The redeveloped Battersea Power Station is one of the most soulless, dead-eyed, wealth-obsessed places in all of London. This is a terrible place to put something like a music venue, unless your target market is the adult children of emigres with unexplained wealth, and I think it speaks to Apple’s sanitised, emotionally-distant, luxury-focussed worldview that they would consider it.
Incredible building. Awful development. They could have donated ten million quid to the Music Venue Trust instead.
The free U2 album looks like the work of a tastemaker by comparison.
I'd have to push back on that somewhat. When I worked there I saw all sorts of people emerging from the flats around the power station. Young familes, young professionals, none of them appeared "wealth obsessed".
In fact, looking at rents on RightMove, it's not out of whack with typical rents for a nice area of London.
Let us not forget this area of London (Nine Elms) was previously a pretty grotty industrial wasteland that you tended not to go to, and the power station itself was at risk of collapse.
While I agree completely, what else was going to happen?
Malaysians poured £10bn into that hole, and the only tennants who'll give them the smallest chance of recouping that money are trillion dollar multinationals.
It's a shame though. The best shopping centres are the ones full of dodgy little shops but they're long gone in new builds now. Cambridge used to have a few good examples but they've all been pushed out.
Southwark is now full of purpose-built marginal tourist attractions. The big Ferris wheel. The springy Millenium Bridge. The Tate. The Globe Theater rebuild. And I see that the Oxo Tower has now put in a bar. Battersea itself now has a giant glass elevator that rises up one of the smokestacks and comes out the top. All the sights of historical importance are elsewhere.
I spent a few weeks in that area once. It's apparently less grungy now.
FWIW, most of the things you describe there are affordable and very grounded in London.
The Millennium Wheel, that is a tourist attraction, obviously, and is a slightly odd experience and not terribly cheap but it's accessible to everyone. The Globe Theatre is pretty grounded in London culture and is really affordable.
The springy bridge is a functional thing that goes between the City and the more affordable and touristy bits of Bankside.
Tate Modern is IMO a triumph. Free to enter and chock-full of properly amazing stuff that is free to view. (Go see "In Search of Vanished Blood" by Nalini Malani). There are other free galleries along that side including in the development around the Oxo tower.
For all the glitzy aspects and the touristy bits, it actually still feels at least a little like London (and is just round the corner from both normal working London and
heritage London).
None of that is even close to being as soul-deadened as the Battersea Power Station development, which exists outside culture.
I beg to differ. I stayed in Battersea for a week while exploring London. I found the place very welcoming, safe and inspiring. It’s convenient to get to and from with its dedicated underground line.
I can see how it fits the Apple
brand experience very well (they don’t do gritty stuff). In fact I believe there’s already an Apple Store there.
I'm a local to the area, I agree with everything you're saying here (despite the weird backlash) and I know exactly which shop you mean. That shop is one of the most bizarre shops I've ever seen. It's branded as a "general store" but there's absolutely no household brands, everything is about 5x the normal price and all of the shoppers look like rich influencers? I have a theory that the store is used to trial new products before they go to the wider market
> There's also a little local shop for the residents that stocks wine costing over £1000 a bottle.
What a weird complaint. I’ve been in grocery stores that have wine costing $500+/bottle. I would expect any wine shop to stock rare and expensive wines. Now, if that’s all they stocked, you might have a point.
If your corner shop sells wine that costs over £1000 a bottle I think you may very well be constitutionally unable to understand the point I am making.
That’s what some people consider success: moving from merge beginnings where the corner stores plural stock $500 bottles of wine, to a good area where the corner store singular stocks $1000 bottles of wine.
Come on now, when the rich go over to the artsy neighborhoods and fancy wine shops open up it's called "gentrification", but when they - actually a Malaysian group of investors - make their own place in a run down corner of London, a place that's accessible by public transport to anyone, and does justice to preserve the story of the power station, you call it grotesque.
It is absolutely still gentrification if you take one of the few places in London where people who work in lower-income jobs in London used to be able to afford to live and make it a luxury zone for unexplained wealth.
There are many gentrification complaints about that development and wider Battersea, and it has been an absolute legal battleground:
It's not actually the angle I was taking. Weirdly, considering it was driven by 1MDB, it's not an illegitimate or corrupt project in and of itself, and there's much more dodgy foreign money going into the rest of Battersea's redevelopment.
My complaint is what they built. It's a dreadful, dreadful project.
Well, the type of places that OP described are full of service people, paid the best wage that people with little training can make, because they can ALWAYS be nice and welcoming… even when being screamed at and spat upon by the rudest, meanest, and most despicable nepo-jerk you could imagine!
But, aside from the convenient access to the underground, I’m really intrigued by what you found “inspiring” about this place?
(I don’t know a single thing about it, never even heard of it, so I’m torn as to which of you two to believe… lol)
It's a combination of a park, a residential neighborhood and a shopping center in the renovated power station. The station is incredible building, with its brick construction. The residential buildings themselves are also special, with some designed by Frank Gehry, and the shopping center is inside the power station building and has an family-rated-steampunk feeling to it.
We stayed in an apartment overlooking the station front and it was a lovely sight.
