Raise the Hammer

But could any of you provide me with any reasons as to the success of the Ancaster Business Park?

first of all, according to this pdf it is only half full. Beyond that, the ancaster business park was not developed based on reliance on air travel and air freight which makes it barely comparable.

can you explain the non-success of the airport business park which actually abuts the AEGD? See this pdf

Its 735.59 total acres break down as follows:
office+warehouse+industry = 2.77 acres
retail = 22.96 acres
farm with retail/industrial uses = 31.26 acres
undevelopable (land used for residential, utilities, etc) = 237.17 acres
farmland (considered developable land) = 134.35 acres
vacant land (developable) = 307.08 acres

If you remove all of the undevelopable land, the available acreage is 498.42

If you (generously) consider not only office/industry but also retail (a real stretch for business park usage validity) and industrial farm as developed land, you get 56.99 acres - only 11.4%

If you only consider office/warehousing/industrial uses, it's even more bleak - 2.77/498.42 acres .... 0.56% - yes, less than one percent.

And we are to believe that all of a sudden some magical industries are going to fall all over each other to fill the neighbouring aegd?

The scale of the AEGD is just insane. How can anyone honestly think that this will be developed by industries out of thin air? Is this a thinly veiled ploy to get taxpayers to fund the servicing of this land to literally pave the way for new homes?

The spec barely reports any of this, so we have to get this information out through word of mouth? They should at least be reporting on the abundance of existing vacant serviced developable land and the huge costs of servicing the aegd - these are facts, not opinions.

Maybe they just don't have space for this kind of article?

They found plenty of space in their paper for the "new homes" section however....

here is a map of the aegd:

Comment edited by seancb on 2010-09-30 10:53:32