be great, ta.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
18,606
#2
I honestly don't think they want it run-down. Apart from anything else a fair whack of the new councillors there after most of the Labour grouping was replaced last year are locals who, if anything, could be criticised for lacking any political nous or experience. The problem is that it's near-impossible with current government policy to redevelop an area on the scale proposed without gentrifying it. There's no realistic mechanism for them to ensure a large amount of social or even genuinely affordable housing, for instance: they can't borrow money, can't subsidise it, can't impose rent controls, can't even define the word "affordable" which, in this context, means "80% of the local market rate whether that's remotely affordable to existing residents or not". In other words, if property values double, so does the cost of "affordable" housing for purchase or rent while the income of people in Tottenham obviously doesn't. I think the best thing for the interests of people already living there is the somewhat more limited redevelopment proposed, focussing on local amenities rather than further attractions to the area, until such a time as central government policy changes.
Without making this all political, there’s a good reason why the current council might not want the area to improve, because new people coming into the area may mean a change in voter persuasion.

Anyway, let’s see how the council and TFL get on with the station work to see how they progress development compared to the club. They will be carrying out most of the West development too won’t they.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
12,023
#3
This article, which indirectly provoked the creation of this thread, contains a lot of interesting stuff about the three way tug-of-war between the council, local residents and THFC over the wider regeneration plans for the neighbourhood. I can't vouch for the veracity of every paragraph, but none of it strikes me as bullshit or obviously distorted.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...pur-stadium-redevelopment-haringey-neighbours
 

mpickard2087

I'm right, You're wrong.
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
20,160
#4
I've said before, and I know we're talking about peoples homes and businesses here, but from the clubs perspective if nothing else gets done in the area that station approach at Whitehall St/Love Lane needs clearing and completing. For the club to grow and become more established at the top then like it or not it is going to need to get the big corporate in at the stadium and attract a new league of people/companies who will pay premium price. There's a lot of competition within London for that spending power, and I think the attraction does take a bit of a hit if people are traipsing out to a suburb, getting off a train, and the first thing that hits them is a dilapidated, rundown, maybe even dodgy, old estate, that's not the ideal welcome (and especially for night matches).....
 

Graysonti

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
3,517
#5
I've said before, and I know we're talking about peoples homes and businesses here, but from the clubs perspective if nothing else gets done in the area that station approach at Whitehall St/Love Lane needs clearing and completing. For the club to grow and become more established at the top then like it or not it is going to need to get the big corporate in at the stadium and attract a new league of people/companies who will pay premium price. There's a lot of competition within London for that spending power, and I think the attraction does take a bit of a hit if people are traipsing out to a suburb, getting off a train, and the first thing that hits them is a dilapidated, rundown, maybe even dodgy, old estate, that's not the ideal welcome (and especially for night matches).....

Agree - it’s needs pulling down as per High Road West plans.

Me and you agreeing :p
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
67
#6
I've said before, and I know we're talking about peoples homes and businesses here, but from the clubs perspective if nothing else gets done in the area that station approach at Whitehall St/Love Lane needs clearing and completing. For the club to grow and become more established at the top then like it or not it is going to need to get the big corporate in at the stadium and attract a new league of people/companies who will pay premium price. There's a lot of competition within London for that spending power, and I think the attraction does take a bit of a hit if people are traipsing out to a suburb, getting off a train, and the first thing that hits them is a dilapidated, rundown, maybe even dodgy, old estate, that's not the ideal welcome (and especially for night matches).....

Wow.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
19,355
#7
Why did you spam mpickard2087, the thread is about the regeneration of Tottenham and was started to take the discussion out of the stadium thread and his post was relevant.
If you didn't like it then you can dislike it and if you Disagre you can disagree but spam is just plain wrong.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
67
#9
Why did you spam mpickard2087, the thread is about the regeneration of Tottenham and was started to take the discussion out of the stadium thread and his post was relevant.
If you didn't like it then you can dislike it and if you Disagre you can disagree but spam is just plain wrong.

His idea of 'regeneration' and mine are very different. 'Spam' was shorthand for 'an abhorrent opinion'. So I wasn't just disagreeing but disagreeing a lot. So unless you can suggest a more severe emoji than dislike, I believe spam is fair. There are real people living on that estate and it would he helpful if there was a better phrasing than 'clearing'. What a hateful use of language.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
19,355
#11
His idea of 'regeneration' and mine are very different. 'Spam' was shorthand for 'an abhorrent opinion'. So I wasn't just disagreeing but disagreeing a lot. So unless you can suggest a more severe emoji than dislike, I believe spam is fair. There are real people living on that estate and it would he helpful if there was a better phrasing than 'clearing'. What a hateful use of language.
Had he written about some flowers growing in a New York park you could rightfully say it was spam because it was not connected but what he posted was connected it, the fact that it seemed to make you quite angry does rather make that point so spam is the wrong rating. As you say you think dislike isn't strong enough tends to confirm that you used the spam rating just to attack him and that isn't the point of it, why not just post a reply laying out your objections, like you have done in your post above.
I'm not the ratings police so you are free to ignore me or even spam me I guess, it really doesn't bother me, but I would point out that in a consultation excercise those real people living on that estate voted almost unanimously to have it knocked down, they didn't want to live there anymore.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
67
#12
Had he written about some flowers growing in a New York park you could rightfully say it was spam because it was not connected but what he posted was connected it, the fact that it seemed to make you quite angry does rather make that point so spam is the wrong rating. As you say you think dislike isn't strong enough tends to confirm that you used the spam rating just to attack him and that isn't the point of it, why not just post a reply laying out your objections, like you have done in your post above.
I'm not the ratings police so you are free to ignore me or even spam me I guess, it really doesn't bother me, but I would point out that in a consultation excercise those real people living on that estate voted almost unanimously to have it knocked down, they didn't want to live there anymore.
Sounded like the ratings police.