I know someone who used to live in the new apartment development around the old power station; I think it is possibly the most soulless place I have ever visited. If you've seen The Good Place, then, eh, imagine a densified version of that, I suppose. It was really kind of amazing. Difficult to describe exactly why it was so off-putting, and I suppose tastes differ, but it really was unpleasant.
The power station itself is an impressive structure, mind you. But of all the things they could have done with it, it's a shame they did this.
I think their target audience are Apple Music subscribers who are going to watch the recordings of the live videos; they could probably care less who attend's their concerts. It doesn't seem like they want a music venue to support London's live music scene, but a music venue to produce content for their platform.
Frankly, that just makes it worse.
>They could have donated ten million quid to the Music Venue Trust instead.
oh, what the world could be like if music streaming platforms actually supported the industry that power them.
I mean, you can say that Fred again and co. are "sanitised", "corpo music" and etc. But quite a lot of people will happily buy the tickets, and go to the concerts. The only reason I'm bringing him up, is cause Apple featured his live concert.
Obviously Apple is in the game of making money in the end. Your local DJ that plays sets at 2am on a weekday probably won't be performing at their venue. But I wouldn't call every random friend group "adult children emigres with unexplained wealth" as a single target audience. A lot of people will spend a couple of hundred $ for a fun night out, and they don't have to be extremely rich.
> Your local DJ that plays sets at 2am on a weekday probably won't be performing at their venue.
This is a really tone-deaf straw man caricature of what I am saying, I'm afraid.
> But I wouldn't call every random friend group "adult children emigres with unexplained wealth" as a single target audience.
It's a pretty solid, not even satirical summary of many of the people who live in that development. It's not really a place for Londoners.
If I were a gambling man I would suggest to you that tickets for those events are likely to start at more than the couple of hundred dollars you are suggesting people spend without thinking. The cheapest standing tickets for the next Oasis tour (at very large music stadiums) are more than $225.
I don't think Apple hopes to make significant revenue from ticket sales: this venue has seats for only 600. The purpose of the 600 seats is to give musicians optimal conditions for the creation of music (to be recorded or streamed live) and to showcase to selected audiences (e.g., journalists and other influencers) Apple's audio technologies: the venue is outfitted with a custom 48-speaker Spatial Audio sound system.
And like others are saying, it is at Battersea because Apple has about 500,000 sq ft of office space at Battersea. It's their UK headquarters.
Oasis was going for more here in Tokyo for standing tickets. I know multiple people who went, despite it being way above their budgets. I’m not sure why you think $400s is something top 20% of income levels can’t afford. Keep in mind, the average age is higher than it was ever before. There are a lot of single / DINK people, who can easily shell out some money without a blink, and not have a lot of money in their savings.
> I’m not sure why you think $400s is something top 20% of income levels can’t afford
I am not sure why I am replying to a sentence formulated like this but you surely understand I said nothing about $400, the top 20% of income levels, or even not being able to afford it?
If you’re going to disagree with me it might be better to disagree with what I said, not a straw man you constructed for the purpose.
I know that this is a common way to argue here on HN but it’s just weird.
I feel like you're overusing the strawman card to avoid engaging with their argument. I think your take is overall very pessimistic. They likely won't have acts like Oasis in that venue and the pricing will probably be premium but broadly attainable, like their products.
Sorry, but I'm not. It literally was not something I said or was actually representative of my argument, so I don't know how it is something you can say "I don't know why you think…"
Why would I respond to such a mischaracterisation except to say it was a mischaracterisation?
For clarity: I am not talking about affordability. I am talking about the profoundly anti-culture nature of that specific place and the people who can afford to live in it. As I said in my comment, there are other ways Apple could contribute to live music that didn't involve putting a pet music venue in such a soulless place.
Why would I respond to such a mischaracterisation except to say it was a mischaracterisation?
It's called being charitable. Trying to understand what their point is and responding to that for the sake of advancing the conversation, rather than grinding it to a halt with pedantic quibbles over inaccuracies or poor phrasing.
I've never been so I can't really comment on the atmosphere of the building.
You made a pretty specific point and prediction about the price of tickets, which I responded to, but now you're not talking about affordability. Because the suggestion that they might not be doing the most soulless oligarchic thing ever in this place doesn't fit your doom narrative.
Sorry, I took it as the main part of your argument is that whatever Apple creates will not be for the general mass “unless your target market is the adult children of emigres with unexplained wealth”. My argument is, people who pay $400+ for a ticket are fairly ordinary people. I guess, I was arguing against that.
Normal people experience all that, and add Ticketmaster tickets on Klarna for a big gig. This is not about groceries, in which case I would agree with you.
I consider top 30-40% income bracket as ordinary people.
Also normal people. It's just that, $400 isn't that big of a number. I personally consider it big, I have to convince myself very hard before I spend $100 on any ticket, but people who has less income than me will use their credit cards without a second thought.
I've been fortunate enough to work in some environments where you kinda get the gist of "how people function", and it has completely opened up my eyes. A single person who is experiencing housing stress, can buy $19 strawberry, be upset about gas prices, and also spend $400 on a concert.
