Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

Smoke and mirrors in Osbourne's statement?

see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ent-collapses?

"Battersea Power Station calls in administrators

Battersea Power Station is going into receivership, with its £5.5bn
development scheme in tatters, two days after George Osborne and Boris
Johnson posed in hardhats to announce an enterprise zone and tube
extension to the listed building.

In one of the highest-profile property collapses since the credit
crunch, Battersea's creditors have secured a high court hearing on 12
December to confirm Ernst & Young as administrators."


Jim Chisholm

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 12:04:39 +0000
Jim Chisholm wrote:
Smoke and mirrors in Osbourne's statement?

see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ation-redevelo
ment-collapses?

"Battersea Power Station calls in administrators

How many times has this happened now since the place closed?

Why they couldn't have turned it into come sort of engineering museam leaving
part of the workings intact god alone knows. It would certainly have been
better than gutting it and allowing the weather in to destroy the structure.
I imagine part of it will simply collapse one day and the whole thing will
have to be demolished.

B2003

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

wrote in message

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 12:04:39 +0000
Jim Chisholm wrote:
Smoke and mirrors in Osbourne's statement?

see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ation-redevelo
ment-collapses?

"Battersea Power Station calls in administrators

How many times has this happened now since the place closed?

Why they couldn't have turned it into come sort of engineering museam
leaving part of the workings intact god alone knows. It would
certainly have been better than gutting it and allowing the weather
in to destroy the structure. I imagine part of it will simply
collapse one day and the whole thing will have to be demolished.

Even the possibly now aborted scheme required the chimneys to be
dismantled and rebuilt, as they're no longer structurally sound. And at
least one wall has long gone, so there won't be much that's authentic
if/when it ever gets re-used as a shell housing something entirely
unlike a power station. Given the lack of authenticity, I wonder why a
pastiche of the old power station needs to be part of any new
development? After all, we already have one old coal power station
preserved as an art gallery in the form of Tate Modern -- just how many
does London need?

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In message , at 12:04:39 on Thu, 1 Dec 2011,
Jim Chisholm remarked:
Battersea Power Station is going into receivership, with its £5.5bn
development scheme in tatters, two days after George Osborne and Boris
Johnson posed in hardhats to announce an enterprise zone and tube
extension to the listed building.

Given the timing, we can only assume that there was something extra
required (in terms of handouts from George/Boris) to save the project,
and what they offered was not deemed adequate and was therefore the
'last straw'.
--
Roland Perry

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 12:04:39 on Thu, 1 Dec
2011, Jim Chisholm remarked:
Battersea Power Station is going into receivership, with its £5.5bn
development scheme in tatters, two days after George Osborne and
Boris Johnson posed in hardhats to announce an enterprise zone and
tube extension to the listed building.

Given the timing, we can only assume that there was something extra
required (in terms of handouts from George/Boris) to save the project,
and what they offered was not deemed adequate and was therefore the
'last straw'.

I think it's more complicated than that. This project was controlled by
indebted Irish property magnates, who have finally run out of credit.
The project may actually have more of a future without them (and without
the power station, too).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba01cc9e-1...#axzz1fHuHjBRw

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:50:17 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
least one wall has long gone, so there won't be much that's authentic
if/when it ever gets re-used as a shell housing something entirely
unlike a power station. Given the lack of authenticity, I wonder why a
pastiche of the old power station needs to be part of any new
development? After all, we already have one old coal power station
preserved as an art gallery in the form of Tate Modern -- just how many
does London need?

True. It should really be put out of its misery and demolished. I don't think
people are as sentimental about it as the politicians think. At the end of
the day it was just a power station, not a cathedral.

Whats the status of Lots Road these days? Is that still around?

B2003

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In message , at 13:07:07 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:
Battersea Power Station is going into receivership, with its £5.5bn
development scheme in tatters, two days after George Osborne and
Boris Johnson posed in hardhats to announce an enterprise zone and
tube extension to the listed building.

Given the timing, we can only assume that there was something extra
required (in terms of handouts from George/Boris) to save the project,
and what they offered was not deemed adequate and was therefore the
'last straw'.

I think it's more complicated than that. This project was controlled by
indebted Irish property magnates, who have finally run out of credit.
The project may actually have more of a future without them (and without
the power station, too).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba01cc9e-1...#axzz1fHuHjBRw

But the timing suggests that the latest George/Boris offer was too
little to late, and that's what's tipped the creditors into action.

