Company Tax and Economic Growth

Bantex_2

Generali wrote: »

Always seeing the negative.

Not really, just saying that Docklands was never really a new trading area, just an expansion of The City.

Generali

Bantex wrote: »

Not really, just saying that Docklands was never really a new trading area, just an expansion of The City.

I disagree.

Docklands was a very different area to The City, especially in the early 80s when the project began. They aren't linked geographically. They aren't linked historically. They aren't really linked historically except rather indirectly via trade which drove both The City and The Docks.

Bantex_2

Generali wrote: »

I disagree.

Docklands was a very different area to The City, especially in the early 80s when the project began. They aren't linked geographically. They aren't linked historically. They aren't really linked historically except rather indirectly via trade which drove both The City and The Docks.

It is a 10 minute trip geographically. True they are not linked historically, but that could be due to the fact that none of the history of Docklands is there any more.

Interestingly the Canary Wharf project went bust before it was finished.

Generali

Bantex wrote: »

It is a 10 minute trip geographically. True they are not linked historically, but that could be due to the fact that none of the history of Docklands is there any more.

The history of Docklands lives on through the names and the geography. Mudchute for example (where the mud from the excavated docks was dumped) and the physical existence of the docks themselves.

Bantex wrote: »

Interestingly the Canary Wharf project went bust before it was finished.

Yes it did.

As happens with capitalism, the assets weren't ploughed back into the soil. They were bought from the creditors and have subsequently become a highly successful business.

Bantex_2

Generali wrote: »

The history of Docklands lives on through the names and the geography. Mudchute for example (where the mud from the excavated docks was dumped) and the physical existence of the docks themselves.



Yes it did.

As happens with capitalism, the assets weren't ploughed back into the soil. They were bought from the creditors and have subsequently become a highly successful business.

I agree with you and the Museum of London is facinating. But I see no comparison with Docklands and enterprise zones in Kent or Wales. In time Canary Wharf could not fail due to the massive success of the City and it's need for more office space.

chewmylegoff

BillJones wrote: »

I'm not really sure what's "ironic" about that. It was deprived, it was granted special status, the benefits offered worked, and the area took off.

I've lived there since before it was a success, and still live there now, and think that it's a brilliant example of an enterprise zone doing what it was supposed to.

Takes a lot more than just an enterprise zone to make something like Canary Wharf work though. It probably had an impact on whether any offices were ever built there at all, but if it wasn't within striking distance of the city and accessible to workers living in most of London, it would still be the big far white elephant that it looked like it was probably going to turn out to be for a long time. My understanding is that many of the corporate tenants moved there because it was directly competing with the City on price per square foot of office space.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the development on the Olympic Park site (which is attempting to aggressively attract businesses with low rental prices) and whether that is a bit too far out.

Zoning a lump of the North as enterprise and hoping that some industry appears out of thin air is another matter entirely and it will take a lot more than some limited tax incentives that to encourage major employers to relocate.

princeofpounds

In terms of Kent, Discovery Park is a Kent EZ, it's based on the former Pfizer site, which certainly brings it into the current news. The local government is trying (as at March 2014) to get an extension to the EZ to bring in Manston airport, which may also be a good idea:

One of my pet hates is government 'schemes', which is a word for a token effort to solve a deep-seated structural problem through badly-run, overly-bureaucratic, ad-hoc and patchy policy measures.

having 'enterprise zones' that cover one business park and a lame airfield are exactly this sort of thing. I suspect you will fine that 99.9% of Kentish enterprise has nothing to do with this site.

structural solutions are much better, and that means real changes across whole regions.

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

One of my pet hates is government 'schemes', which is a word for a token effort to solve a deep-seated structural problem through badly-run, overly-bureaucratic, ad-hoc and patchy policy measures.

having 'enterprise zones' that cover one business park and a lame airfield are exactly this sort of thing. I suspect you will fine that 99.9% of Kentish enterprise has nothing to do with this site.

structural solutions are much better, and that means real changes across whole regions.

as a matter of interest what exactly are 'structural solutions'?

princeofpounds

as a matter of interest what exactly are 'structural solutions'?

depends on the problem!

I wasn't saying that structural solutions are easy to find, or that I know what they are. Just that I dislike token 'scheme-ism'.

In this particular case, boosting enterprise in Kent, I wouldn't be wasting time on a small airfield. Something that would be much more effective and more structural could be:

- easing planning policy (no, I don't mean building more houses in this instance, I mean make it easier to build or modify industrial and commercial facilities).
- cutting business rates drastically (huge boost for SME business)
- improve key infrastructure (probably links to London most valuable, not sure what else Kent needs)
- eliminate stamp duty in the region
- institute something similar to business premises renovation allowance county-wide

The point is that all these things are material and systematic.

vivatifosi

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Takes a lot more than just an enterprise zone to make something like Canary Wharf work though. It probably had an impact on whether any offices were ever built there at all, but if it wasn't within striking distance of the city and accessible to workers living in most of London, it would still be the big far white elephant that it looked like it was probably going to turn out to be for a long time. My understanding is that many of the corporate tenants moved there because it was directly competing with the City on price per square foot of office space.

Apologies for shortening your post chewy, but it's this bit I want to focus on.

A lot was happening at the same time.
1) Big Bang and deregulation of the City (1986) - every major bank in the world was looking for pretty big offices.
2) Little Bangs and the deregulation of services (c1988), growth in this sector lead to increased competition for offices in the City.
3) Lack of offices with large floor plates for trading floors in the City (though Broadgate was built for this reason)
4) Shortage of decent sized available space in the City unless companies were willing to wait for a pre-let. The city wasn't as vertical as it is now.
5) Shortage of suitable buildings - the new big banks needed far more cabling than could be retrofitted in some of the older buildings, with or without the need for the big open floor plates.
6) Development of the DLR, meaning that people could finally get there.
7) Growth of the international tech sector - many of which wanted an office in London but didn't want to pay the higher prices of the City and West End.
8) Dedicated support via the London Docklands Development Corporation which promoted the area in a way that was far above that of current EZs.

It wasn't all a success though. Canary Wharf's original developer, Olympia and York, went bankrupt in the process as markets took a dowwnturn here and in NY (where O&Y had other business interests), leaving empty floors. This also had a knock on effect on the extension of the Jubilee line, which has played a major part in opening up Docklands.

There was probably other stuff going on that I've forgotten about too... But you're right. The world's biggest office project (at the time) didn't fill up in one go.