The Regeneration of Tottenham Thread

davidmatzdorf said:

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?

Click to expand...

Confused as to why you overreact, only to then flesh out, which would have been helpful in the first instance, and so prove my point.

Thanks for your 'personal interpretation' of numerous events, passed off as fact.

I duly ignored them.

davidmatzdorf said:

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

Click to expand...

Lmfao. After a huge in-depth post thats the best ending ever

gaffers said:

Confused as to why you overreact, only to then flesh out, which would have been helpful in the first instance, and so prove my point.

Thanks for your 'personal interpretation' of numerous events, passed off as fact.

I duly ignored them.

Click to expand...

Seriously fucking weird, this one.

I think gaffers reckons he knows "which side" I'm on ... and is diametrically wrong.

davidmatzdorf said:

Seriously fucking weird, this one.

I think gaffers reckons he knows "which side" I'm on ... and is diametrically wrong.

Click to expand...

You 'reply' to me, yet playing to the audience in your reply.

Not interested in your 'side' btw.

gaffers said:

You 'reply' to me, yet playing to the audience in your reply.

Not interested in your 'side' btw.

Click to expand...

You haven't mounted any argument. Just a flurry of "dislike" ratings and zero explanation. If you want to participate in the discussion, you have to say something that isn't just a flounce.

I'm not sure what "playing to the audience" is here. The only explanation you offered for otherwise mysterious "dislike" ratings was that my original post lacked detail, but that's because I've posted all this stuff all over previous pages - well, previous years - of the "new stadium" thread. So I posted the details. And now you not only diss the details, but won't respond to them.

So what's the point of posting at all, other than to vent some gratuitous bitchery?

I post information. I rarely get involved in this 21c. redefinition of the word "opinion" that confuses "everyone has a right to their opinion" (which is self-evident) with "everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's" (which is false). So I generally stick to posting explanations in areas where I have some knowledge, guesses in areas where I don't, and careful distinctions between the two. Where I venture to post an "opinion", I provide an explanation and some evidence.

Opinions without evidence are worthless. But dismissing other people's views without sharing your own is just obtuse.

I tend to find that when someone has a good argument and solid facts and information to support it they will always put them forward so when they don't do so I draw my own conclusions. The lack of argument is often accompanied by accusations that I don't know as much as that person, or indeed anything at all.
I fully expect a rating of a negative nature for this post.

davidmatzdorf said:

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?

Click to expand...

I think it’s possible to have a bit of both. The obvious plan does seem to “yuppie” the immediate area. As in lose the shops and have a plaza type walkway to the station with cafes and restaurants. This coupled with the improved rail links may well attract young professionals into the immediate surrounding property side roads.But obviously this won’t encompass the whole of Haringey. So there will still be plenty of opportunity for the club to help with social housing and all the other charitable work they do in the area.
There are many areas of London that can be quite well off and you travel half a mile and it’s very deprived. I used to live in West Hampstead which would be considered quite posh, but walk half a mile and you’re in kilbrun which basically is a total shit hole.

I get coys200's point and I'm not taking issue with it but I don't get the yuppie term, it's like gentrification I don't get that any more, in my opinion they are both old fashioned terms for what is really just basic modernisation.
The buildings across the road from the stadium have no great value, architectually or otherwise and nobody would even think of providing them if they were not already there, knocking them down and replacing them with something better should be something any local authority ought to seriously consider anyway isn't it?
In this day and age though money isn't available to improve an area so when money is available and there is a massive opportunity do so surely it should be grabbed with both hands.

I can throw a handful of vaguely associated facts into this equation.

This is horses mouth stuff, although historical, from my days fighting the Stratford move.

Things which I was told, directly, by the then leader of the local council and David Lammy MP:

1. Tottenham Hotspur leaving the area would be disastrous, as they did so much to support the local community and it was considered likely that this would dissipate over time as the geographical association diminished.

2. The club were considered absolutely key to attracting any financial support into the area, either from Government or private enterprise.

3. The council were willing to do anything they were legally capable of doing to support the club remaining in the area.

4. Under ENIC's ownership and Daniel Levy's chairmanship, the club's relationship with the council and local area was completely different than under the days of Alan Sugar. Sugar did absolutely nothing to support the local community financially and although it brought people to the area, it was like an island in the middle of Tottenham and did absolutely nothing to support any local schools, charities or people. Levy's Tottenham couldn't be more different and is one of the biggest charitable donors in the Premier League. Cynically, one could argue that this has been done to enable the club to achieve its goals in terms of infrastructure development and as an argument to minimise S.106 obligations (they are apparently factors, David will know more than me on this, it's just what I was told), but the club continues to behave particularly well in this regard.

