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

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

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?

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

"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

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

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

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

"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

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