The Cookshop on Lordship Lane is closing down

[beesiler]

The Cookshop on Lordship Lane - Green Cuisine - is closing down - the sign in the window says by 5th March latest. They are having a big sale with huge discounts off everything.

[DuncanW]

that's a shame

they have a really good selection in there

[Earl Aelfheah]

They are/were very expensive though.

[nxjen]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They are/were very expensive though.

Oh yes, I didn't go in there again after seeing an identical bowl to the one I had bought a couple of days before at Sainsbury's for ?3 for sale in Green's for ?18.99.

[Otto2]

Yay!

[Dog duck]

Start playing the game of 'what's going to replace it', perhaps?

[toto]

Dog duck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Start playing the game of 'what's going to replace

> it', perhaps?

Fish and Chips please

[Angelina]

Curry house. Costa coffee. Subway. Iceland. Waitrose.

Not that I'm predicting anyone mention any of the above, but.....

[LJC56]

They are going because of a huge rent hike. So even if this shop isn't your thing (I will miss it personally) then it could be one you like going next, if this pattern continues.

In relation to what replaces it, the council are allowed to limit the different types of stall in the market so there is not too much of the same thing, but seem not to be able to do so for the main shopping streets.

[Sue]

I am sorry to see it go,but it was indeed very expensive.

[jaywalker]

The rent hikes are a serious concern. It absolutely hammers useful specialist independent shops like these who were making a modest but viable return before the hike.

With the housing market cooling rapidly we may also see amalgamation of estate agents (as we saw already with banks for different reasons).

I wonder if this might mark a watershed in the fortune of Lordship Lane (visions of the Threshers site I fear). ED used to be quite a poor part of London: there is no guarantee it will not return to that if both central and local government are not more careful with their policies.

[Mellors]

I'd have thought that the Business Rate revaluation taking place on 1st April this year will have a massive impact on local independent retailers ability to continue operating, even without rent increases.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't get how rents on the Lane keep going up so steeply. Has there been a significant increase in footfall / demand?

[worldwiser]

Since the leases were last renewed, undoubtedly. They probably signed their last lease many years ago and it's just come up for renewal to be greeted with a landlord eagerly rubbing his hands.

[KidKruger]

"ED used to be quite a poor part of London: there is no guarantee it will not return to that..."

any such change would hit London in general I expect - which is a horrible prospect.

[immyp]

Quaint & Belle on Bellenden Road are also closing down and having a huge sale..

[nxjen]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wonder if this might mark a watershed in the

> fortune of Lordship Lane (visions of the Threshers

> site I fear). ED used to be quite a poor part of

> London: there is no guarantee it will not return

> to that if both central and local government are

> not more careful with their policies.

Threshers has remained empty for a long time because the owner only wants to lease it to an off license - there is a thread somewhere on EDF. Saying East Dulwich was a poor part of London is misleading: certainly it was primarily working / lower middle class, developed with office clerks working in the centre of London in mind. While mainly residents may not have had a lot of money, the area was not "poor" in the sense of "deprived".

ETA I read a couple of days ago that one of the reasons Dulwich Estate gave over land to form Dulwich Park was to form a barrier against the newly emerging East Dulwich and keep the hoi polloi out of Dulwich Village.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Ed was build, as you say, for office clerks / city workers. Back in victorian time, It would have been considered a middle class area. Not as posh as Peckham, but 'respectable'.

[KidKruger]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wonder if this might mark a watershed in the

> fortune of Lordship Lane (visions of the Threshers

> site I fear). ED used to be quite a poor part of

> London: there is no guarantee it will not return

> to that if both central and local government are

> not more careful with their policies.

Threshers has remained empty for a long time because the owner only wants to lease it to an off license - there is a thread somewhere on EDF. Saying East Dulwich was a poor part of London is misleading: certainly it was primarily working / lower middle class, developed with office clerks working in the centre of London in mind. While mainly residents may not have had a lot of money, the area was not "poor" in the sense of "deprived".

ETA I read a couple of days ago that one of the reasons Dulwich Estate gave over land to form Dulwich Park was to form a barrier against the newly emerging East Dulwich and keep the hoi polloi out of Dulwich Village.

===================

nxjen - I think that's why Jaywalker used the expression "QUITE a poor area" !!

By London standards it was never slums, but 25yrs ago it was a million miles from where it is today.

[????]

>

> nxjen - I think that's why Jaywalker used the

> expression "QUITE a poor area" !!

> By London standards it was never slums, but 25yrs

> ago it was a million miles from where it is today.

...together with, Hackney, Hoxton, Mile End, Whitechapel, Tooting, Acton, Queens Park, Fulham, Shepherds Bush, Battersea, Clapham North, Brixton, etc etc etc etc etc

[nxjen]

The East Dulwich of today has little bearing on whether the area was considered poor, or quite poor, 25 years ago relative to the standards of the time. There was a fair proportion of owner occupiers. Inexpensive perhaps.

[jaywalker]

I have the Booth map on my wall. At the end of the C19th ED was relatively prosperous. You can see this both from how nice some of the semi-detached houses are (especially when they've been cleaned) and also from the tendency of developers to start packing houses really close together (especially on the East side of LL) to profit from the relative prosperity.

My 'quite poor' comment referred to what happened after WW2. There was I believe a significant downturn in the relative incomes of people here, with properties not maintained and so on. Isn't it really only in the last 15 years or so that ED became so prosperous? I have in mind things like RELATIVE house prices, kind of shop, and so on.

[Penguin68]

We moved to ED 28 years ago - in those days LL was quite run down, with at least 2 shops selling second hand prams etc. And house prices were 'realistic'. I would agree that it is in the last 15-20 years that the range and type of shop etc. has become gentrified and high(er) end. Like so many areas of London is has been on a roller coaster - currently either still coming up or possibly peaking. The varied quality (and size) of houses bears testimony to that. The fact that it is surrounded by, and embedded with, green spaces suggests that it at least started high.

[dbboy]

Landlords want to maximise the return on their investment so they continually increase the rent shop owners pay and when a business can no longer afford the rent it sadly has a choice to cease trading so it does not incur a loss or try's to continue with the likelihood of running at a loss and going into debt at which point it makes no sense to continue running the business. As shoppers we lose out but the landlord waits for the next business who can afford the rent and so the circle starts all over again.