kite Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 thats a short sighted way to think cret. Just because somewhere aint your cup of tea is no reason to not give a stuff that we are being shafted yet again. Your right Ripsaw, a condition of the go ahead should have been that the ground floor was still zoned for leisure facilites. its not only the venue but the cresent provides a place where many youngsters of just under pub age hang out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minxie Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I can sort of see why they made it all residential. Would you want to live above a nightclub, I can imagine there would be a fair amount of noise on a Friday & Saturday night. Plenty of people will still go to Colours and then stumble up the prom to Paramount so they won't be too worried I shouldn't think. Hey maybe the Venue could take over Summerland,do something with it and set up a new massive multi level nightclub there (well we can dream can't we). Edited to add, as people were talking about old places such as the Lido, does anybody here remember the MGM Disco. I only went a couple of times as it closed pretty soon after I discovered alcohol but that had a fully sprung dance floor didn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Yeah, I doubt they'd be able to market seafront appartments with much success if there was a nightclub underneath them (unless of course, they were targetted at the young professional market). Then again, they'd have to make the club for that market too. I like the idea of putting a multi-level nightclub on the Summerland plot though. I went to a place on the Isle of Wight the last time I was there and that was a multi-level complex with a proper bowling alley and kids area on the ground floor, an eating area on the next and a nightclub on the top level. Tried all three levels, all were busy. That was in March too so off season for the tourists. Okay, it has a larger population than over here but size wise, not much bigger than the Isle of Man and the town it was in was comparable to Douglas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Is there really a demand for 164 more flats? Flats are a pain in the neck if you own one. Especially the locally built / converted flats. Almost invariably, on completion, the freehold of these buildings will be transferred over to private (leaseholder owned) management companies. So the leaseholders also own a share of the company which owns the freehold. A good idea on paper - but not often in practice. The developers will have walked away. These leaseholder owned management companies only work when everyone is in agreement. They depend upon reliable owners being prepared to put considerable time and effort into ensuring that maintenance fees and service charges are collected - and that essential maintenance is carried out. They also depend upon the owners having enough knowledge to act, legally, as company directors. So - at least one of the owners will need to have a good knowledge of companies and the responsibilities of companies. These companies ultimately depend on the responsible owners being prepared to take court action if needed (as the company) against their lazy or non paying neighbours, for the collection of charges. And (as the commonly owned company) to charge their neighbours for the legal costs. Then imagine the arguments with your neighbours when the fees need to be increased - or extra funds have to be raised for essential works. Especially if, after a few years, the fees have remained unrealistically low - and there is not enough money. Experience teaches me that shared - ownership companies (which own the freehold of a building) are often a very bad idea. Flats work when they are run by for - profit companies which set standards, or are managed by local authorities. Or when the company has a known history of being run very tightly. It isn't always a good idea to own a share of the freehold. And never buy into a building with low maintenance / service fees; it's a false promise. Find out what it is likely to cost to run a building - the roof will need regular maintenance and the building will need painting, inside and out, every few years. Scaffolding costs can be huge. Don't buy a flat because it seems nice, and cheap, at the moment. I once made all of the above mistakes because I didn't know any better. I had to spend the best part of a year (together with another bloke who had bought into the building at the same time) sorting out a management company which had stagnated because exisiting leaseholders (who also owned the company) had allowed it to fall into a state of having almost no money to spend. Imagine, for example, the problems when a person in the basement says that they won't pay for the lift or roof to be maintained. And you have to explain, to an idiot neighbour, that the value of all of the flats depends upon the building, in general, being in good order. IMO - the future management of the freehold should be a matter for the planning authorities. It isn't enough to build or convert a block and then expect it to be well managed after transfer to common ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I had a flat at Admirals Court for 17 months. Didn't much like the idea of management fees on top of rates and everything else. Still, made a nice tidy profit out of it so I can't complain (though the neighbours did, frequently about my music/movies). I'd never live in a flat again through choice, much better to have your own independant property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Educa Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Who is going to buy all these apartments.....they have just finished the block at Rendezvous corner (think these were built by auldyn), and there are others just finished on the prom too...by hertitage, yet to be sold - plus those up on onchan head.... Everytime I speak to local traders (small time joiners, plumbers, builders suppliers etc), they tell you they are so quiet, with hardy any work to do - is there some huge increase in finance industry expected, which will fill these apartments..or should we brace ourselves for IOM shortfall in public housing (due to exhorbetent costs for first time buyers) ..being resolved by DHSS usage of apartments...!