Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Muswell Hillbilly

Quartermile In Trouble?

Recommended Posts

Yep just read that. So they get away with ~£800k of traffic/area improvements that they agreed to do. All in return for building more 'affordable housing' instead. And the only reason is of course they know they cannot sell the stuff they planned to build in the first place. Well not at the price they want anyway.

This will also, of course, be affordable housing that is by defintion not affordable. Because you will have to join some ponzi shared ownership pay a mortgage + rent scheme to make it so. And you won't even own it all in 25 years.

Is this country any less corrupt than Nigeria or the likes ? I am not so sure.

I think they just make it overt whilst we stick to covert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ccc,

At the start of a development, developers can usually choose between providing a % of their housing as "affordable" or alternatively make a payment to the council ('developers fees') ostensibly to improve the area.

It *seems* that QM at the outset did not want any affordable housing on their site (or very little) and so instead agreed to cough up the developers fees. It appears that they have now changed their mind about this, and the council have allowed them to change their mind.

If this is what has happened, then it is not a huge, deal, since they are just going back to a scenario that they could have chosen a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ccc,

At the start of a development, developers can usually choose between providing a % of their housing as "affordable" or alternatively make a payment to the council ('developers fees') ostensibly to improve the area.

It *seems* that QM at the outset did not want any affordable housing on their site (or very little) and so instead agreed to cough up the developers fees. It appears that they have now changed their mind about this, and the council have allowed them to change their mind.

If this is what has happened, then it is not a huge, deal, since they are just going back to a scenario that they could have chosen a few years ago.

I think it might be a huge deal for those in the area who were told they were getting improvements made to the roads etc...

Instead they are now getting more little slave boxes that are ludicrously overpriced with the only chance of someone buying them is to get into some 'lift' scheme or whatever.

It is the Council allowing developers to change their mind to suit themselves that is the issue here. It should be the other way around. Although we all know why this happens.

Brown

Big

Envelopes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might be a huge deal for those in the area who were told they were getting improvements made to the roads etc...

The money would just get swallowed into the council budget. It would have made very little difference to the area. Personally I would much rather see a substantial provision of affordable housing over a few newly surfaced roads.

Instead they are now getting more little slave boxes that are ludicrously overpriced with the only chance of someone buying them is to get into some 'lift' scheme or whatever.

Not sure who you mean by "they".

It is the Council allowing developers to change their mind to suit themselves that is the issue here. It should be the other way around.

Have you actually considered that it may suit the council as well? £700k fees waived in return for £2.6M investment in affordable housing?

Have you actually considered that it may be in the interests of the council and nearby residents that the QM development gets completed rather than lie half-dormant for years?

Have you actually considered that it may be a good thing for lower house prices in central Edinburgh to have a large supply of lower-cost housing being built, since increased supply will suppress prices in the area

Edited by fflump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money would just get swallowed into the council budget. It would have made very little difference to the area. Personally I would much rather see a substantial provision of affordable housing over a few newly surfaced roads.

Affordable housing is a scam. It is not affordable. If it was people could buy it without some stupid scheme that leaves them not even owning the entire place. For rentals perhaps this is different. For sales certainly not.

Not sure who you mean by "they".

The Edinburgh Public.

Have you actually considered that it may suit the council as well? £700k fees waived in return for £2.6M investment in affordable housing?

Of course it suits the council. That is the point. They look after themselves and their buddies rather than the public they are supposed to represent.

Have you actually considered that it may be in the interests of the council and nearby residents that the QM development gets completed rather than lie half-dormant for years?

If it gets completed and the flats are priced at a reasonable level ? Yes. However completed with a mix of LCA rentals, those who have paid a fortune to be living next to DSS tenants ? And those who have been conned into some 'lift' scheme ? Nah - I think it is better off just left as it is. In fact it would have been better off ebing left in it's previous state. We don't hear many patients, docs or nurses raving about the new Hospital compard to the last one do we.

Have you actually considered that it may be a good thing for lower house prices in central Edinburgh to have a large supply of lower-cost housing being built, since increased supply will suppress prices in the area

They are not lower cost housing. They are high cost housing wrapped up in some 'help we will lift you' scheme to give the false impression they are lower cost and good value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The market will dictate the prices ccc, nothing else. Given the situation that exists currently it is best for the residents that this development gets finished-it would be a complete blot if the site was left to fester undeveloped for years on end. I take your point about 'affordable' housing but scam is too strong a word. Many schemes are fully supported by housing associations with good records of housing provision and would find your throw-away comments inaccurate and offensive.

What is wrong with housing provision for tenants on housing benefit? Are they pariahs who deserve to be shunted off to broomhouse? Do you object to their presence in society as much as rich BTL folk pricing you out of a house?