> If I were a gambling man I would suggest to you that tickets for those events are likely to start at more than the couple of hundred dollars you are suggesting people spend without thinking. The cheapest standing tickets for the next Oasis tour (at very large music stadiums) are more than $225.
So I live in California where everything is famously expensive (but I hear the same of London). $225 for a concert with a famous artist on a big tour is pretty standard. Oh, and since you clearly don't go to concerts, it's pretty standard for standing tickets to be more than seated, because they're usually closer to the stage and people want to stand around and dance.
> Oh, and since you clearly don't go to concerts, it's pretty standard for standing tickets to be more than seated, because they're usually closer to the stage and people want to stand around and dance.
Oh dear me, this is funny. But not in a way you will understand.
I don’t know what’s wrong with me, but I kind of enjoy that new development vibe. Plus, the historic structure is now well-preserved. Better than many alternatives.
It's not hard to imagine that not every derelict wreck has to turn into the new battersea power station. In fact, it's hard to think of a less inclusive redevelopment project in the UK than battersea power station.
Ok but that doesn't contradict the original point that the area ended up soulless and expensive, so your "people like you are what holds this country back" is still unjustified (and rude)
It turned into a luxury place because that's where the highest margins in construction are. Every developer wants to build high margin houses, nobody wants to build low margin houses.
City development must cater to all its inhabitants, and if you have a prime estate like the Battersea Power Station, it's a failure, from the city's POV, if you burn that only on high margin development. From a negotiation standpoint, the city negotiated badly here. The city has to accommodate the needs of less wealthy inhabitants in other means now, but without the negotiation leverage that a high margin property can provide.
If you view it like this, the complaints "only luxury flats" are pretty rational. The city negotiated badly.
There actually is some "affordable" housing in the wider project but only because there was a very long battle to keep the developers to their legally-bound promise to build some affordable property that they — of course — tried to wriggle out of.
Imagine you're the mayor. You want to hire companies to build prime housing and affordable housing. Every company only wants to build prime housing, because that's where the money is. If you only give out contracts like that, basically nobody will apply to build affordable housing.
You're not dumb, of course, so your next step is to say, "if I give you the contract to build prime housing, you also must build affordable housing". That's not ideal for the developer, because the time spent on building affordable housing is time they don't spend on stuff where they make proper money, but at least they can make some money. They agree to take the deal. You think, problem solved, but turns out the developer outsmarts you: they structure the company in a way that they can chicken out of building the affordable housing. In real estate, it's very common to have every building project be its own limited liability company so that one failed project doesn't influence the others. In this case, you put the affordable and the luxury housing together in one Ltd, build the luxury housing, extract the profits by moving them to the parent company and then declare your Ltd bankrupt, meaning they unfortunately can no longer build the affordable housing.
As a mayor, you observe how you're being cheated, you get real angry but the walk through the courts is too slow, and your voters demand action now. Realistically, you do the court route in the background, but you learned your lesson and now you tell the developer "before I give you a high margin luxury contract, you must have completed affordable housing first".
Alternatively, you mix the buildout into the same building so that you cannot open the luxury flats/office space without having completed the affordable part. Either way, affordable first, luxury second.
That is basically the story of the London property market.
Another issue is how do you even build affordable housing on land worth millions? The only way to make that work is if the government owns the land forever and commits to never selling it. Which is kind of what the government was going for after WWII with council houses, but Right to Buy ruined that.
It was only dragged into zone 1 in order to charge higher fares to recoup some of the cost of building the Northern Line extension. If it weren't for that, it'd be zone 2 - and one of the less well-connected bits of zone 2, at that.
I don't have that much of a problem with it, tbh - before the development it was a weird light industrial bubble, disconnected from the rest of the city. Now it's a weird bland commercial bubble, disconnected from the rest of the city.
And we've lost Marco Polo House, the home of QVC, and gained Apple. Seems about a wash in terms of cultural value as well.
Ahh yes because the only destiny of large buildings in London is high-end retail and luxury flats for the wealthy. That's what holds us back as a country, isn't it? Not enough places for the very very very rich.
I didn't at all say or suggest I would have preferred it to stay derelict. It's an absurd straw man.
There are many things that project could have been, for London, that it is not.
But if that's the only way you see progress — the creation of places for foreign wealth to be spent — then yeah, I am holding the UK back from that miserable dystopia.
I don’t want to dive into Reddit like territory but this is not a fair representation of the place. It is a shopping centre, yes, in the same vein as Westfield or any other created in the past twenty years. There is a Lego store, Uniqlo and many other normal high street stores [1] alongside higher end places but Sloane Street this is not. Throughout the year there are events in the riverside space with stalls from local traders and various other free events, especially for children.
I would argue that it is one of the more successful new developments in terms of “placemaking”, certainly in that part of London. It is very clearly targeted at the residents of the local area who are normal London middle class wealth. The little shop no doubt has bottles of expensive wine but it also has £10 ones.
For clarity; I’m not a resident of the area but have visited a bunch of times, especially with kids.
Making new places is hard and I think they’ve made a decent go of the place.
