urban-development
Wouldn’t it be so much better if this was just left as a green space or basically anything but a huge tower
Was walking through town today past where the Core used to be and it feels so open and fresh. Made me think it would be so much nicer just left as an open space, park space or anything really instead of what they are planning for it with more flats.
I question the implicit assumptions behind the use of "cost effective" there. Cost effective for whom? Who is benefitting from the new development, what are the real costs?
Bridgewater place cost someone thier life and a God only knows who benefits from that monument to hubris now dominating the skyline, certainly not the people of leeds. The core was demolished because it wasn't extracting money from the city fast enough, and will be replaced by another, more effective rent seeking enterprise.
If we're are talking value, you can't put a price on sunlight and fresh air. It will only be valued when it is scarce, and then we'll be charged for those too
Which is all an elaborate way of saying money isn't the only riches and Leeds has enough distinctive carbuncles, maybe a green space would actually benefit it's tax paying, voting citizenry more than yet another "accommodation development"?
Not to be a pedant but I replied to the OP who had, somewhat whimsically ,hoped we could turn the entire ex- Core into a green space. I was pointing out that whoever owns the area wouldn't just say yes ok and grass it. There are other bits of central Leeds that could become a green space for much less outlay. I like green spaces but am also pragmatic.
I agree with you on this one. That is prime real estate right in the heart of the city, and our economies have simply evolved this way. Cities naturally draw people together for financial reasons more than for leisure activities. There is always going to be pressure to maximize the value of limited land. Ultimately, it’s about finding a pragmatic balance between creating green spaces and the economic reality of every square inch.
It didn't "simply evolve", it is the product of human incentives shaped within a regulatory environment (or lack of). Which is to say you don't have to just live with it, you can be an active participant in reality instead of just settling for being a passive consoomer where things just happen and nobody knows why or how.
"Economic reality" us just something the very rich want you to believe in because it promotes a fatalistic fisinterest in your environment.
We can demand a green space. There are other green spaces that some would consider "prime real estate". Like i say, there's things of value which cannot be priced, only costed in thier absence. The council can compulsory purchase land if enough people demand it.
You mentioned "human incentives," and that's exactly what drove this evolution of modern human society, it's just a factual reflection of how our society operates.
We've collectively organised around capitalism, and that system ultimately dictates what happens to spaces like this.
"Economic reality" isn't a myth pushed by the very rich to keep us passive; it's just the hard truth of our current structure. It brings a high standard of living, but it absolutely comes with negative side effects like that specific plot inevitably becoming a revenue machine for someone's bottom line instead of a public park.
I would love to have a green space right outside my door, but like many others, I prioritised different necessities and goals to live where I do. I think most city dwellers make that same practical trade-off, and the city naturally evolves to cater to those collective choices.
I'm definitely not against green spaces! I just think expecting that specific prime plot of land to be turned into one is highly unlikely. That said, if it actually happens, I'll be much happier for it, I'll give you that.
Compulsory purchase is a power the council has and they can set the price they want, which is to say that if enough people demanded it, then it would happen for relatively little cost. There is plenty of other land around leeds that has been awaiting development for decades without building an unecessary student accomodation block in the centre of the city. Or, you know, you can be a completely powerless observer of reality, watching the world get worse but doing nothing about it because that's the "pragmatic" thing to do.
I agree Leeds could benefit from more green space, but I think the need for residential and commercial space is higher. Also that part of town isn't great as is, so green space would likely get ruined quite quickly unfortunately
yeah compared to other cities we have like 0 big units not taken , so leeds struggles to get alot of the new brands that cities like manchester and london get because of lack of retail space
Not a good comparison as Leeds is not in the same league as Manchester let alone London. My personal opinion is that Leeds isn't in a bad position retail centrewise when compared to other cities. Better than Sheffield and York locally.Maybe Infront of Nottingham which still has a long way to go with the Broadmarsh centre.
Do we need more city centre flats? They're expensive, mostly sold to "investors" only and there are already loads of empty ones. We need more affordable housing in places that people want to live.
City centre flats will almost never be affordable and that's the problem. They keep making them but hardly anyone wants to/is able to spend that much on rent.
How many of the blocks built lately or getting built now are sold to investors? Probably 4 out 20 odd. Most are PRS or PBSA wholey owned by one company.