Or perhaps it's a co-incidence and just a 30th November thing (having
given that as a deadline for whatever).

ps Please don't post links to things behind paywalls.
--
Roland Perry

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:50:17 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
least one wall has long gone, so there won't be much that's authentic
if/when it ever gets re-used as a shell housing something entirely
unlike a power station. Given the lack of authenticity, I wonder why
a pastiche of the old power station needs to be part of any new
development? After all, we already have one old coal power station
preserved as an art gallery in the form of Tate Modern -- just how
many does London need?

True. It should really be put out of its misery and demolished. I
don't think people are as sentimental about it as the politicians
think. At the end of the day it was just a power station, not a
cathedral.

Whats the status of Lots Road these days? Is that still around?

Largely demolished, I think. I don't know if any part of the old
building will survive into the new development.

I found these short videos from 2008 and 2009 (there's more):
2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=M1Cm2u3rKGo
2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cUfi...eature=related

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 13:07:07 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:
Battersea Power Station is going into receivership, with its £5.5bn
development scheme in tatters, two days after George Osborne and
Boris Johnson posed in hardhats to announce an enterprise zone and
tube extension to the listed building.

Given the timing, we can only assume that there was something extra
required (in terms of handouts from George/Boris) to save the
project, and what they offered was not deemed adequate and was
therefore the 'last straw'.

I think it's more complicated than that. This project was controlled
by indebted Irish property magnates, who have finally run out of
credit. The project may actually have more of a future without them
(and without the power station, too).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba01cc9e-1...#axzz1fHuHjBRw

But the timing suggests that the latest George/Boris offer was too
little to late, and that's what's tipped the creditors into action.

Or perhaps it's a co-incidence and just a 30th November thing (having
given that as a deadline for whatever).

I suspect this action was already underway -- these things don't happen
overnight. It's been building up for at least a few weeks.


ps Please don't post links to things behind paywalls.

Ah, sorry, I got into it via Google, which gets you past the paywall.
Here's what it says in part:
"Lenders to Battersea Power Station have moved to take control of the
building, drawing an end to months of speculation about plans for the
derelict London landmark.

Lloyds and Ireland's National Asset Management Agency will on Thursday
notify Battersea Power Station Shareholder Vehicle (BPSSV), the holding
company behind the Grade II listed building, that they intend take the
site into receivership.

The move follows months of talk about a possible takeover of the
riverside site, which includes the disused power station and large areas
of waste land on the 38-acre plot.

Real Estate Opportunities, the majority owner of BPSSV, has been seeking
a partner to help develop the site, which it bought for £400m five years
ago. Recent rumours have included takeover bids from Roman Abramovich's
Chelsea Football Club and a £262m offer from Malaysian property
developer SP Setia to take over the senior debt.

However, Lloyds and Nama, the Irish bad bank, which hold almost equal
shares of a total £325m of debt on the site, are understood to have
tired with REO's failure to find a buyer.

The lenders will hope to take control of the sale process after
appointing administrators at the end of next week. According to people
familiar with the situation, Lloyds and Nama then plan to run an
open-market auction process to try and offload the development.

A large number of property developers, investors and sports and
entertainment companies have cast an eye over the power station since it
was decommissioned almost 30 years ago. Ideas for the building, with its
quartet chimneys that are established punctuation marks on the London
skyline, and surrounding land have included upmarket flats, offices and
a theme park.

REO itself had planned to turn Battersea Power Station into a huge
office and residential scheme and, at the end of last year, valued the
site at £498m, assuming planning permission was granted.

However, the high costs of installing infrastructure to Battersea have,
thus far, stymied redevelopment. As well as the complications of working
around a large listed building, any successful venture on the site would
almost certainly be predicated on the construction of a tube line, which
would cost hundreds of millions of pounds."



Also see
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...rail-link.html

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?
--
Roland Perry

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:50:17 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
least one wall has long gone, so there won't be much that's authentic
if/when it ever gets re-used as a shell housing something entirely
unlike a power station. Given the lack of authenticity, I wonder why
a pastiche of the old power station needs to be part of any new
development? After all, we already have one old coal power station
preserved as an art gallery in the form of Tate Modern -- just how
many does London need?

True. It should really be put out of its misery and demolished. I
don't think people are as sentimental about it as the politicians
think. At the end of the day it was just a power station, not a
cathedral.

Whats the status of Lots Road these days? Is that still around?

