losing Icelands

[Seabag]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Well you don't have to, some if us choose to.

:)

I suppose so, but....urg!

[Zebedee Tring]

Iceland Deep Pan Doner Kebab Pizza - now down from ?1.00 to 89p. Yummy! Please don't tell me we won't be able to buy such delicacies in ED in the future:

http://groceries.iceland.co.uk/iceland-deep-pan-doner-kebab-pizza-432g/p/50772

[Louisa]

Putting the M&S/Iceland development debacle aside for a moment, my memories of Iceland/Bejam and knowing all the friendly staff past and present going back for many years, it's very sad we will lose this local institution. Yes we can get deliveries and the Peckham store is nearby (not that anyone would want to visit it), but it's about more than that. As a local you get to know people in these places if you're a regular. I'm hopeful the future development will take on some of the staff from Iceland, would be sad if they didn't.

Louisa.

[Alan Medic]

My favourite reason for visiting Iceland is their spicy bean veggie burgers. The staff are always polite and friendly too.

[KidKruger]

I did see bags of frozen sliced doner meat, that did make me feel nauseous as usually frozen meals are a pale comparison to the real thing, but a proper doner to start with is already pretty dire (though I so eat em).

[Otta]

For every household that ios over the moon with an M&S opening, there will be a family that is gutted about the loss of a shop were they can actually afford to shop. I think it's very sad.

The person that wrote the OP may be out of line for saying they're someone that they probably aren't (not sure that makes them a cunt), but I agree with the gist of their post.

[James]

The cost of the weekly shop as a percentage of average income has plummeted since the 1950s. The low prices people now demand are putting our farmers into hardship and lead to low nutritional standards, obesity and inhumane meat production methods and/or quality issues. Remember the horse meat scandal?

The truth is that those who claim they can only afford the cheapest, nastiest food are almost always prioritising other things.

Like the woman I once saw in Iceland with an iPhone 5 in one hand and a pack of battery eggs in the other. No doubt this woman would shudder at the thought of paying ?2.50 (the price of one coffee!) for six organic eggs.

M&S are not saints but I for one welcome them here. And I will not shed a tear at the lack of turkey twizzlers on the shelves. This is not snobbery. It's common sense.

[KidKruger]

what M&S don't sell twizzlers ?

Gulp..

[Nigello]

James,

I agree with you up to a point. There are plenty of non smartphone-owning OAPs who use Iceland: it's them I fear for, not the people you are talking about.

I like shopping at Iceland: the service is good, basics are cheap and good value and it does provide a different kind of "shopping experience". Lots of people bang on about diversity these days; it ought to apply to the choice of grocery shops too!

[Otta]

James Wrote:

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

> The truth is that those who claim they can only

> afford the cheapest, nastiest food are almost

> always prioritising other things.

As Nigello has already pointed out, that is at best a partial truth. Plenty of people use that shop who don't have smartphones, don't buy ?2.50 coffees, and don't buy the real processed crap. But rather they use it for items which are substantially cheaper there than in many other places.

My mum (gawd bless 'er) is by a mile the most thrifty person I have ever known (if only I'd inherited this), managing on a very tight budget, and people like her will miss the shop.

For a lot of poeple it's great that M&S is coming, and that's all good. I just object to the suggestion that anyone who uses Iceland lives on processed frozen muck.

[James]

Agree Nigello, the OAPs are the ones who I sympathise with. But I guess this whole debate has been going on forever (it certainly feels like it if you read this forum).

Gentrification is nothing new. The patchwork of London has been in flux for decades. My late mother remembered when Peckham really was posh (and I'm talking Rye lane)! When I grew up, Bromley was desirable and East Dulwich anything but. How things change.

[LondonMix]

Is anyone really losing out? Iceland delivers, and certainly that's even more convenient for OAPs who rely on their goods. I really struggle to believe that argument that the loss of Iceland is going to through swathes of people onto the breadline as is being suggested by this post.

Since when is a freeholder changing tenants a political issue. Shops change hands and decide or not if it still makes sense to operate in a specific location all the time.