What holds the country back is anti-growth, financially insecure people who complain about anything and everything.
> But if that's the only way you see progress — the creation of places for foreign wealth to be spent — then yeah, I am holding the UK back from that miserable dystopia.
Try actually going there. You might find there aren’t as many “foreign” people as you fear.
> What holds the country back is anti-growth, financially insecure people who complain about anything and everything.
That isn't me. I am not complaining about anything and everything. I am complaining about one specific place.
> Try actually going there. You might find there aren’t as many “foreign” people as you fear.
I wrote that comment because I have been there. And my fear isn't foreign people — not remotely. My fear is foreign unexplained wealth — one of London's biggest and most intractible problems. It's not xenophobia, it's the corrupting influence of dubious, hard-to-trace oligarch-connected money being sloshed around in the London Laundromat.
The Battersea Power Station project is legit — all done legally — but the project was literally built by people not exactly tenuously associated with 1MDB. And as with many of these developments, many of the people who live in those expensive flats will be doing so thanks to money that was ill-gotten through proximity to power elsewhere in the world.
It's central London. Of course it's a place for foreign wealth; as long as we get to keep enough on the way. We need to stop being snobby about the very real need of the country for foreigners to spend money on stuff we sell.
That reminds me a bit of The Harmsworth Room [1] in the Churchill War Rooms, where you can dine while you stare at the "original 1940s electric generator wall complete with dials and switches". Very cool space!
I'd been to the War Rooms decades ago, when they were simply a WWII restoration.
It was an obscure grim bunker where important decisions had been made during the worst period in 20th century British history.
I remember a small electric bell at an exit with a small sign "Immediate danger above if ringing". Just a warning not to go outside during bombings.
Apparently it's been gentrified to the point of ridiculousness.
How do you mean, gentrified? I went for the first time early last year and it was an amazing experience. It's definitely very museum-like, and not cheap to enter, but the rooms all look like perfect time capsules and the audio tour is excellent.
Well my comment was half in jest, but No Logo talks at length about the encroachment of megabrands into everyday life, and the replacement of the "public sphere" with controlled spaces that conform to the brand's image.
In this case, while the Apple Concert Hall may superficially look like just another music venue (many of which are privately owned in their own right, obviously). But its musical programme will almost surely follow a different set of guiding principles, in conformance to how Apple wants to project their brand to consumers. And the goal itself of hosting live music performances takes second stage (heh) compared to that of marketing them for streaming consumption. Speaking of which: it's not mentioned in the article, but I would be _extremely_ surprised if Apple didn't make this move with Vision users in mind.
Yay, vertical integration! This shit needs to be stopped. Similarly to movie theaters and movie studios, venues, ticket providers and distributors/streamers/studios should not be allowed to be owned or controlled by the same entities.
OK, but the effect you are worried about won't be caused by Apple's owning 1 venue with a capacity of 600 people when there are many 100s of much larger venues.
Oh dear.
The redeveloped Battersea Power Station is one of the most soulless, dead-eyed, wealth-obsessed places in all of London. This is a terrible place to put something like a music venue, unless your target market is the adult children of emigres with unexplained wealth, and I think it speaks to Apple’s sanitised, emotionally-distant, luxury-focussed worldview that they would consider it.
Incredible building. Awful development. They could have donated ten million quid to the Music Venue Trust instead.
The free U2 album looks like the work of a tastemaker by comparison.
I'd have to push back on that somewhat. When I worked there I saw all sorts of people emerging from the flats around the power station. Young familes, young professionals, none of them appeared "wealth obsessed".
In fact, looking at rents on RightMove, it's not out of whack with typical rents for a nice area of London.
Let us not forget this area of London (Nine Elms) was previously a pretty grotty industrial wasteland that you tended not to go to, and the power station itself was at risk of collapse.
Presumably they’re putting it there because their corporate office is in the power station too.
Indeed. Absolutely sterile inside. They could have done so much more with it.
Proposed venue looks in keeping with this theme. Capacity of 600 and I'm sure whatever tickets will be priced to keep the hoi polloi away.
While I agree completely, what else was going to happen?
Malaysians poured £10bn into that hole, and the only tennants who'll give them the smallest chance of recouping that money are trillion dollar multinationals.
It's a shame though. The best shopping centres are the ones full of dodgy little shops but they're long gone in new builds now. Cambridge used to have a few good examples but they've all been pushed out.
Southwark is now full of purpose-built marginal tourist attractions. The big Ferris wheel. The springy Millenium Bridge. The Tate. The Globe Theater rebuild. And I see that the Oxo Tower has now put in a bar. Battersea itself now has a giant glass elevator that rises up one of the smokestacks and comes out the top. All the sights of historical importance are elsewhere.
I spent a few weeks in that area once. It's apparently less grungy now.
FWIW, most of the things you describe there are affordable and very grounded in London.
The Millennium Wheel, that is a tourist attraction, obviously, and is a slightly odd experience and not terribly cheap but it's accessible to everyone. The Globe Theatre is pretty grounded in London culture and is really affordable.
The springy bridge is a functional thing that goes between the City and the more affordable and touristy bits of Bankside.
