Modern business hub to replace former department store
 |
| An artist's impression, as viewed from Guildhall Square |
THESE swanky new offices are
what business giant Capita wants
to replace the run-down former
C&A building in Southampton.
The plans for a "regional business hub" have been unveiled following a ten-year,
£290m deal with the city to run key services.
Capita took on 650 council staff in the customer
services, IT, human resources, property,
tax and benefits departments.
The new building is designed to complement
a revamp of Guildhall Square and the redevelopment
of the nearby Tyrrell & Green
building into a new arts complex and apartment
towers.
It is part of a scheme to create a new "lively
and attractive" cultural quarter in the centre
of the city, which council leaders hope will attract visitors across the south
coast.
As reported in the Daily Echo,
a sex shop, snooker hall and
other firms are being evicted
from the C&A building, which is
mostly owned by the council, so
it can be flattened.
Capita, which wants to move
into new offices within three
years, has drawn up plans for a
complete redevelopment of the
site. It wants to build a sixstorey
building with basement
parking to provide offices with
shops, a restaurant or cafes.
A one-stop customer service
centre has been planned for the
ground floor. The council plans
to sell the C&A building to
Capita's developer and possibly
lease back two floors.
Meanwhile, councillors will
next week agree to buy the fourstorey
building at 162 to 174
Above Bar Street, which houses
the Old Fat Cat pub.
The council wants to make
sure there are no problems with
the redevelopment of the former
Tyrrell & Green store next door.
There are no immediate plans to
buy out the 125-year lease held
by brewer Greene King.
6:31am Saturday 10th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Fred on 6:43am Sat 10 May 08
"are being evicted from the C&A building"
They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.
"are being evicted from the C&A building"
They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.
Posted by: Who's paying? on 7:07am Sat 10 May 08
Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright.
Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years.
And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.
Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright.
Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years.
And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.
Posted by: Alvin, Winchester on 7:27am Sat 10 May 08
Who's paying? Who cares! Looks great - exactly what is needed, instead of this part brick/part plaster stuff which springs up everywhere. This is an imaginative design - glazing is far better.
In terms of spending tax payer's money -highly doubt that it is just local gov paying for it. Even if it is, they have a budget - apart from spending it on hospitals, i can't see anything else i would like - walking past a great, fresh new building in that location will be great. Where one new good building is built, encourages others to follow suit. It is people like you (who's paying') who are bringing this city down, and making us live in the dark ages. I am sure you are the one of the people who argues tat the city council lack imagination, drive and vision, and when something good comes along you become a hypocrit. Crawl back under your rock.
Who's paying? Who cares! Looks great - exactly what is needed, instead of this part brick/part plaster stuff which springs up everywhere. This is an imaginative design - glazing is far better.
In terms of spending tax payer's money -highly doubt that it is just local gov paying for it. Even if it is, they have a budget - apart from spending it on hospitals, i can't see anything else i would like - walking past a great, fresh new building in that location will be great. Where one new good building is built, encourages others to follow suit. It is people like you (who's paying') who are bringing this city down, and making us live in the dark ages. I am sure you are the one of the people who argues tat the city council lack imagination, drive and vision, and when something good comes along you become a hypocrit. Crawl back under your rock.
Posted by: Sceptic, Waterside on 7:45am Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Alvin[/bold] wrote:
Who's paying? Who cares! Looks great - exactly what is needed, instead of this part brick/part plaster stuff which springs up everywhere. This is an imaginative design - glazing is far better. In terms of spending tax payer's money -highly doubt that it is just local gov paying for it. Even if it is, they have a budget - apart from spending it on hospitals, i can't see anything else i would like - walking past a great, fresh new building in that location will be great. Where one new good building is built, encourages others to follow suit. It is people like you (who's paying') who are bringing this city down, and making us live in the dark ages. I am sure you are the one of the people who argues tat the city council lack imagination, drive and vision, and when something good comes along you become a hypocrit. Crawl back under your rock.[/quote] Is this a personal view or do the other chipmunks feel the same?
Alvin wrote:
Who's paying? Who cares! Looks great - exactly what is needed, instead of this part brick/part plaster stuff which springs up everywhere. This is an imaginative design - glazing is far better. In terms of spending tax payer's money -highly doubt that it is just local gov paying for it. Even if it is, they have a budget - apart from spending it on hospitals, i can't see anything else i would like - walking past a great, fresh new building in that location will be great. Where one new good building is built, encourages others to follow suit. It is people like you (who's paying') who are bringing this city down, and making us live in the dark ages. I am sure you are the one of the people who argues tat the city council lack imagination, drive and vision, and when something good comes along you become a hypocrit. Crawl back under your rock.