[Louisa]

Just to remind you James Iceland were in no way involved in the recent horse meat scandal and were given a clean bill of health. They not only keep prices low on their own brand products but also on the branded goods too, of which they sell many. They also sell GM free products and a wide choice of free range foods. As Nigello rightly points out, pensioners use the store for convenience alongside good value, they've also come to trust the store because of the friendly staff who almost become friends to them. Using the iPhone example to illustrate a point about prioritising a shopping budget for a 'typical Iceland shopper' is snobbery, it's a mass generalisation once again stereotyping working class people as being ignorant w@nkers who do not understand food. Why should anyone on a budget be branded stupid because they choose to spend less on food and look for bargains?

Louisa.

[Otta]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Is anyone really losing out? Iceland delivers,

> and certainly that's even more convenient for OAPs

> who rely on their goods.

If they have a computer and the savvy to actually order.

[PokerTime]

'The truth is that those who claim they can only afford the cheapest, nastiest food are almost always prioritising other things.'

Phones are a poor example as contract deals including the handset are the cheapest way to have a phone now. Many people no longer have landlines because of the comparative high cost. Or are you suggesting the poor should not have a phone at all, and be completely cut off from any kind of communication?

The problem with the Rye Lane Iceland is the size of the premises. The Lordship Lane one is bigger. Yes shops come and go as market forces change and Rye Lane is not that far away, really it isn't. But equally, the assumption that gentrification means the the poorest should be stripped of all local amenities is wrong.

[LondonMix]

Well if you mean OAP like 65, that is probably the case. If you mean OAP like 90, its unlikely they are out and about doing their own shopping. Of course, there are bound to be a few exceptions but realistically, how many poor, computer illiterate OAP, that are physically fit and doing their own shopping can there be that will genuinely be massively disadvantaged by this change?

You can?t force a freeholder to lease a shop to one store instead of another.

[Penguin68]

Otta wrote:-

For every household that ios over the moon with an M&S opening, there will be a family that is gutted about the loss of a shop were they can actually afford to shop. I think it's very sad.

Ignoring the hyperbole, I suspect that the local demographic has actually tipped from Iceland to M&S - hence the changeover... Of course there will be those who greatly regret the loss of Iceland - but they are probably now outnumbered by those who will welcome M&S. Iceland would have stayed where it was(I suspect) if its market in LL was still as strong as in the past - the fact that it seems willing to move suggests that its forecast income from an enlarged site was not sufficient to justify higher rentals.

The fact (if it is actually a fact) that M&S is moving in and Iceland moving out is a reflection of economic reality and that a function of both changed business pricing structures and changed population in ED.

Over time I also suspect that the Iceland offer (at its end of the market) is being trumped by Lidl and Aldi.

What this does mean is that choice for some in ED will be restricted - and that Iceland's absence, for some, will be a real loss. But those numbers will be less (and increasingly so) than those who think they will benefit from a small ED M&S.

[Jessie]

I see your point, LondonMix, but I do know local older people, in their 70s and 80s, who are mobile but not at all computer literate and who are very sad about losing this shop.

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Well if you mean OAP like 65, that is probably the

> case. If you mean OAP like 90, its unlikely they

> are out and about doing their own shopping. Of

> course, there are bound to be a few exceptions but

> realistically, how many poor, computer illiterate

> OAP, that are physically fit and doing their own

> shopping can there be that will genuinely be

> massively disadvantaged by this change?

>

> You can?t force a freeholder to lease a shop to

> one store instead of another.

[LondonMix]

I don't doubt it and that is sad. I hope that it doesn't present them with a real economic hardship and it might be worth finding out if Iceland will take phone orders for delivery. I find Rye lane is quite reasonable for fruit and veg as well as other basics. If they are mobile, hopefully, heading to Rye lane won't be too much of burden.

[DaveR]

"Ignoring the hyperbole, I suspect that the local demographic has actually tipped from Iceland to M&S - hence the changeover.......What this does mean is that choice for some in ED will be restricted - and that Iceland's absence, for some, will be a real loss. But those numbers will be less (and increasingly so) than those who think they will benefit from a small ED M&S."

The first bit must be true in purely financial terms (M&S can only outbid Iceland on the lease if they can bank on making more money) but I'm much less sure about the second part.