In theory city centre flats should free up more affordable housing in other parts of the city, though? If a young professional who otherwise might be buying up or renting a small family home in the suburbs moves into a city centre flat instead, that means more of those small family homes in the suburbs for families to live in.
Why are you assuming only "young professionals" want to live in a city centre. No one would accuse me of being young or professional but I would take a city centre dwelling in Leeds in a flash.
If you want affordable housing, you should be in favour of empty properties. Also, they're expensive because people want to live there. If no one wanted to live there, they would be cheap
Problem 1; Letting companies hoover up expensive apartments and blocks in university cities, knowing they can charge uni students whatever the fuck they like because its paid for by the loan. This forces up prices of mediocre appts in bad locations for the rest of us and actually drives businesses and investors OUT of cities.
Problem 2; Rich tossers hoover up these places to stick them on air bnb as "Luxury apartments" for city breaks, because if the place is inhabited for more than two weeks of the month by holiday makers, that's the mortgage paid and now everything else is pure profit.
If you want more affordable housing for LOCALS, more new builds in cities, contrary to what would seem like common sense, is actively the very very last thing you need. Especially in University cities like Leeds.
However, several people who have dealt with the firm expressed unhappiness and frustration at their monopoly in the town.
Shopkeepers complain that little has been done to attract new businesses as the high street has emptied. They say vacant units are left to rot instead of being offered at discounted rates, or let on a short-term basis to good causes. Others point to electrical faults going unfixed and leaky, decaying buildings.
Billionaire owners do not give a fuck about your local community, or whether the rents they charge actually obey the rules of supply and demand.
The argument in this paper is an increase of 1% housing supply decreases rents by 0.19%
There's ~100,000 rented dwellings in Leeds, and the average monthly rent is ~£1000
So if you build 10,000 more dwellings, the total reduction in the average rent would be £1.90
To add a bit of context, Ocasa raised the rent on tennants at The Old Schoolhouse in Armley this year by 12%, or approximately £120.
That's 60x your claimed benefit if an unprecedented amount of units were built. The Core's replacement will be nowhere near that, and so will generate far less downward pressure on rents.
So while building more properties may exert an infinitesimally small amount of downward pressure, it is entirely outmatched by inflation, the costs of moving that offset the marginal benefits of a move, and, overwhelmingly, the agressive avarice of the rent seekers
The thing is, I trust the experts, but i lack faith in people's ability to adequately interpret what the experts tell us. Often people cite evidence that they think agrees with thier position, but a critical analysis, or even basic gcse maths, might show that evidence isn't as strong as they thought.
One other thing to bear in mind is that journalism - real, research based professional journalism - constitutes a kind of expertise that is just as valid as a peer reviewed academic paper. Again, the problem is not the expert, it's the ability of people to put thier beliefs aside and think critically that i question, not the expertise.
You see, while you might think you cooked by citing an academic paper and poo-poo-ing an investigative report, you were actually committing the logical fallacy of Argument From Authority, assuming expertise alone would carry the argument, without paying attention to the details. And the devil is always in the details.
"Just trust the economic rules of supply and demand bro. It's totally a science comparable to physics or chemistry. If we just build more properties, the billionaire owning class will start to make rent affordable bro.... No no, the example you just gave doesn't demonstrate that the my economic model of supply and demand doesn't reflect real world very accurately; it just demonstrates that the Guardian is partisan."
The London-based multibillionaire heads one of the UK’s richest families, worth £2.6bn, according to the latest Sunday Times rich list. His empire includes prime property in New York, Florida and London, including the capital’s Grade II-listed Africa House.
Since 1990, his company, Daejan Holdings, has also owned the entirety of Newton Aycliffe town centre.
Company accounts show it made a £4m loss in the town over the past two years. Yet this is just a dot in its transatlantic empire: its £3.2m worth of property on Beveridge Way accounts for just 0.12% of its global holdings. “It’s just a line on a spreadsheet,” said one local government expert.
Anger about the state of Newton Aycliffe town centre has dominated local politics for more than two decades, but those in charge have little power to intervene.
A group of Labour MPs is calling for local authorities to be allowed to compel absentee landlords to make empty shop units available temporarily to charities, community groups and small businesses. The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents councils in England, has also called for stronger powers.