Things which I was told by Daniel Levy when I met with him and Donna Cullen:

1. The club, at the time of applying for the OS, deemed the NDP not-viable and informed us (Darren Alexander and me) that if the club did not move to the Olympic Stadium site that we would not be in a position to build a stadium, full stop. (Side note, at the time I deemed this to be spin, to support a move and attempt to convince us to stop our campaign, the subsequent development supports my view. However, it may be that it hinged on the S.106 obligations being reduced. Although the subsequently increased cost and current assurances that the club can absorb these also suggests that the £16m or whatever it was in the S.106 can't have been that significant).

2. DL promised that the club's commitment to supporting causes in the local area would remain.

3. DL said that if West Ham won the bid for the OS, that they would surpass us within 5 years, given their increased revenue and that we would be left in their wake (either due to the cost of a build as a weight around our neck or as a result of remaining at a lower capacity.) (Darren and I actually laughed at this, but he seemed to be deadly serious about it, although I should say again, the whole meeting was engineered so that we would ask questions and they would attempt to sell us on the idea that the OS was our only choice).

The reason I am saying all this is that it's clearly no surprise that the information provided to the council, banks, fan groups, whoever, will be manipulated and tailored to suit your goal. Of course this happens. David doesn't deserve any kind of grief for suggesting as much. My second point is that the suggestion the club doesn't do a significant amount to support the area is simply wrong. Gentrification may be a dirty word for some, but the area is on its knees and it deserves better, it's hard to achieve that without actually making it better. Regardless of the S.106, Daniel Levy does a fine job of balancing commerciality with social responsibility and although we disagreed over the Olympic Stadium I have a huge amount of respect for him, for what he has done and, not least, for taking us seriously and taking the time to sit down with us directly (I was just a fan, regardless of whether I was in the media or not) and talking through what the club was trying to achieve. What isn;t in doubt as far as I am concerned is that although he might want to walk away with a bunch of money in his back pocket at the end of this ride, I am fairly sure he will also want to leave a club which is as close to the top as he can possibly take it. He has been good for Tottenham Hotspur and he has been good for Tottenham.

worcestersauce said:

I get coys200's point and I'm not taking issue with it but I don't get the yuppie term, it's like gentrification I don't get that any more, in my opinion they are both old fashioned terms for what is really just basic modernisation.
The buildings across the road from the stadium have no great value, architectually or otherwise and nobody would even think of providing them if they were not already there, knocking them down and replacing them with something better should be something any local authority ought to seriously consider anyway isn't it?
In this day and age though money isn't available to improve an area so when money is available and there is a massive opportunity do so surely it should be grabbed with both hands.

Click to expand...

I think there’s a big difference between modernisation and just knocking a whole row of shops/houses down to make the area look well smarter.

davidmatzdorf said:

You haven't mounted any argument. Just a flurry of "dislike" ratings and zero explanation. If you want to participate in the discussion, you have to say something that isn't just a flounce.

I'm not sure what "playing to the audience" is here. The only explanation you offered for otherwise mysterious "dislike" ratings was that my original post lacked detail, but that's because I've posted all this stuff all over previous pages - well, previous years - of the "new stadium" thread. So I posted the details. And now you not only diss the details, but won't respond to them.

So what's the point of posting at all, other than to vent some gratuitous bitchery?

I post information. I rarely get involved in this 21c. redefinition of the word "opinion" that confuses "everyone has a right to their opinion" (which is self-evident) with "everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's" (which is false). So I generally stick to posting explanations in areas where I have some knowledge, guesses in areas where I don't, and careful distinctions between the two. Where I venture to post an "opinion", I provide an explanation and some evidence.

Opinions without evidence are worthless. But dismissing other people's views without sharing your own is just obtuse.

Click to expand...

you also throw your fair share of negs around without providing any explanation. I guess those are your guesses.

Phischy said:

I can throw a handful of vaguely associated facts into this equation.

This is horses mouth stuff, although historical, from my days fighting the Stratford move.

Things which I was told, directly, by the then head of the local council and David Lammy MP:
.

Click to expand...

Thanks this was a great post

coys200 said:

I think there’s a big difference between modernisation and just knocking a whole row of shops/houses down to make the area look well smarter.

Click to expand...

There often is but in this case I think it ticks both boxes.