Is this a personal view or do the other chipmunks feel the same?
Posted by: Alvin, winchester on 7:52am Sat 10 May 08
Good banter - ! :-) Clearly, Chipmunks have a good grasp of the UK planning system and local government.
Good banter - ! :-) Clearly, Chipmunks have a good grasp of the UK planning system and local government.
Posted by: hulla, baloo on 7:55am Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Alvin[/bold] wrote:
Good banter - ! :-) Clearly, Chipmunks have a good grasp of the UK planning system and local government.[/quote] Chipmunks obviously have a better idea than the usual mickey mouse plans for flats and car parking that get put forward.
Alvin wrote:
Good banter - ! :-) Clearly, Chipmunks have a good grasp of the UK planning system and local government.
Chipmunks obviously have a better idea than the usual mickey mouse plans for flats and car parking that get put forward.
Posted by: Thomas Downes, Southampton on 8:26am Sat 10 May 08
Got to admit it does look good, it's a shame it's just offices as it will become invisible to people as time passes
Got to admit it does look good, it's a shame it's just offices as it will become invisible to people as time passes
Posted by: Bambi on 9:22am Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Who's paying?[/bold] wrote:
Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright.
Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years.
And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.[/quote] What on earth are you babbling about? Capita is a commercial, profit-making venture. Doesn't matter who owns it, or who it's customers are, it still turns profit. Who's paying for this venture? Capita, with its own profit. Not public money, not our money.
There's always some fool who knee-jerks "Joe Taxpayer suffers again" without bothering with any trivial nonsense such as The Facts
Who's paying? wrote:
Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright.
Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years.
And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.
What on earth are you babbling about? Capita is a commercial, profit-making venture. Doesn't matter who owns it, or who it's customers are, it still turns profit. Who's paying for this venture? Capita, with its own profit. Not public money, not our money.
There's always some fool who knee-jerks "Joe Taxpayer suffers again" without bothering with any trivial nonsense such as The Facts
Posted by: Steve on 9:24am Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Fred[/bold] wrote:
"are being evicted from the C&A building" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.[/quote] Not really.
Either way they are being moved against their wishes.
One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn't sound quite so bad.
If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn't be best pleased about it.
Would you, Fred?
Fred wrote:
"are being evicted from the C&A building" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.
Not really.
Either way they are being moved against their wishes.
One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn't sound quite so bad.
If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn't be best pleased about it.
Would you, Fred?
Posted by: George on 9:40am Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Fred[/bold] wrote:
\"are being evicted from the C&A building\" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.[/quote] Not really.
Either way they are being moved against their wishes.
One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn\'t sound quite so bad.
If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn\'t be best pleased about it.
Would you, Fred?[/quote] Nope, it is quite a difference. How do you know, for instance, that this move is against anyone's wishes? Anyone leasing a property is aware that the lease is a finite contract, that may well come to an end, quite legitimately. If you get all surprised and upset when that happens, you failed to understand what "lease" meant. The assumption should always be that it will end at some point. In many cases, it's even desirable that a lease comes to an end. Bet the lease in such a prime central location is a hefty premium for something as niche as an adult bookstore
Further, you can't use the "would you, Fred?" clause here. Commercial bodies are not people, they're somewhat more abstract entities, and can't get "upset". Leases not being renewed is a perfectly valid business risk that should be allowed for
Steve wrote:
Fred wrote:
\"are being evicted from the C&A building\" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.
Not really.
Either way they are being moved against their wishes.
One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn\'t sound quite so bad.
If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn\'t be best pleased about it.
Would you, Fred?
Nope, it is quite a difference. How do you know, for instance, that this move is against anyone's wishes? Anyone leasing a property is aware that the lease is a finite contract, that may well come to an end, quite legitimately. If you get all surprised and upset when that happens, you failed to understand what "lease" meant. The assumption should always be that it will end at some point. In many cases, it's even desirable that a lease comes to an end. Bet the lease in such a prime central location is a hefty premium for something as niche as an adult bookstore
Further, you can't use the "would you, Fred?" clause here. Commercial bodies are not people, they're somewhat more abstract entities, and can't get "upset". Leases not being renewed is a perfectly valid business risk that should be allowed for
Posted by: A Creature Void of Form on 10:01am Sat 10 May 08
[quote]Further, you can't use the "would you, Fred?" clause here. Commercial bodies are not people, they're somewhat more abstract entities, and can't get "upset". Leases not being renewed is a perfectly valid business risk that should be allowed for[/quote]
I was under the impression that businesses (small ones especially, which I think the sex shop and snooker hall are) were run and staffed by people, who are susceptible to emotions. Use of the "Would you, Fred?" clause looks fine on that basis, or is Fred unable to imagine being a business owner/staff member?