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Mission - am I right in thinking that Admirals Court, though one building, is divided into 5 or 6 leaseholder managed blocks? With individual, leaseholder owned, management companies? I see that significant sections of the roof of the building, west facing, are currently missing tiles and ridge tiles - on at least two of those blocks. (It's a Monarch roof IIRC ???) The point about management / service fees is that you are paying for the up keep of the building. The prompt repair of such damage will, almost certainly, be the responsibility of a leaseholder who has taken on responsibility for ensuring that such matters are promptly rectified. You've got to expect fees on top of rates if you want the building to be maintained - so the lift works, the common areas (and the building) are painted, there are bulbs in the light sockets etc etc. It's a pain in the neck having to know what to do. Much better to live in a managed - for - profit block. You did well to make a profit on those flats. They would certainly be a much longer term investment / risk these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Simon, AFAIK, there were 5 phases in all, phases 1 & 2 are under one management company, I think phase 3 is under another and phases 4 & 5 another. I may be wrong on this though. I was in phase 4. At the time, it was all I could afford and it served its purpose. Not very large though and very little built in storage. I can't say I had any problems with the build quality of the place either but then I wasn't there that long and they were (relatively) new at the time. No problem selling it either and I think I must have hit the sweet spot regarding prices. I could probably have waited a little longer and hit the 100k mark but I really wanted to move up the ladder and I'd have paid more for what I currently have anyway so not a bad move as far as I'm concerned. To my mind, the charges were too steep for what actually got done to the building. I appreciate that these buildings don't maintain themselves but I personally felt the charges were too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 The white part of the Crescent building is rather nice, it would be a shame for stinky Dandara to tear down more nice buildings, only to replace them with more hideously dull flats (still sore over the Majestics 'spookily similar to the New Dynastys' firey demise). All this talk of luxury apartments makes me giggle - where is the luxury? could you fit a piano into one of these luxury apartments? would your neighbours appreciate 'the childrens music practice? and where are the children supposed to play? The ghettos of tomorrow, a real good investment............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 The white bit's staying. It's registered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blixo Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Who is going to buy all these apartments.....they have just finished the block at Rendezvous corner (think these were built by auldyn), and there are others just finished on the prom too...by hertitage, yet to be sold - plus those up on onchan head.... Everytime I speak to local traders (small time joiners, plumbers, builders suppliers etc), they tell you they are so quiet, with hardy any work to do - is there some huge increase in finance industry expected, which will fill these apartments..or should we brace ourselves for IOM shortfall in public housing (due to exhorbetent costs for first time buyers) ..being resolved by DHSS usage of apartments...!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe the answer lies with the Tories? Haven't they got plans to do some "offshore" development?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Maybe the answer lies with the Tories? Haven't they got plans to do some "offshore" development?? No. They haven't. They never backed up their ideas for housing illegals off shore. It was mad conference nonsense which they quickly stepped away from. Though it might have been good business for the IOM! The ghettos of tomorrow, a real good investment I agree. They're building the half occupied slums of the future. We have more than enough property already. One really depressing thing about the IOM is the poor quality, and total lack of style, of the properties for which planning pemission is still granted. Those no - style houses and blocks with fake chimneys. And the office buildings with silly, obviously fibre glass, mish - mash features - domes, turrets and arches. The total lack of architectural style - because the buildings are designed to be cheap and to have no future. It's all very simple. There is already too much property to meet foreseeable demand. Any further building of flats and estate houses will simply reduce, longer term, the price of flats and estate houses. Because the demand no longer exists. But the developers can still afford to build - because they can afford to sell, making a profit, at very much lower than current prices. Because it doesn't cost so much to build en masse. Beyond buildings costs - the prices paid are arbitrary. It still doesn't cost significantly more, to build, than it did in 1999. I've got mixed opinions. I welcome affordable housing. But feel sorry for anyone who bought post, say, 1999 and is stuck with a mortgage on an unattractive property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I had a flat at Admirals Court for 17 months. Didn't much like the idea of management fees on top of rates and everything else. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm currently living in one, I can't really offer an informed opinion on service charges etc as it isn't me that pays them. Feels rather pokey living in a flat when you're used to living in a house, I'll get used to it!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 The white bit's staying. It's registered. So was the Majestic! Up in a cloud of smoke, I think they should have re-built the Majestic, surely the master craftsmen of today could follow the plans. Like I said earlier Spookily similar to the recent accident at the New Dynasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 The ghettos of tomorrow, a real good investment............ Aye. I really didn't think this would get the go ahead. The prom should be a place where people can go to do things. Dandara housing estates are bad enough, but now the prom's going to be a soul-less clone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.