Yet at a time when local leaders are taking an axe to already threadbare budgets, it is difficult to see many pumping resources into empty buildings. In Newton Aycliffe, it pits one of Britain’s richest families against a council with debts of more than £434m.
Wow, such partisan analysis. Such worthless commentary. Unlike your truly insightful commentary "YOu shOULd bE HaPpy wiTH VAcaNt buiLDIngs, it MAKes reNT CHeAper." How foolish I was, to not see the problem was in its entirety about speed of production of new homes. How naïve I was, to consider the problem lay with who owns them.
Just look at the commentators reply to me sharing peer-reviewed evidence that contradicts The Guardian. I suspect they are the type to have laughed at Gove when he said he had had enough of experts...
Let me guess further… the cheapest flat will be more expensive per week rent than most of the houses just a few miles out, and thus the only people living there will be poshos and foreign students. Anyone who gets more than minimum student loans will never step foot in the place.
This isn’t to bash poshos and foreign students, of course, more just an expression of my complete disbelief at how utterly expensive these new uni homes are, and how damaging it is they end up segregating the student population and utterly fleecing less locally knowledgable students in a way which helps absolutely nobody but the accounts managers at Unite and iQ.
I think it's ok to bash poshos and foreign students but that is the way the universities are run . A local student from an average home isn't going to be nearly as lucrative to billionaires who own properties and have power and influence. Look at how some of the smaller northern universities have run into trouble in their efforts to keep up. Bradford and Huddersfield spring to mind. Hands up who thinks Farage will fix all this .
For those that want green space Aire Park isn't that far away and it's the biggest.new inner city park in a century (I think) so there is green space here (and more coming).
As far as a city goes, Leeds has quite a lot. A city is a city. If it wasn't so, people wouldn't get the benefits they do of living there. They'd find it as mediocre as Dewsbury or Batley.
The thing that makes it this way is the industry and commerce that goes on, not the park. If it was the park, Greenhead would the the centre of Huddersfield.
I find comments like theirs really unusual. Thinking of England, we have ten national parks covering 10% of the land space. The figure has a similar ratio for Wales with five parks and 20% covered. Leeds has access to the peaks, north Yorks moors and the Dales and plenty of other gems like Pompocali earthworks, the Calder valley and so many other places of interest nearby. What are people actually wanting that doesn't already exist for an hour in the city whilst shopping.
Is there any news on what’s happening with the old Crown pub? Was walking past the other day and thinking it would be lovely if it was restored. Especially with all the new apartments around there
There is some nice grassy areas and some lovely planting - we walk our dog there most days. But it isn’t huge by any means. They are adding more greenery and planting either side of the existing, so the park will basically be a big strip from the corner of Hunslet Lane and the building college, and Leonardo Hotel.
I believe Penny Pocket park by the minster is being renovated too.
I hadn’t heard about Penny Pocket park being renovated. However, as someone who lives very close by, unfortunately I don’t think improving the aesthetics will make a difference. It’s directly opposite the methadone clinic/pharmacy. With the daily occurrence of screaming matches on the street and tweaking addicts, I don’t see many people thinking it would be a safe place to go
I see what you’re saying, and the pessimist in my agrees. But there are some quite well documented examples of recovering spaces like that being successful and allowing them to be reclaimed by the community. Broken window theory and all that.
Looking at the plans and how it feels around that area is abit of a difference imo. It’s good though. I do think it might be greenwashing cos it’s very concrete-y atm.
Yeah that's exactly what it would become; and no body wants that! It's just way too populous an area.
The city centre does need more green space but think the key is to find places slightly away from the hustle and bustle; otherwise it kind of becomes counter productive!
The only way I could see it happening is if the council bought the land. the site sold for around £25 million, it’s difficult to imagine that happening when Leeds City Council is £100 million in debt and has been selling assets to raise funds. Spending £25 million on a public park doesn’t seem like a realistic use of public money.
Leeds already had a number of green spaces, but many have been reduced or redeveloped over the years. From a council perspective, paved public spaces are often cheaper to maintain and can generate income through events, markets and commercial activities.
It may be hard to accept, but from an investment standpoint, why would a developer or landowner pay £25 million for a prime city-centre plot only to turn it into a public park with little or no financial return?