I'll dismiss your 'real people people living on that estate' nonsense with a 😆 but am adding this text so you don't ask me to pull over and explain myself a second time.

If you don't have a comprehensive understanding of what's gone on in the borough it might be an idea to do some homework.

'I'm not the ratings police so you are free to ignore me or even spam me I guess, it really doesn't bother me'.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
19,355
#13
Sounded like the ratings police.

I'll dismiss your 'real people people living on that estate' nonsense with a 😆 but am adding this text so you don't ask me to pull over and explain myself a second time.

If you don't have a comprehensive understanding of what's gone on in the borough it might be an idea to do some homework.

'I'm not the ratings police so you are free to ignore me or even spam me I guess, it really doesn't bother me'.
I was just using your words.
You obviously think I know nothing of what's going on in the borough, that's not correct but I'll leave it at that.
I'm now off to the Wolves match thread to have soem fun.
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
6,962
#14
The shops opposite now just look so out of place. The flats are clearly going to be a high end development with no social housing. And the hotel I presume will be 4/5 star. There’s no way those shops will survive long. It really is going to just look completely different in 10 years. Wish I’d followed a few mates and snapped up property 2/3 years ago.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
12,023
#15
The shops opposite now just look so out of place. The flats are clearly going to be a high end development with no social housing. And the hotel I presume will be 4/5 star. There’s no way those shops will survive long. It really is going to just look completely different in 10 years. Wish I’d followed a few mates and snapped up property 2/3 years ago.
That was one result of the negotiation, after the riot, that caused THFC to stop pursuing the Olympic Stadium and turn its attention back to what became the NDP. The OS was a potential outlet after the financial crash meant that the whole NDP development was no longer viable - no one would have lent money toward it - so a large part of the agreement with Haringey Council to make it more viable was to omit the on-site affordable housing and double the amount of housing generally.

Since then, THFC has co-sponsored several off-site affordable housing developments nearby, but as far as I know, there is still no intention to provide affordable homes on the NDP site itself.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
67
#16
That was one result of the negotiation, after the riot, that caused THFC to stop pursuing the Olympic Stadium and turn its attention back to what became the NDP. The OS was a potential outlet after the financial crash meant that the whole NDP development was no longer viable - no one would have lent money toward it - so a large part of the agreement with Haringey Council to make it more viable was to omit the on-site affordable housing and double the amount of housing generally.

Since then, THFC has co-sponsored several off-site affordable housing developments nearby, but as far as I know, there is still no intention to provide affordable homes on the NDP site itself.
The very definition of 'edited highlights'
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
12,023
#17
The very definition of 'edited highlights'
I work in affordable housing development as a consultant, mainly for housing associations, but also for private developers. I work on developments in Haringey and I know people who work in those departments at Haringey Council. I have read the lengthy S.106 Agreement for the NDP. Among other work, I write viability assessments for developers' planning applications, so I know exactly what they have to demonstrate to convince a local authority to let a developer off providing the usual quota of affordable housing. And I know what took place when the club and the council decided to work together after the financial crash and the riots.

What I wrote is what happened - that is precisely how THFC avoided providing affordable housing. They made the argument that the NDP was non-viable as a result of the financial crash and that they needed to boost the profits from the private housing to make it viable again.

Here's the underlying detail - the unedited version, if you prefer. With many developments at that time, prior to the crash, banks were throwing money at developers to build schemes that showed a 15% profit - often on heavily-massaged business plans, where the development really made a 12% profit, but the developer was relying on the inflation of property values between approval and completion to cover the difference. It's called "hope value" and it's a chronic problem in development and finance.

Suddenly, after the crash, lenders were freaked out: they were refusing to lend on anything that could not demonstrate a 25% profit margin (up to 30% for more "difficult" sites) and they were doing much harder scrutiny of the figures. Plus there was no "hope value" to rely upon, because the market had stopped rising and had even declined slightly.

On a scheme then valued at about £500m, the difference between a 12% profit and a 25% profit is £65m. That notional "money" had to be found from somewhere, or no one would undertake to fund the development and it would not proceed. That is why Levy & co. started to look seriously at the OS. Because they had no other viable option.

The riots provided a basis for Haringey to attract regeneration funding from the government and the Mayor, who had to be seen to be doing something. The regeneration scheme needed a large private sector development to base itself around, because there is never enough money under the Tories to regenerate an area based on subsidised housing and community initiatives - and the Spurs development was the only game in town. So Haringey and Spurs started talking to each other, instead of lobbing bricks at each other over the wall.