Just the same as Steve can't be certain that these people are unhappy about not being able to renew their leases, you can't be certain that they are perfectly content with the situation.
Either way, Steve's point was that being evicted and not having your leases renewed are tantamount to the same thing - being forced to move. Regardless of whether or not the move is against anyone's wishes, they don't have a choice, do they?
Further, you can't use the "would you, Fred?" clause here. Commercial bodies are not people, they're somewhat more abstract entities, and can't get "upset". Leases not being renewed is a perfectly valid business risk that should be allowed for
I was under the impression that businesses (small ones especially, which I think the sex shop and snooker hall are) were run and staffed by people, who are susceptible to emotions. Use of the "Would you, Fred?" clause looks fine on that basis, or is Fred unable to imagine being a business owner/staff member?
Just the same as Steve can't be certain that these people are unhappy about not being able to renew their leases, you can't be certain that they are perfectly content with the situation.
Either way, Steve's point was that being evicted and not having your leases renewed are tantamount to the same thing - being forced to move. Regardless of whether or not the move is against anyone's wishes, they don't have a choice, do they?
Posted by: hulla, baloo on 10:04am Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]George[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Fred[/bold] wrote: \"are being evicted from the C&A building\" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.[/quote] Not really. Either way they are being moved against their wishes. One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn\'t sound quite so bad. If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn\'t be best pleased about it. Would you, Fred?[/quote] Nope, it is quite a difference. How do you know, for instance, that this move is against anyone's wishes? Anyone leasing a property is aware that the lease is a finite contract, that may well come to an end, quite legitimately. If you get all surprised and upset when that happens, you failed to understand what "lease" meant. The assumption should always be that it will end at some point. In many cases, it's even desirable that a lease comes to an end. Bet the lease in such a prime central location is a hefty premium for something as niche as an adult bookstore Further, you can't use the "would you, Fred?" clause here. Commercial bodies are not people, they're somewhat more abstract entities, and can't get "upset". Leases not being renewed is a perfectly valid business risk that should be allowed for[/quote] If businesses are abstract entities, George, how can they have wishes as you say they do? Or does your pedantry not extend to covering the boring drivel you come out with?
George wrote:
Steve wrote: Fred wrote: \"are being evicted from the C&A building\" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.
Not really. Either way they are being moved against their wishes. One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn\'t sound quite so bad. If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn\'t be best pleased about it. Would you, Fred?
Nope, it is quite a difference. How do you know, for instance, that this move is against anyone's wishes? Anyone leasing a property is aware that the lease is a finite contract, that may well come to an end, quite legitimately. If you get all surprised and upset when that happens, you failed to understand what "lease" meant. The assumption should always be that it will end at some point. In many cases, it's even desirable that a lease comes to an end. Bet the lease in such a prime central location is a hefty premium for something as niche as an adult bookstore Further, you can't use the "would you, Fred?" clause here. Commercial bodies are not people, they're somewhat more abstract entities, and can't get "upset". Leases not being renewed is a perfectly valid business risk that should be allowed for
If businesses are abstract entities, George, how can they have wishes as you say they do? Or does your pedantry not extend to covering the boring drivel you come out with?
Posted by: Tax Payer, Southampton on 12:34pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Bambi[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Who's paying?[/bold] wrote: Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright. Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years. And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.[/quote] What on earth are you babbling about? Capita is a commercial, profit-making venture. Doesn't matter who owns it, or who it's customers are, it still turns profit. Who's paying for this venture? Capita, with its own profit. Not public money, not our money. There's always some fool who knee-jerks "Joe Taxpayer suffers again" without bothering with any trivial nonsense such as The Facts[/quote] Capita may be a commercial, profit-making venture, but where are they getting those profits from? Tax Payers, that's who.
Bambi wrote:
Who's paying? wrote: Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright. Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years. And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.