Largely demolished, I think. I don't know if any part of the old
building will survive into the new development.

I found these short videos from 2008 and 2009 (there's more):
2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=M1Cm2u3rKGo
2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cUfi...eature=related

There seems to be a building shell still standing, or was when I cycled past
on the other side of the river this morning.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In message , at 11:25:01
on Thu, 1 Dec 2011, remarked:
any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

If you have the details, do tell.
--
Roland Perry

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In article ,
wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US Embassy :-(

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In message , at 21:07:24 on Thu, 1 Dec 2011,
Nick Leverton remarked:
any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US Embassy :-(

Boris was reported to be looking for £2.5m from the Embassy project,
which is small change and neither here nor there in the grand scheme of
things.

On the other hand, the Battersea Power Station project is supposed to be
grossing £5.5bn, which is almost 20x the loan they are currently
floundering with.
--
Roland Perry

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:24 on Thu, 1 Dec 2011,
Nick Leverton remarked:
any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US Embassy :-(

Boris was reported to be looking for £2.5m from the Embassy project,
which is small change and neither here nor there in the grand scheme of
things.

On the other hand, the Battersea Power Station project is supposed to be
grossing £5.5bn, which is almost 20x the loan they are currently
floundering with.

A lot of business ideas suppose that they can gross a lot of money, and a
lot of them fail to meet their goals. Of more interest, if anyone knows,
would be what contribution the project was actually expected to make to
the Northern Line Battersea extension.

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In article , (Nick Leverton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be
predicated on the construction of a tube line, which would cost
hundreds of millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US
Embassy :-(

Have you been along Nine Elms Lane recently? It's a true "empire on which
the concrete never sets", as my father used to dub the South Bank.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In message , at 21:35:25 on Thu, 1 Dec 2011,
Nick Leverton remarked:
Boris was reported to be looking for £2.5m from the Embassy project,
which is small change and neither here nor there in the grand scheme of
things.

On the other hand, the Battersea Power Station project is supposed to be
grossing £5.5bn, which is almost 20x the loan they are currently
floundering with.

A lot of business ideas suppose that they can gross a lot of money, and a
lot of them fail to meet their goals. Of more interest, if anyone knows,
would be what contribution the project was actually expected to make to
the Northern Line Battersea extension.

The power station developer was the "sponsor and manager" for the
extension.

http://www.northernlineextension.com...ess_report_no_
1_final.pdf

There are some interesting maps, eg p8. The price depends on the route
and I presume it's the £459m one. They seem to have gone for the highest
density development scenario on page 10, but it's possible (if this was
also the announcement of the choice of route) that the developer could
only have paid for the cheaper route option, more on cash-flow than
cost/benefit grounds.

ps A third of the debt that was called in this week is money still owed
to the previous site owners who sold to REO in 2006.

--
Roland Perry

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

http://lurs.org.uk/meetings.htm
Tuesday 13th December 2011: Treasury Holdings has ambitious plans to
redevelop the Battersea Power Station site and to see the Northern Line
extended from Kennington to Battersea in order to serve the area.
Northern Line Extension Project Manager, Tony Whitehead will be joined
by Jon Kirkup from London Underground to explain the processes involved.

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:53:11 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
I'm still bemused as to why a tube line is needed when miles of
railway on 3 key TOCs passes right by the site. Can't a proper rail
interchange be constructed for far less cost than a tube line?

I imagine given the choice most people would prefer to get a tube direct
into central london than have to get a mainline train and change at
victoria or waterloo. Imagine you're standing at Vauxhall and want to get
to the west end - do you hop on a victoria line to oxford circus or wait
20 mins for a mainline train to go a mile to victoria then get on it?
Its a no brainer.

B2003

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Nick Leverton remarked:
A lot of business ideas suppose that they can gross a lot of money, and a
lot of them fail to meet their goals. Of more interest, if anyone knows,
would be what contribution the project was actually expected to make to
the Northern Line Battersea extension.

The power station developer was the "sponsor and manager" for the
extension.

http://www.northernlineextension.com...ess_report_no_
1_final.pdf

There are some interesting maps, eg p8. The price depends on the route
and I presume it's the £459m one. They seem to have gone for the highest
density development scenario on page 10, but it's possible (if this was
also the announcement of the choice of route) that the developer could
only have paid for the cheaper route option, more on cash-flow than
cost/benefit grounds.