Tate Modern is IMO a triumph. Free to enter and chock-full of properly amazing stuff that is free to view. (Go see "In Search of Vanished Blood" by Nalini Malani). There are other free galleries along that side including in the development around the Oxo tower.
For all the glitzy aspects and the touristy bits, it actually still feels at least a little like London (and is just round the corner from both normal working London and heritage London).
None of that is even close to being as soul-deadened as the Battersea Power Station development, which exists outside culture.
> Southwark is now full of []
squints
> The big Ferris wheel.
Surely Lambeth.
> The Tate.
Modern? Yes. Britain? No, that's Westminster.
> And I see that the Oxo Tower has now put in a bar.
Hasn't it had a bar since it opened one in 1996?
You... know they work there right?
I don't really see why this is relevant, but if it is relevant it reinforces my understanding of Apple's allergy to culture.
How is it not relevant? It's not like they randomly picked the place, it's their office
as soulless, dead-eyed and wealth-obsessed as the people that work at apple
I beg to differ. I stayed in Battersea for a week while exploring London. I found the place very welcoming, safe and inspiring. It’s convenient to get to and from with its dedicated underground line. I can see how it fits the Apple brand experience very well (they don’t do gritty stuff). In fact I believe there’s already an Apple Store there.
Of course there's an Apple Store there.
There's also a little local shop for the residents that stocks wine costing over £1000 a bottle.
It's a grotesque place.
No music venue in London is really "gritty" anymore but loads of them are under threat from developers and need all the help they can to survive.
Putting a music venue in the Battersea Power Station development is just making a music venue for the foreign money laundromat.
I'm a local to the area, I agree with everything you're saying here (despite the weird backlash) and I know exactly which shop you mean. That shop is one of the most bizarre shops I've ever seen. It's branded as a "general store" but there's absolutely no household brands, everything is about 5x the normal price and all of the shoppers look like rich influencers? I have a theory that the store is used to trial new products before they go to the wider market
Some people just want to pay what others would consider way-too-much for things
It’s some kind of ostentatious display of wealth thing, applied to every day household items.
Wouldn’t want to be caught with the home brand sponges!
> There's also a little local shop for the residents that stocks wine costing over £1000 a bottle.
What a weird complaint. I’ve been in grocery stores that have wine costing $500+/bottle. I would expect any wine shop to stock rare and expensive wines. Now, if that’s all they stocked, you might have a point.
If your corner shop sells wine that costs over £1000 a bottle I think you may very well be constitutionally unable to understand the point I am making.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/inside-britains-most-expensiv...
That’s what some people consider success: moving from merge beginnings where the corner stores plural stock $500 bottles of wine, to a good area where the corner store singular stocks $1000 bottles of wine.
And the general store also has bottles of wine costing 10-30 a bottle. I did always chuckle at the bottles of 1972 Petrus in the "fancy wine" section.
A shop selling expensive wine? What horror.
It's from a frightfully poor year as well
Come on now, when the rich go over to the artsy neighborhoods and fancy wine shops open up it's called "gentrification", but when they - actually a Malaysian group of investors - make their own place in a run down corner of London, a place that's accessible by public transport to anyone, and does justice to preserve the story of the power station, you call it grotesque.
It is absolutely still gentrification if you take one of the few places in London where people who work in lower-income jobs in London used to be able to afford to live and make it a luxury zone for unexplained wealth.
There are many gentrification complaints about that development and wider Battersea, and it has been an absolute legal battleground:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/20/develo...
It's not actually the angle I was taking. Weirdly, considering it was driven by 1MDB, it's not an illegitimate or corrupt project in and of itself, and there's much more dodgy foreign money going into the rest of Battersea's redevelopment.
My complaint is what they built. It's a dreadful, dreadful project.
Well, the type of places that OP described are full of service people, paid the best wage that people with little training can make, because they can ALWAYS be nice and welcoming… even when being screamed at and spat upon by the rudest, meanest, and most despicable nepo-jerk you could imagine!
But, aside from the convenient access to the underground, I’m really intrigued by what you found “inspiring” about this place?
(I don’t know a single thing about it, never even heard of it, so I’m torn as to which of you two to believe… lol)
It's a combination of a park, a residential neighborhood and a shopping center in the renovated power station. The station is incredible building, with its brick construction. The residential buildings themselves are also special, with some designed by Frank Gehry, and the shopping center is inside the power station building and has an family-rated-steampunk feeling to it.
We stayed in an apartment overlooking the station front and it was a lovely sight.
I know someone who used to live in the new apartment development around the old power station; I think it is possibly the most soulless place I have ever visited. If you've seen The Good Place, then, eh, imagine a densified version of that, I suppose. It was really kind of amazing. Difficult to describe exactly why it was so off-putting, and I suppose tastes differ, but it really was unpleasant.
The power station itself is an impressive structure, mind you. But of all the things they could have done with it, it's a shame they did this.
> I think it is possibly the most soulless place I have ever visited.
It's really difficult to put into words, isn't it?
There are many places in London that are equally wealth-drenched that manage to retain some charm, locality and aspiration to them.
