Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Spoke to Hindwoods this morning as a board went up on the corner unit of the above development. White Stuff have a head lease on all three units and are to off the corner unit on a sub lease. For those interested the asking price is ?32,500 pa and premium offers invited (cheeky buggers, for a shell). About 500 sq ft retail A1 use only to established businesses, no start ups.

So I'm afraid its a non starter for Thomas's veggie cafe.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/893-white-stuffagain-unit-available/
Share on other sites

> ?32,500 pa and premium offers invited

> About 500 sq ft retail

> A1


Interesting.


This would bring the fixed costs (before employing staff and variable overheads such as electricty) up to about ?41,000 pa requiring a gross profit of ?82 per square foot pa just to meet the fixed costs.


What type of A1 retail business might take this lease?

I think one of the reasons for taking a head lease on all three units is to ensure they control the type of "neighbour" they get. i.e. no competition. I noticed from another source they are looking for 2 shop managers, one for Dulwich @ ?18k & one for their new Spittlefields store @ ?25k.

To answer Macroban's question?... a high yielding non sports type clothing, non food, established business?or an estate agent??

This is a real turning point.


On the basis of the figs supplied the rent looks to be ?65 a foot ITZA.


That's double the footage price on available units when I did some sampling a couple of months ago.


If these guys ramp the local footage price [which adds value to their superior lease] then any of the smaller shops due for a review soon should start keeping their cash under the bed.


Basically if someone signs at that price, LL will turn into Hammersmith King Street.


Ultraconsultancy

But as discussed there aren't MANY premises big enough to attract that many big chains? The whole is ED about to be flooded by chains and is it a good thing or bad thing has been discussed on here many a time since the White Stuff rumours started (months ago now)


But it is definitely a bad thing if none of us entrepreneurs can compete with the current rents

Isn't there some way to preserve a mix of new chains and existing businesses? I was reading about a scheme in Hatton Garden which has preserved the traditional character of the area by preventing the small businesses being priced out... could we get Southwark to do this here?

an lengthy article in The Standard last year lamented the departure of the last real bespoke tailor in savile row.


in the interests of journalistic balance it offered some examples of famous trading areas of London that were doing well.


one of those cited was hatton gardens, but another was charing cross road. if any of you have been to CXR recently you may have noticed the decline and death of the worlds most famous bookselling street. if you could take your eyes off the pavement pizzas. all priced out by coffee bars and lager barns.


the problem with ramping rents isn't so much that it brings the big guys in; the problem is it removes the communities ability to choose to keep them out.


incidentally it seems there is quite a spate of large businesses dressing themselves up as cooler, smaller, shops. i thought brixton ritzy was a collective until one of their striking protesters told me it is owned by a big company that pays min wage to its [generally] hard working staff.


UC

What tends to happen is, and in IMHO, this could happen on LL, a major property company buys up blocks of shops and starts to double up adjoining units to attract chains, (Cafe Nero, White Stuff) then once it has its mix of cash rich tenants puts the squeeze on in the form of rent reviews. When a start up or small trader comes along he is thwarted at the first hurdle as a bad risk to those rent hikes.

A classic case is Covent Garden. Seven Dials and Neal St are mostly owned by The Shaftesbury Estate Co. try approaching them for a unit there and if you're not a fashion chain forget it!

It's the classic "gentrification" pattern... independant traders, and those working in media and arts move into a reasonably priced area. More affluent residents follow because they aspire to the "bohemian" environment which has sprung up... expensive housing follows, chain stores show interest, landlords decide to cash in.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...