What on earth are you babbling about? Capita is a commercial, profit-making venture. Doesn't matter who owns it, or who it's customers are, it still turns profit. Who's paying for this venture? Capita, with its own profit. Not public money, not our money. There's always some fool who knee-jerks "Joe Taxpayer suffers again" without bothering with any trivial nonsense such as The Facts
Capita may be a commercial, profit-making venture, but where are they getting those profits from? Tax Payers, that's who.
Posted by: Fred on 1:16pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Fred[/bold] wrote: "are being evicted from the C&A building" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.[/quote] Not really. Either way they are being moved against their wishes. One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn't sound quite so bad. If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn't be best pleased about it. Would you, Fred?[/quote] Steve,
Don't go into business and ever sign a lease. You will be crying on the day the lease expires.
Steve wrote:
Fred wrote: "are being evicted from the C&A building" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.
Not really. Either way they are being moved against their wishes. One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn't sound quite so bad. If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn't be best pleased about it. Would you, Fred?
Steve,
Don't go into business and ever sign a lease. You will be crying on the day the lease expires.
Posted by: Concerned, Lordshill on 1:26pm Sat 10 May 08
Good old Crapita...... with a bigger building for them to take over more of the Council staff that are on the lower paid.... and then change their contract of employment and kick them out.... ask Crapita about the moral of the staff they have taken over???
Good old Crapita...... with a bigger building for them to take over more of the Council staff that are on the lower paid.... and then change their contract of employment and kick them out.... ask Crapita about the moral of the staff they have taken over???
Posted by: Christoff on 1:35pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Fred[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Fred[/bold] wrote: "are being evicted from the C&A building" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.[/quote] Not really. Either way they are being moved against their wishes. One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn't sound quite so bad. If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn't be best pleased about it. Would you, Fred?[/quote] Steve, Don't go into business and ever sign a lease. You will be crying on the day the lease expires.[/quote] Well done Fred.
A typically petulant response. You really showed him.
No, really.
Fred wrote:
Steve wrote: Fred wrote: "are being evicted from the C&A building" They are not being evicted Matt. Their leases are not being renewed - quite a difference.
Not really. Either way they are being moved against their wishes. One is just a more patient way of doing it, and thus doesn't sound quite so bad. If I rented a property and either happened to me, I know I wouldn't be best pleased about it. Would you, Fred?
Steve, Don't go into business and ever sign a lease. You will be crying on the day the lease expires.
Well done Fred.
A typically petulant response. You really showed him.
No, really.
Posted by: Bambi on 5:05pm Sat 10 May 08
[quote][bold]Tax Payer[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Bambi[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Who's paying?[/bold] wrote: Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright. Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years. And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.[/quote] What on earth are you babbling about? Capita is a commercial, profit-making venture. Doesn't matter who owns it, or who it's customers are, it still turns profit. Who's paying for this venture? Capita, with its own profit. Not public money, not our money. There's always some fool who knee-jerks "Joe Taxpayer suffers again" without bothering with any trivial nonsense such as The Facts[/quote] Capita may be a commercial, profit-making venture, but where are they getting those profits from? Tax Payers, that's who.[/quote] So what? Whichever electric company supplies the council is also making a profit from tax. Ditto whoever services their photocopiers. Are you going to whinge if they have the audacity to spend some of their profits? Do you get all wound up when you see a council employee daring to "go large" in KFC on "your" money? Jebus, get a clue will you
Tax Payer wrote:
Bambi wrote:
Who's paying? wrote: Who is paying for this little adventure in property? I do hope the council and its contractors aren't helping themselves to plush offices at our expense. They should be renting them,not buying them outright. Hopefully the new council will put a stop to some of the overspending on vanity projects which we taxpayers have been funding for the last 20 years. And before someone starts up about Crapita being a different entity: yes, but they are still being paid out of our pockets.
What on earth are you babbling about? Capita is a commercial, profit-making venture. Doesn't matter who owns it, or who it's customers are, it still turns profit. Who's paying for this venture? Capita, with its own profit. Not public money, not our money. There's always some fool who knee-jerks "Joe Taxpayer suffers again" without bothering with any trivial nonsense such as The Facts
Capita may be a commercial, profit-making venture, but where are they getting those profits from? Tax Payers, that's who.
So what? Whichever electric company supplies the council is also making a profit from tax. Ditto whoever services their photocopiers. Are you going to whinge if they have the audacity to spend some of their profits? Do you get all wound up when you see a council employee daring to "go large" in KFC on "your" money? Jebus, get a clue will you
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