Thanks, an interesting read. It seems the NLE will be required to cope
with travel needs for any but the residential-only development options
in the area, and even for those it would still be a good idea. So it's
presumably unlikely to die just because the developers have gone under.

However the funding is still a work package to be subsequently delivered !

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

Chelsea FC, Chelsea FC, Chelsea FC.

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 10:45:18AM +0000, d wrote:

I imagine given the choice most people would prefer to get a tube direct
into central london than have to get a mainline train and change at
victoria or waterloo. Imagine you're standing at Vauxhall and want to get
to the west end - do you hop on a victoria line to oxford circus or wait
20 mins for a mainline train to go a mile to victoria then get on it?
Its a no brainer.

Where does that 20 minutes come from (and, come to think of it, where
does the train from vauxhall to victoria come from as well)?

Battersea Park has ten trains an hour to Victoria, off-peak, and
Queenstown Road has eight an hour to Waterloo off-peak. Vauxhall has
*26* trains per hour to Waterloo, off-peak.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:49:18 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
I imagine given the choice most people would prefer to get a tube direct
into central london than have to get a mainline train and change at
victoria or waterloo. Imagine you're standing at Vauxhall and want to get
to the west end - do you hop on a victoria line to oxford circus or wait
20 mins for a mainline train to go a mile to victoria then get on it?
Its a no brainer.

Where does that 20 minutes come from (and, come to think of it, where
does the train from vauxhall to victoria come from as well)?

I got off a train from clapham junction to victoria at vauxhall a few years
back. Perhaps that service doesn't exist any more.

Battersea Park has ten trains an hour to Victoria, off-peak, and
Queenstown Road has eight an hour to Waterloo off-peak. Vauxhall has
*26* trains per hour to Waterloo, off-peak.

A waterloo train stops at vauxhall almost once every 2 mins? Sorry , I find
that hard to believe. They'd be backed up all the way down the line.

B2003

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

In message , d
writes

I got off a train from clapham junction to victoria at vauxhall a few years
back. Perhaps that service doesn't exist any more.

No such line exists (or existed). Trains from CJ to Vauxhall all
terminate at Waterloo. Trains from CJ to Victoria cannot go via
Vauxhall.

A waterloo train stops at vauxhall almost once every 2 mins? Sorry , I find
that hard to believe. They'd be backed up all the way down the line.

Which line? Eight parallel lines pass through Vauxhall. Normally, only
platforms 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are used for stoppers, but there's ample
capacity for a very high service frequency.

--
Paul Terry

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:04:36 +0000
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , d
writes

I got off a train from clapham junction to victoria at vauxhall a few years
back. Perhaps that service doesn't exist any more.

No such line exists (or existed). Trains from CJ to Vauxhall all
terminate at Waterloo. Trains from CJ to Victoria cannot go via
Vauxhall.

Yeah , you're right, I must be getting my journeys confused. I used to do so
many they've all merged into one in my head.

B2003

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:49:18 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:

Battersea Park has ten trains an hour to Victoria, off-peak, and
Queenstown Road has eight an hour to Waterloo off-peak. Vauxhall has
*26* trains per hour to Waterloo, off-peak.

A waterloo train stops at vauxhall almost once every 2 mins? Sorry , I
find
that hard to believe. They'd be backed up all the way down the line.

You'd only need to check live departures for confirmation:

http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...dep/VXH/WAT/To

Paul S

Battersea extension up in smoke?
 

On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 03:33:44PM +0000, d wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 14:49:18 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
Where does that 20 minutes come from (and, come to think of it, where
does the train from vauxhall to victoria come from as well)?
I got off a train from clapham junction to victoria at vauxhall a few years
back. Perhaps that service doesn't exist any more.

I don't believe you. A quick look at a map would demonstrate the
infeasibility of that.

Either the train was diverted to Waterloo because of engineering work,
or you got on the wrong train by mistake.

Battersea Park has ten trains an hour to Victoria, off-peak, and
Queenstown Road has eight an hour to Waterloo off-peak. Vauxhall has
*26* trains per hour to Waterloo, off-peak.
A waterloo train stops at vauxhall almost once every 2 mins? Sorry , I find
that hard to believe. They'd be backed up all the way down the line.

12:03, 05, 06, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 26, 27, 29, 33, 35, 36, 40,
42, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 56, 57, 59

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

There are two kinds of security, the one that keeps your sister
out, the one that keeps the government out and the one that
keeps Bruce Schneier out.