11 min by tube from Trafalgar Sq. It may also appeal to normal Londoners willing to ride the tube.
Am I wrong in thinking Battersea is absolute murder to travel too as well? Theres one line to a tiny station and it gets overcrowded a lot.
> Am I wrong in thinking Battersea is absolute murder to travel too as well?
You can get there by boat if you're in another better connected part of Central London.
Not great but it's not the worst station in the network, I must say. Less frustrating than the whole confusing Canary Wharf situation.
> most soulless, dead-eyed, wealth-obsessed places
Seems like on brand with Apple. You can now imagine how concerts will look like.
We can't wait to see how concerts will look like.
Apple just invented concerts, what will they think of next...
Yeah I mean, they’re going to be playing the most bland corporate stuff anyway. It’s just advertising
I think their target audience are Apple Music subscribers who are going to watch the recordings of the live videos; they could probably care less who attend's their concerts. It doesn't seem like they want a music venue to support London's live music scene, but a music venue to produce content for their platform.
Frankly, that just makes it worse.
>They could have donated ten million quid to the Music Venue Trust instead.
oh, what the world could be like if music streaming platforms actually supported the industry that power them.
What would you have preferred the area become?
I mean, you can say that Fred again and co. are "sanitised", "corpo music" and etc. But quite a lot of people will happily buy the tickets, and go to the concerts. The only reason I'm bringing him up, is cause Apple featured his live concert.
Obviously Apple is in the game of making money in the end. Your local DJ that plays sets at 2am on a weekday probably won't be performing at their venue. But I wouldn't call every random friend group "adult children emigres with unexplained wealth" as a single target audience. A lot of people will spend a couple of hundred $ for a fun night out, and they don't have to be extremely rich.
> Your local DJ that plays sets at 2am on a weekday probably won't be performing at their venue.
This is a really tone-deaf straw man caricature of what I am saying, I'm afraid.
> But I wouldn't call every random friend group "adult children emigres with unexplained wealth" as a single target audience.
It's a pretty solid, not even satirical summary of many of the people who live in that development. It's not really a place for Londoners.
If I were a gambling man I would suggest to you that tickets for those events are likely to start at more than the couple of hundred dollars you are suggesting people spend without thinking. The cheapest standing tickets for the next Oasis tour (at very large music stadiums) are more than $225.
I don't think Apple hopes to make significant revenue from ticket sales: this venue has seats for only 600. The purpose of the 600 seats is to give musicians optimal conditions for the creation of music (to be recorded or streamed live) and to showcase to selected audiences (e.g., journalists and other influencers) Apple's audio technologies: the venue is outfitted with a custom 48-speaker Spatial Audio sound system.
And like others are saying, it is at Battersea because Apple has about 500,000 sq ft of office space at Battersea. It's their UK headquarters.
Oasis was going for more here in Tokyo for standing tickets. I know multiple people who went, despite it being way above their budgets. I’m not sure why you think $400s is something top 20% of income levels can’t afford. Keep in mind, the average age is higher than it was ever before. There are a lot of single / DINK people, who can easily shell out some money without a blink, and not have a lot of money in their savings.
> I’m not sure why you think $400s is something top 20% of income levels can’t afford
I am not sure why I am replying to a sentence formulated like this but you surely understand I said nothing about $400, the top 20% of income levels, or even not being able to afford it?
If you’re going to disagree with me it might be better to disagree with what I said, not a straw man you constructed for the purpose.
I know that this is a common way to argue here on HN but it’s just weird.
I feel like you're overusing the strawman card to avoid engaging with their argument. I think your take is overall very pessimistic. They likely won't have acts like Oasis in that venue and the pricing will probably be premium but broadly attainable, like their products.
Sorry, but I'm not. It literally was not something I said or was actually representative of my argument, so I don't know how it is something you can say "I don't know why you think…"
Why would I respond to such a mischaracterisation except to say it was a mischaracterisation?
For clarity: I am not talking about affordability. I am talking about the profoundly anti-culture nature of that specific place and the people who can afford to live in it. As I said in my comment, there are other ways Apple could contribute to live music that didn't involve putting a pet music venue in such a soulless place.
Why would I respond to such a mischaracterisation except to say it was a mischaracterisation?
It's called being charitable. Trying to understand what their point is and responding to that for the sake of advancing the conversation, rather than grinding it to a halt with pedantic quibbles over inaccuracies or poor phrasing.
I've never been so I can't really comment on the atmosphere of the building.
You made a pretty specific point and prediction about the price of tickets, which I responded to, but now you're not talking about affordability. Because the suggestion that they might not be doing the most soulless oligarchic thing ever in this place doesn't fit your doom narrative.
> For clarity: I am not talking about affordability
(of a given performance ticket)
If it helps, I found your writing here much easier to follow than whatever the other participants think they’re larping at.
Sorry, I took it as the main part of your argument is that whatever Apple creates will not be for the general mass “unless your target market is the adult children of emigres with unexplained wealth”. My argument is, people who pay $400+ for a ticket are fairly ordinary people. I guess, I was arguing against that.
> My argument is, people who pay $400+ for a ticket are fairly ordinary people.