Haringey was alarmed at the prospect of the one major business attraction in the area leaving the borough. THFC needed to make the stadium development viable, especially after losing out on the OS bid. The compromise involved a lot of "planning gain" being dropped from the original proposal, the most notable and unfortunate being about 200 affordable housing flats.

That's what actually happened. So WTF are you on about?
 
Last edited:

Kspur

Active Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
357
#18
I work in affordable housing development as a consultant, mainly for housing associations, but also for private developers. I work on developments in Haringey and I know people who work in those departments at Haringey Council. I have read the lengthy S.106 Agreement for the NDP. Among other work, I write viability assessments for developers' planning applications, so I know exactly what they have to demonstrate to convince a local authority to let a developer off providing the usual quota of affordable housing. And I know what took place when the club and the council decided to work together after the financial crash and the riots.

What I wrote is what happened - that is precisely how THFC avoided providing affordable housing. They made the argument that the NDP was non-viable as a result of the financial crash and that they needed to boost the profits from the private housing to make it viable again.

Here's the underlying detail - the unedited version, if you prefer. With many developments at that time, prior to the crash, banks were throwing money at developers to build schemes that showed a 15% profit - often on heavily-massaged business plans, where the development really made a 12% profit, but the developer was relying on the inflation of property values between approval and completion to cover the difference. It's called "hope value" and it's a chronic problem in development and finance.

Suddenly, after the crash, lenders were freaked out: they were refusing to lend on anything that could not demonstrate a 25% profit margin (up to 30% for more "difficult" sites) and they were doing much harder scrutiny of the figures. Plus there was no "hope value" to rely upon, because the market had stopped rising and had even declined slightly.

On a scheme then valued at about £500m, the difference between a 12% profit and a 25% profit is £65m. That notional "money" had to be found from somewhere, or no one would undertake to fund the development and it would not proceed. That is why Levy & co. started to look seriously at the OS. Because they had no other viable option.

The riots provided a basis for Haringey to attract regeneration funding from the government and the Mayor, who had to be seen to be doing something. The regeneration scheme needed a large private sector development to base itself around, because there is never enough money under the Tories to regenerate an area based on subsidised housing and community initiatives - and the Spurs development was the only game in town. So Haringey and Spurs started talking to each other, instead of lobbing bricks at each other over the wall.

Haringey was alarmed at the prospect of the one major business attraction in the area leaving the borough. THFC needed to make the stadium development viable, especially after losing out on the OS bid. The compromise involved a lot of "planning gain" being dropped from the original proposal, the most notable and unfortunate being about 200 affordable housing flats.

That's what actually happened. So WTF are you on about?
Thanks for providing this level of detail, I find it fascinating.
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
6,962
#19
Although I’m not condoning it. You have to say that if Levy vision was to transform Tottenham into some yuppie area with a multi purpose stadium at the centre of it that’s some foresight. Had he alluded to a plan like that to anyone 20 years ago most would have called him mad.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
12,023
#20
Although I’m not condoning it. You have to say that if Levy vision was to transform Tottenham into some yuppie area with a multi purpose stadium at the centre of it that’s some foresight. Had he alluded to a plan like that to anyone 20 years ago most would have called him mad.
I think this and comments like it are doing Levy a disservice. Unquestionably, he demands that the overall NDP and its associated regeneration should be profitable. But Levy and the club are also genuinely interested in being part of the existing local community.

There's no compatibility between the outreach work that THFC funds people like Ledley King and others do in Haringey/Enfield (more extensive and ambitious than nearly all football clubs) and this image that Levy and ENIC (or Haringey) want to turn Tottenham into a "yuppie" neighbourhood.

The eastern half of Haringey is severely deprived and contains a very high proportion of social rented housing - mainly council housing - much of which is obsolete, difficult and expensive to maintain and poorly designed for social cohesion. It's also relatively unattractive to tenants seeking the right to buy, which means that those tenants who do buy their flats are inclined to sell them off to private landlords and decamp to the suburbs as soon as they can.

The result is that eastern Haringey contains large areas of unbroken poverty-ghettos. Anyone who worked in affordable housing in the 90s/00s, when "regeneration" had not yet become a dirty word for "licence for major housebuilders to make unfeasible profits, rip off local authorities and drive out local residents through gentrification" - we all knew that the way to deal with social-housing ghettos was to develop a mix including just enough private and shared ownership housing to subsidise the rebuilding or refurbishment of the social housing to a modern standard. That would usually be 25%-50%. There would be tenants on the board of the regeneration vehicle. And the replacement social housing would be let at the same rents as the old units - not at 80% of market rents, which isn't remotely affordable in Tottenham.

The real problem here is not that Levy wants to drive out local working people and destroy local communities. The problem is that there is no longer capital subsidy to fund the construction of the affordable housing, so the local councils routinely consent to developers building 70%-80% private housing, because the housebuilders have them over a barrel. That fundamentally changes the character of the neighbourhoods and results in working people feeling that they have lost control of their own communities.
 
Last edited:
Top