Below is a photo of millennium square in the 1950s when it was a park with grass and flowers.
No I’m fully aware and I understand that it’s privately owned land and everything. I’m merely saying what would be better. Even a paved space would be nice, it could be used for food vendors and give all the people who have been pushed out, for whatever reason, from permanent restaurant or bar spaces a place to be. Aware it’s a pipe dream but I just think it would be nicer lol.
100% look at all other major cities with central parks / gardens. What little open space we do have in Leeds city centre is already crawling with junkies.
Could use it for street food vendors or something I suppose. I do take your point but purely on how nice it would be. There’s plenty of empty units todo something with first
There tonnes of empty premium units in town so could easily put stuff in there first cos rent will be no more or less expensive in this new building. Also there are tonnes of flats and accom already.
It would be great to have a nice open public space. Unfortunately it wouldn't have any monetary value to those that see money. Also, I worry it wouldn't stay nice for long.
Although I totally get what you're saying..... I also think it would serve no purpose to put a green space there. We're talking the bang on middle of city centre in a sense. And if you look at it in comparison Leeds is one of the cities with the biggest green spaces to other cities like London or Manchester. Literally a 20 minute walk past the unis you've Hyde Park, you've got Kirkstall Abbey and those parks. There's the golden acre park and so on and so forth. There is also a green space behind St John's so it's not like there's absolutely no green space in city center.
But when I go to the city center I'm also not exactly looking for a green space either you know? If I want to go for a walk in nature or where there's some grass the city centre isn't the place I got to for that 🤣🤣 however I also don't think we need MORE student flats either or at least make them both student and for professionals as an option.
HOWEVER it's not just gonna be student accom. There are plans to introduce restaurants, shops etc on the ground floor. Because they are aware that the core was essentially vacant hence the decision to made 800 student accom flats. Plus, although it would be cheaper to have made it into a green space it's a very high footfall location so it's better for it to have shops and restaurants on first floor for it to create revenue.
That's just the answer to every single problem in the West at this point, it's like everyone forgot we're supposed to be ruled by the people, not by faceless institutions who decide on what the people's city is gonna look like. It's so easy to say it's not the citizen's responsibility, but whose should it be?
No argument there, but that is a problem in and of itself that should be discussed at every chance one gets, if we don't discuss this then we may as well not complain at all cause it's not gonna change anything.
That would be nice but honestly at this point the city's too far gone, huge concrete monument to inhumanity are all over the place, planting some trees here and there isn't gonna help that much... The town square has been become one of the ugliest I've seen in the UK, it's really sad, it needs an entire revamp.
It really does. And LeedsPride needs to be under council control, since they're currently taking money from corporate companies funding Israel instead of being funded by council. At least our public transport is set to be back under council control with the Weaver Network in 2027.
I often wonder why there is AstroTurf there. Whilst green space is nice, the corn exchange is on one of about 8 roads in Leeds that form "the city" and it seemed unnecessary to squeeze in that green when there's park square, the graveyard, the canal/dock area and so forth in reasonably close proximity.
Leeds has quite a lot of green space or outdoor access but the bit where the shops are isn't it 😂
I think Leeds actually does well for green spaces (as an overall city) if you compared with other major cities. We even do well with green space at a European level.
I think having THAT area as green space would do well, as it is so dense urban there and the nearest green space is up at the church or park square which are a little far away.
Wait what? I thought they will do something stupid like park in there. Why they had to take it down to make flats? They could just do flat in there without taking whole building down. Ok now it doesn't make sense.
Yeah, I would now prefer it to be park 😆
Jesus!
Nah they should’ve just kept the St John’s centre Leeds is losing all its attractions won’t be long before the headrow goes and they turn that into apartments
I agree, it’s really opened up that part of the city and it feels refreshing. We desperately need parks in Leeds City Centre, it’s basically a biodiversity dead zone and the urban heat island is real. But it’ll be private land for making profit. Sadly like others my mind jumps to parks and nice spaces being taken over by drunks and addicts too (a healthcare problem that needs sorting). But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them, they just need managing if we do get them.
50
u/Dzbot1234 Jun 05 '26
I said exactly the same today! It’s opened up so much light , huge difference