I've noted before that gentrification has an effect on the profile of local businesses that is massively disproportionate to the numbers of people involved - to put it bluntly, a family spending a million plus on a house are likely to have a load more disposable income than any number of long time local families on low incomes. Businesses that cater to the tastes of the (comparatively) wealthy will prosper and attract other, similar offerings, and potentially drive out even established businesses that may have lower turnover and lower margins. Successful independents attract upmarket chains, etc. etc. The demographic 'tipping point' comes way before high-spending incomers are actually in the majority.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of people in ED would prefer Iceland over M&S (and The Castle over The Palmerston, AJ Farmer over Oliver Bonas, and anything over Foxtons), even if I'm not one of them (at least as far as M&S and the Palmerston are concerned). But it's not so easy to do anything about it, and it would almost certainly be unlawful to use planning law, for example.

[nxjen]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> I don't doubt it and that is sad. I hope that it

> doesn't present them with a real economic hardship

> and it might be worth finding out if Iceland will

> take phone orders for delivery. I find Rye lane is

> quite reasonable for fruit and veg as well as

> other basics. If they are mobile, hopefully,

> heading to Rye lane won't be too much of burden.

Until this post, I've been indifferent whether there's an Iceland, an M&S, a pound shop or an emporium selling 3,000 types of cupcakes on the site. Perhaps you don't realise how it comes across and I do appreciate the changing demographic/economic argument put forward by P68 but it is very sad that those who have been using Iceland for years be pushed out of shopping in what has been their high street for many, many years.

[LondonMix]

How what comes across? Me saying that its sad and that I hope it doesn't come as too much of a hardship while suggesting alternatives to the poster? I really don't get what you are accusing me of...

[derwentgrove]

An Iceland customer - I'm guessing probably not an infirm pensioner on a low income - was kind enough to abandon one of their shopping trolleys at the end of my road the week before last. To be fair to Iceland, they did eventually collect it (10 days after I phoned to report that it was there). I'm hoping for better things from the M & S clientele in due course!

[LondonMix]

In general I would normally agree with DaveR?s argument except that it doesn?t match reality here on the ground.

The Crystal Palace Tavern is a good example. When it was still a traditional working man?s pub, it was virtually empty. It still existed to serve its demographic but the reality is that even with very few pubs of its type left, it still struggled for custom in the area.

When the pub was transformed in the Great Exhibition, despite the numerous gastropubs already in the area, its now busy.

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "Ignoring the hyperbole, I suspect that the local

> demographic has actually tipped from Iceland to

> M&S - hence the changeover.......What this does

> mean is that choice for some in ED will be

> restricted - and that Iceland's absence, for some,

> will be a real loss. But those numbers will be

> less (and increasingly so) than those who think

> they will benefit from a small ED M&S."

>

> The first bit must be true in purely financial

> terms (M&S can only outbid Iceland on the lease if

> they can bank on making more money) but I'm much

> less sure about the second part.

>

> I've noted before that gentrification has an

> effect on the profile of local businesses that is

> massively disproportionate to the numbers of

> people involved - to put it bluntly, a family

> spending a million plus on a house are likely to

> have a load more disposable income than any number

> of long time local families on low incomes.

> Businesses that cater to the tastes of the

> (comparatively) wealthy will prosper and attract

> other, similar offerings, and potentially drive

> out even established businesses that may have

> lower turnover and lower margins. Successful

> independents attract upmarket chains, etc. etc.

> The demographic 'tipping point' comes way before

> high-spending incomers are actually in the

> majority.

>

> I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of people

> in ED would prefer Iceland over M&S (and The

> Castle over The Palmerston, AJ Farmer over Oliver

> Bonas, and anything over Foxtons), even if I'm not

> one of them (at least as far as M&S and the

> Palmerston are concerned). But it's not so easy

> to do anything about it, and it would almost

> certainly be unlawful to use planning law, for

> example.

[Otta]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Otta wrote:-

>

> For every household that ios over the moon with an

> M&S opening, there will be a family that is gutted

> about the loss of a shop were they can actually

> afford to shop. I think it's very sad.

>

> Ignoring the hyperbole, I suspect that the local

> demographic has actually tipped from Iceland to

> M&S - hence the changeover... Of course there will

> be those who greatly regret the loss of Iceland -

> but they are probably now outnumbered by those who

> will welcome M&S.

I don't think there is any hyperbole, and I expect you're right.