I think you’re out of touch.
Normal people are experiencing housing stress, energy price shocks, and wondering who the hell buys a $19 strawberry.
Normal people experience all that, and add Ticketmaster tickets on Klarna for a big gig. This is not about groceries, in which case I would agree with you.
I consider top 30-40% income bracket as ordinary people.
And of the other 60-70% of people? How do you consider them?
Also normal people. It's just that, $400 isn't that big of a number. I personally consider it big, I have to convince myself very hard before I spend $100 on any ticket, but people who has less income than me will use their credit cards without a second thought.
I've been fortunate enough to work in some environments where you kinda get the gist of "how people function", and it has completely opened up my eyes. A single person who is experiencing housing stress, can buy $19 strawberry, be upset about gas prices, and also spend $400 on a concert.
$225 for GA tickets is actually pretty decent for a big-name band. Billie Eilish charged $900 when she came to my city.
> If I were a gambling man I would suggest to you that tickets for those events are likely to start at more than the couple of hundred dollars you are suggesting people spend without thinking. The cheapest standing tickets for the next Oasis tour (at very large music stadiums) are more than $225.
So I live in California where everything is famously expensive (but I hear the same of London). $225 for a concert with a famous artist on a big tour is pretty standard. Oh, and since you clearly don't go to concerts, it's pretty standard for standing tickets to be more than seated, because they're usually closer to the stage and people want to stand around and dance.
> Oh, and since you clearly don't go to concerts, it's pretty standard for standing tickets to be more than seated, because they're usually closer to the stage and people want to stand around and dance.
Oh dear me, this is funny. But not in a way you will understand.
I don’t know what’s wrong with me, but I kind of enjoy that new development vibe. Plus, the historic structure is now well-preserved. Better than many alternatives.
Couldn’t disagree more
[dead]
I suppose you’d prefer the power station to have remained a derelict wreck.
Honestly, people like you are what holds this country back.
It's not hard to imagine that not every derelict wreck has to turn into the new battersea power station. In fact, it's hard to think of a less inclusive redevelopment project in the UK than battersea power station.
Dozens of proposals were made for dozens of years. Nothing was done, it sat there rotting away.
Ok but that doesn't contradict the original point that the area ended up soulless and expensive, so your "people like you are what holds this country back" is still unjustified (and rude)
It turned into a luxury place because that's where the highest margins in construction are. Every developer wants to build high margin houses, nobody wants to build low margin houses.
City development must cater to all its inhabitants, and if you have a prime estate like the Battersea Power Station, it's a failure, from the city's POV, if you burn that only on high margin development. From a negotiation standpoint, the city negotiated badly here. The city has to accommodate the needs of less wealthy inhabitants in other means now, but without the negotiation leverage that a high margin property can provide.
If you view it like this, the complaints "only luxury flats" are pretty rational. The city negotiated badly.
There actually is some "affordable" housing in the wider project but only because there was a very long battle to keep the developers to their legally-bound promise to build some affordable property that they — of course — tried to wriggle out of.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/20/develo...
I personally see no issue with using prime real estate for… prime housing.
Affordable housing can be built somewhere that is actually… affordable.
Imagine you're the mayor. You want to hire companies to build prime housing and affordable housing. Every company only wants to build prime housing, because that's where the money is. If you only give out contracts like that, basically nobody will apply to build affordable housing.
You're not dumb, of course, so your next step is to say, "if I give you the contract to build prime housing, you also must build affordable housing". That's not ideal for the developer, because the time spent on building affordable housing is time they don't spend on stuff where they make proper money, but at least they can make some money. They agree to take the deal. You think, problem solved, but turns out the developer outsmarts you: they structure the company in a way that they can chicken out of building the affordable housing. In real estate, it's very common to have every building project be its own limited liability company so that one failed project doesn't influence the others. In this case, you put the affordable and the luxury housing together in one Ltd, build the luxury housing, extract the profits by moving them to the parent company and then declare your Ltd bankrupt, meaning they unfortunately can no longer build the affordable housing.
As a mayor, you observe how you're being cheated, you get real angry but the walk through the courts is too slow, and your voters demand action now. Realistically, you do the court route in the background, but you learned your lesson and now you tell the developer "before I give you a high margin luxury contract, you must have completed affordable housing first".
Alternatively, you mix the buildout into the same building so that you cannot open the luxury flats/office space without having completed the affordable part. Either way, affordable first, luxury second.
That is basically the story of the London property market.
Another issue is how do you even build affordable housing on land worth millions? The only way to make that work is if the government owns the land forever and commits to never selling it. Which is kind of what the government was going for after WWII with council houses, but Right to Buy ruined that.
It's in zone 1. Every flat in that area, no matter how much of a cupboard it is, has a huge luxury: location.
It was only dragged into zone 1 in order to charge higher fares to recoup some of the cost of building the Northern Line extension. If it weren't for that, it'd be zone 2 - and one of the less well-connected bits of zone 2, at that.
I don't have that much of a problem with it, tbh - before the development it was a weird light industrial bubble, disconnected from the rest of the city. Now it's a weird bland commercial bubble, disconnected from the rest of the city.