Phischy said:

4. Under ENIC's ownership and Daniel Levy's chairmanship, the club's relationship with the council and local area was completely different than under the days of Alan Sugar. Sugar did absolutely nothing to support the local community financially and although it brought people to the area, it was like an island in the middle of Tottenham and did absolutely nothing to support any local schools, charities or people. Levy's Tottenham couldn't be more different and is one of the biggest charitable donors in the Premier League. Cynically, one could argue that this has been done to enable the club to achieve its goals in terms of infrastructure development and as an argument to minimise S.106 obligations (they are apparently factors, David will know more than me on this, it's just what I was told), but the club continues to behave particularly well in this regard.

Click to expand...

That was my impression, but I didn't have your inside knowledge to say so as boldly.

Phischy said:

1. The club, at the time of applying for the OS, deemed the NDP not-viable and informed us (Darren Alexander and me) that if the club did not move to the Olympic Stadium site that we would not be in a position to build a stadium, full stop. (Side note, at the time I deemed this to be spin, to support a move and attempt to convince us to stop our campaign, the subsequent development supports my view. However, it may be that it hinged on the S.106 obligations being reduced. Although the subsequently increased cost and current assurances that the club can absorb these also suggests that the £16m or whatever it was in the S.106 can't have been that significant).

Click to expand...

It wasn't spin. No one would lend anyone money to do development after the crash, they were all gibbering wrecks. That's where the explanation about the increased profit margin comes in. It wasn't about cash costs increasing, it was about profitability. Valuing a development as complex as this one is brain-damage anyway - a mixture of rent streams, sales receipts, the brand value of the club and all manner of other factors - but that just made it even harder after the crash. Anything that wasn't mega-profitable and also straightforward was anathema to the lenders. And the NDP has always been the opposite of straightforward.

But the crash was nearly 10 years ago now. The market has long since pulled out of its tailspin and these days normal, bog-standard residential or mixed-use developments can generally get funded if they can show a 17% margin. It wasn't the quantum of the savings from the S.106 costs that has been meaningful in the long run (and I think £16m is an underestimate by some margin). The increased number of flats was also a factor, as was an element of post-riot regeneration funding. But what was required was to show enough of a viable development to lenders that they would approve it in principle, paving the way for the expenditure on the remaining land and the planning application.

Phischy said:

3. DL said that if West Ham won the bid for the OS, that they would surpass us within 5 years, given their increased revenue and that we would be left in their wake (either due to the cost of a build as a weight around our neck or as a result of remaining at a lower capacity.) (Darren and I actually laughed at this, but he seemed to be deadly serious about it, although I should say again, the whole meeting was engineered so that we would ask questions and they would attempt to sell us on the idea that the OS was our only choice).

Click to expand...

Now that was spin!

Great contribution to the discussion, thanks.

cliff jones said:

you also throw your fair share of negs around without providing any explanation. I guess those are your guesses.

Click to expand...

But if someone then asks for a detailed reply, I'll post one - as indeed I did when asked by gaffers. I asked 2 or 3 times for a substantive comment, but got the dumb-insolence treatment each time.

Anyone who can read through my detailed history of the development and the negotiation and call it "guesses" needs to develop better judgment.

davidmatzdorf said:

But if someone then asks for a detailed reply, I'll post one - as indeed I did when asked by gaffers. I asked 2 or 3 times for a substantive comment, but got the dumb-insolence treatment each time.

Anyone who can read through my detailed history of the development and the negotiation and call it "guesses" needs to develop better judgment.

Click to expand...

Mate, why dignify or indulge him by trying to explain yourself. Flogging a dead horse comes to mind

Got a bit fascinated with this need something once the stadium is finished lol. Does anyone have an aerial shot of the area they intend to regenerate.

https://tottenham.london/sites/default/files/view_the_summary_masterplan_pdf_3mb.pdf

Wow only just seen this. Had no idea the plans were so detailed and advanced. Sorry what’s the actual situation now ? Are we indispute with the council ?

coys200 said:

https://tottenham.london/sites/default/files/view_the_summary_masterplan_pdf_3mb.pdf

Wow only just seen this. Had no idea the plans were so detailed and advanced. Sorry what’s the actual situation now ? Are we indispute with the council ?

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the council has effectively binned off this entire plan and are going with something rather less ambitious.

Phischy said:

My understanding is that the council has effectively binned off this entire plan and are going with something rather less ambitious.

Click to expand...

Is that confirmed anywhere?

Just read the article again that David posted. So basically it’s in a bit of limbo. But clearly the club still have intent as bought a plot for £14m just this year. But seems one way or another love lane will definitely be demolished. There’s currently a very fine line between us acting as a property company and a football club right now.