provide thousands of business premises, and be a hive of productive activi ty, perhaps with retail on the bottom floor, offices above, and relatively quiet light production further up. What idiot decided to demolish them inst ead.
faced with demolition, the tower block value is land value less demolition cost, making them cheap.
But obviously not cheap enough, would you want to work in such a place with asbestos. They could probbly make more money selling them to a film studetn thatr is looking to blow them up, or what if tehy charge people for watching them co me down.
If it was removed then it is now a fire risk as I doubt they spent the money puitting in the asbestos just for fun there must have been a reason for it being there.
ey could provide thousands of business premises, and be a hive of productiv e activity, perhaps with retail on the bottom floor, offices above, and rel atively quiet light production further up. What idiot decided to demolish t hem instead.
you're faced with demolition, the tower block value is land value less dem olition cost, making them cheap.
obviously they are
with or without asbestos, sure, why not? Loads of people live & work in suc h places. Once its a business park it wont be the local yobbo hangout for l ong.
Yes, I can see it now. Hundreds of people arriving in the morning to use the non-functioning lifts to get to their 10th storey offices. And no service lifts. Just fine for getting your photocopier up to the 8th floor.
provide thousands of business premises, and be a hive of productive activi ty, perhaps with retail on the bottom floor, offices above, and relatively quiet light production further up. What idiot decided to demolish them inst ead.
ll to run, and are attractive to people on low incomes.
know what opportunities exist, and can afford very little in the way of st artup costs.
Failures happen. So do successes. What's new.
loyed to promote the scheme in various ways, including presenting business ideas and open business basics teaching sessions, could attract many lookin g to get out of poorness to the area.
New builds are too expensive for people with little money. Rent too high, c orresponding rates, a long term large commitment and upfront deposit. If yo u've found yourself on benefits its just not doable.
£25 a week ex-flats with no commitment would be very accessible.
s for the benefit of a great many people - businesses, ratepayers, and peop le in the area.
Glasgow has housing :)
Outdated ex-flats are unsuited to some commerce, and fine for some.
Current industrial units are far too expensive for the low end of the marke t, and too little marketed. Imagine:
- £25 a week ex-flats = £100,000 a week (if/when full) = 5m a year
- no commitment deal, if the tenant doesnt pay that week the door's secured
1 person employed full time to:
- advertise whats available at local jobcentres
- offer a free business course once or twice a week
I bet that would bring in a lot of people that arent out there now looking for business premises. Lots of people have some kind of skill of financial value, but dont know how to get out there & make it work.
The building can also be used for related things such as storage.
'Modern specs' have been defined on a whim (within the ridiculously vague 'Decent Homes' PSA), and used as an excuse to demolish a good many decent homes. Quite why an excuse was needed might not be known - maybe the inconvenience of poor people, hassle for councillors, embarrassment to 'high performing' councils. Or maybe the land could be put to a better use.
Islington, Hackney and Newham that I know about. Doubtless other examples exist.
Were I development officer for new businesses in Glasgow, I would want to encourage the ones that are likely to succeed, not those with a high probability of failure.
The longest commitment I have had to make for an office was six months. If they don't think the business is going to last that long, they really shouldn't even be considering the idea.
One month's rent.
That is probably good. Under capitalisation is another significant factor in business failures.
I pay £160 a month + £650 pa rates for an office that will just about hold two people. How much larger is a converted flat going to be? I would say that the pokiest flat would have to be at least four times the area, so rates will be at least £2600 pa, probably more. They would be better off renting an office at what I'm paying.
Not necessarily in the right place to serve the thousands of offices you envisage.
Modern properties would suit them all.
Nothing to stop the Corporation offering similar deals with new, purpose built, properties.
How would getting affordable accommodation give them the expertise needed to make the business work?
The floors will have been built for domestic loadings of 1.5kN/m^2. Offices should be 2.5kN/m^2. Both warehousing and industrial uses require even higher loads, some a lot higher.
ld provide thousands of business premises, and be a hive of productive acti vity, perhaps with retail on the bottom floor, offices above, and relativel y quiet light production further up. What idiot decided to demolish them in stead.
kill to run, and are attractive to people on low incomes.
nt know what opportunities exist, and can afford very little in the way of startup costs.
probability depends on the business idea.
mployed to promote the scheme in various ways, including presenting busines s ideas and open business basics teaching sessions, could attract many look ing to get out of poorness to the area.
h, corresponding rates, a long term large commitment
Its common to ask for long term commitments and large upfront deposits
clearly that isnt the point. No commitment removes much of the financial ri sk for people that couldnt afford it.
There are still many plans needing little in the way of funding
rates are proportional to property value, which is proportional to rent & o ccupancy. If its declared unfit for housing, moving it to commercial gives it a lower RV.
cks for the benefit of a great many people - businesses, ratepayers, and pe ople in the area.
598,000 in Glagow, 1.2 million in the greater glasgow urban area.
arket, and too little marketed. Imagine:
Other than cost. New builds are never going to come in at £25pw, and no-o ne would fund their development in the circumstances.
ing for business premises. Lots of people have some kind of skill of financ ial value, but dont know how to get out there & make it work.
The deal includes 1 full time staff member that offers business skills sess ions.
So good for some things, not good for some. Its a waste of a big resource.
Aircraft crash, that's why large buildings are designed to survive long enough to evacuate and nuclear power stations have such thick containment vessels or at least they are in the UK.
However there appear to have been heavier aircraft before the 707 was launched such as Convair B-36 Peacemaker and, possibly, B52s. All depends on which variant and exact dates, of course! (In terms of maximum take off weight - and if you need to protect a building you can't assume that the crash will occur at the end of a long flight.)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.