And about the new Royal-staying on the old infirmary site was never an option as it was far too old and WAY too small. I work with a number of consultants at the new royal and none would ever wish that they were back at the old one, whatever the problems of the new building are (which are in fact receding year on year). The suggestion that it would have been better had the Old hospital stayed on that site is frankly laughable.

Edited by fflump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The market will dictate the prices ccc, nothing else. Given the situation that exists currently it is best for the residents that this development gets finished-it would be a complete blot if the site was left to fester undeveloped for years on end. I take your point about 'affordable' housing but scam is too strong a word. Many schemes are fully supported by housing associations with good records of housing provision and would find your throw-away comments inaccurate and offensive.

What is wrong with housing provision for tenants on housing benefit? Are they pariahs who deserve to be shunted off to broomhouse? Do you object to their presence in society as much as rich BTL folk pricing you out of a house?

And about the new Royal-staying on the old infirmary site was never an option as it was far too old and WAY too small. I work with a number of consultants at the new royal and none would ever wish that they were back at the old one, whatever the problems of the new building are (which are in fact receding year on year). The suggestion that it would have been better had the Old hospital stayed on that site is frankly laughable.

I don't want to upset anyone at a Housing Association either but how can anyone who is providing council houses at taxpayer's expense be on £391k a year?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7795905/Housing-association-chief-on-400000-a-year.html

There is something not quite right about Housing Associations IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of drifting OT-The "not quite right" thing is that the whole operation should be nationalised IMO. The alternative opinion is that by placing it in the pseudo-private sector then greater efficiencies/productivity result-but the flip-side is salaries such as these (although £391k seems to be a massive outlier within the industry to be fair, since only 6 salaries nationwide make it over £200k).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The market will dictate the prices ccc, nothing else. Given the situation that exists currently it is best for the residents that this development gets finished-it would be a complete blot if the site was left to fester undeveloped for years on end. I take your point about 'affordable' housing but scam is too strong a word. Many schemes are fully supported by housing associations with good records of housing provision and would find your throw-away comments inaccurate and offensive.

What is wrong with housing provision for tenants on housing benefit? Are they pariahs who deserve to be shunted off to broomhouse? Do you object to their presence in society as much as rich BTL folk pricing you out of a house?

And about the new Royal-staying on the old infirmary site was never an option as it was far too old and WAY too small. I work with a number of consultants at the new royal and none would ever wish that they were back at the old one, whatever the problems of the new building are (which are in fact receding year on year). The suggestion that it would have been better had the Old hospital stayed on that site is frankly laughable.

Well they do not actually own the new Infirmary. Yes I am not a Doctor but it was not exactly the deal of the century. I am sure many do prefer it down there.

No problem with providing houses for those on benefits. Why exactly should they live in a location in town that someone earning 30k per year could not even begin to afford ?

As for the site ? Many of Edinburgh's sites are festering at present and not going to do anything for years if not decades. Another one won't make a huge difference. There must be a lot more options to that much Land in the centre of the City than building yet more overpriced flats that people do not want.

Very little of what happens in Edinburgh is for the benefit of the people. Quartemile is not for the people. It is for the developers and nobody else. And I say this being far from a Commie !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they do not actually own the new Infirmary. Yes I am not a Doctor but it was not exactly the deal of the century. I am sure many do prefer it down there.

Well the PFI issue is a separate question entirely. Those that work at the ERI have no stronger opinion on this question than the general public, since it does not impact on them day-to-day.

No problem with providing houses for those on benefits. Why exactly should they live in a location in town that someone earning 30k per year could not even begin to afford ?

Someone on 30k can easily afford to rent in that area (Meadows/Tollcross environs)

As for the site ? Many of Edinburgh's sites are festering at present and not going to do anything for years if not decades. Another one won't make a huge difference. There must be a lot more options to that much Land in the centre of the City than building yet more overpriced flats that people do not want.

Options? For who? I don't understand what you mean. The land belongs to the developers so there are no options unless someone wants to buy the land off them. City centre land like that tends to be developed into flats, offices, hotels, which is exactly what is happening at QM. What would you rather have it be converted to (apart from 4-bed family homes with large gardens priced at £150,000 ;) ). There is simply no economic case for using it in other ways and certainly not the money to fund it.

Very little of what happens in Edinburgh is for the benefit of the people. Quartemile is not for the people. It is for the developers and nobody else. And I say this being far from a Commie !!

No one is saying that QM is for the people. Its a private venture. The public purse benefited when it was sold off 8(ish) years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is going to buy overpriced new development flats any more, they will just fester, expectation still has a long drop ahead in Edinburgh. Council and developers have a VI in holding off the final implosion as long as possible that`s all. As the cuts come rolling in average sheeple will not be thinking about buying houses any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the PFI issue is a separate question entirely. Those that work at the ERI have no stronger opinion on this question than the general public, since it does not impact on them day-to-day.

Someone on 30k can easily afford to rent in that area (Meadows/Tollcross environs)

Options? For who? I don't understand what you mean. The land belongs to the developers so there are no options unless someone wants to buy the land off them. City centre land like that tends to be developed into flats, offices, hotels, which is exactly what is happening at QM. What would you rather have it be converted to (apart from 4-bed family homes with large gardens priced at £150,000 wink.gif ). There is simply no economic case for using it in other ways and certainly not the money to fund it.

No one is saying that QM is for the people. Its a private venture. The public purse benefited when it was sold off 8(ish) years ago.

What is supposed to happen in a market.

Company #1 buys something.

Company realises it's plan won't actually work.

Company tries to make it work

Company fails.

Company's assets sold on for lower price.

Company #2 with less debt attached buys land.

Company #2 comes up with new plan.

That is essentially what is supposed to happen. It is the general scenario of these situations that pisses me off. The particular details not so much.

It's all bail out, help us, support us, we deserve it. It's all ********. The Council should not be actively supporting a company that intended to make as much profit as possible from selling flats that were not required. That isnot their role. However they seem to think it is. Brown bags are obviously the reason why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed over the last few days that any sites I'm on with adverts include an ad for Quartermile. Obviously their 'new meeja' partner's technology is smart enough to target folk in Embra, but not yet smart enough to target only the total feckwits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed over the last few days that any sites I'm on with adverts include an ad for Quartermile. Obviously their 'new meeja' partner's technology is smart enough to target folk in Embra, but not yet smart enough to target only the total feckwits.

They are planning to pay your mortgage for a year. However the prices don't exactly sound great. 400k for the lowest 2 bedroom apartment. :o

QMILE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

holy shite. Small kitchen, small lounge, two small bedrooms. £410,000.

http://www.qmile.com/component/realdev/58/275

I am sure it is nicely furnished, and for some people it's a good location. But it is about £250,000 more than a similar floorplan that hasn't been upgraded. And £250,000 will go a very long way to upgrade such a small flat. Gold leaf wallpaper, anyone?

EC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say... I'm in one of these properties a lot, a 2 BR that is quite high up and backs to the parkland and has fantastic views, and its lovely when you can open the sliding glass windows, but they are so square, small, and characterless, Smeg appliances or not! Maintenance is ongoing with these properties too (at least the glass ones), something you wouldn't expect. Concierge are very nice/helpful, cant say the same for the other departments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit I quite fancied QM for awhile until I looked at the cost psqm. Is it ever worth buying new build, given that they lose 20% of their value (the VAT) as soon as you turn the key in the lock for the first time? Personally I'd wait until they start showing up on the second-hand market.

BTW, I see they've broken ground at the back of Donaldson's School, I wonder what's happening with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit I quite fancied QM for awhile until I looked at the cost psqm. Is it ever worth buying new build, given that they lose 20% of their value (the VAT) as soon as you turn the key in the lock for the first time? Personally I'd wait until they start showing up on the second-hand market.

BTW, I see they've broken ground at the back of Donaldson's School, I wonder what's happening with that?

Must be up there with Central London ? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be up there with Central London ? :blink:

The one bed mentioned above is £4,750 by my calculation. Maybe not albertopolis expensive but way out of kilter for even prime Edinburgh let alone Laureston/Old Town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one bed mentioned above is £4,750 by my calculation. Maybe not albertopolis expensive but way out of kilter for even prime Edinburgh let alone Laureston/Old Town.

IIRC from a recent chat about Edinburgh vs London chat - that is proper Chelsea/Kensington territory.

Ridiculous to expect it in Edinburgh. You just don't get 25 year olds In Edinburgh earning 500k per year. You do in London. Totally different World. Yet these 'developers' think they can sell Chelsea prices in Edinburgh. Mental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit I quite fancied QM for awhile until I looked at the cost psqm. Is it ever worth buying new build, given that they lose 20% of their value (the VAT) as soon as you turn the key in the lock for the first time? Personally I'd wait until they start showing up on the second-hand market.

New build property does not have VAT charged on it so that's a nonsense.

However if you buy an overpriced property then I'm sure you could lose 20% but that is because nobody will buy it off you at anything like what you paid for it!

And as for price per square foot, it looks like you can pay £6,000-£7,000 psm at St Vincent Place for a penthouse. Except it seems you can't as they sold the last one in May 2010 according to Zoopla. So you'll just need to hope one comes onto the secondary market... Even the basement flats there go for £4,000 psm although several units are sitting on the market with no buyers strangely enough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 146 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.