And we've lost Marco Polo House, the home of QVC, and gained Apple. Seems about a wash in terms of cultural value as well.
Ahh yes because the only destiny of large buildings in London is high-end retail and luxury flats for the wealthy. That's what holds us back as a country, isn't it? Not enough places for the very very very rich.
I didn't at all say or suggest I would have preferred it to stay derelict. It's an absurd straw man.
There are many things that project could have been, for London, that it is not.
But if that's the only way you see progress — the creation of places for foreign wealth to be spent — then yeah, I am holding the UK back from that miserable dystopia.
I don’t want to dive into Reddit like territory but this is not a fair representation of the place. It is a shopping centre, yes, in the same vein as Westfield or any other created in the past twenty years. There is a Lego store, Uniqlo and many other normal high street stores [1] alongside higher end places but Sloane Street this is not. Throughout the year there are events in the riverside space with stalls from local traders and various other free events, especially for children.
I would argue that it is one of the more successful new developments in terms of “placemaking”, certainly in that part of London. It is very clearly targeted at the residents of the local area who are normal London middle class wealth. The little shop no doubt has bottles of expensive wine but it also has £10 ones.
For clarity; I’m not a resident of the area but have visited a bunch of times, especially with kids.
Making new places is hard and I think they’ve made a decent go of the place.
[1] https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/retailers/?retailertype=...
What holds the country back is anti-growth, financially insecure people who complain about anything and everything.
> But if that's the only way you see progress — the creation of places for foreign wealth to be spent — then yeah, I am holding the UK back from that miserable dystopia.
Try actually going there. You might find there aren’t as many “foreign” people as you fear.
> What holds the country back is anti-growth, financially insecure people who complain about anything and everything.
That isn't me. I am not complaining about anything and everything. I am complaining about one specific place.
> Try actually going there. You might find there aren’t as many “foreign” people as you fear.
I wrote that comment because I have been there. And my fear isn't foreign people — not remotely. My fear is foreign unexplained wealth — one of London's biggest and most intractible problems. It's not xenophobia, it's the corrupting influence of dubious, hard-to-trace oligarch-connected money being sloshed around in the London Laundromat.
The Battersea Power Station project is legit — all done legally — but the project was literally built by people not exactly tenuously associated with 1MDB. And as with many of these developments, many of the people who live in those expensive flats will be doing so thanks to money that was ill-gotten through proximity to power elsewhere in the world.
It's central London. Of course it's a place for foreign wealth; as long as we get to keep enough on the way. We need to stop being snobby about the very real need of the country for foreigners to spend money on stuff we sell.
[flagged]
In their defense, soulless, dead-eyed, wealth-obsessed describes a lot of central London
If you like Art Deco and get get a chance to visit Control Room A, do so:
https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/retailers/control-room-a...
That reminds me a bit of The Harmsworth Room [1] in the Churchill War Rooms, where you can dine while you stare at the "original 1940s electric generator wall complete with dials and switches". Very cool space!
[1] https://www.churchillwarroomsvenuehire.co.uk/spaces/harmswor...
I'd been to the War Rooms decades ago, when they were simply a WWII restoration. It was an obscure grim bunker where important decisions had been made during the worst period in 20th century British history. I remember a small electric bell at an exit with a small sign "Immediate danger above if ringing". Just a warning not to go outside during bombings.
Apparently it's been gentrified to the point of ridiculousness.
How do you mean, gentrified? I went for the first time early last year and it was an amazing experience. It's definitely very museum-like, and not cheap to enter, but the rooms all look like perfect time capsules and the audio tour is excellent.
It looks like all those new meeting rooms are really in some nearby building. At first I thought they were in the bunker.
Strange they don't mention the Pink Floyd album in the article!
Yeah, I expected the photo of the cover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_(Pink_Floyd_album)
Naomi Klein is the most vindicated nonfiction writer in modern history.
aka the good Naomi
“If your Naomi is Klein, then it’s green…”
Out of the loop, what did Naomi write about this?
no logo
How is she related to this story?
Well my comment was half in jest, but No Logo talks at length about the encroachment of megabrands into everyday life, and the replacement of the "public sphere" with controlled spaces that conform to the brand's image.
In this case, while the Apple Concert Hall may superficially look like just another music venue (many of which are privately owned in their own right, obviously). But its musical programme will almost surely follow a different set of guiding principles, in conformance to how Apple wants to project their brand to consumers. And the goal itself of hosting live music performances takes second stage (heh) compared to that of marketing them for streaming consumption. Speaking of which: it's not mentioned in the article, but I would be _extremely_ surprised if Apple didn't make this move with Vision users in mind.
Ah its the power station from Red Alert
Amongst other films a few scenes in the 1994 MacGuyver movie (Lost Treasure of Atlantis) were filmed inside the power station before it was renovated.
Ah it’s the Wonder I always try to rush and can’t get to
Only 600 capacity? This wouldn't even make the news if it hadn't been apple
Awesome, I hope they start to build a spatial concert library from this, as well as stream to their more popular devices.
I guess this is what happens when you're cash-rich...
Yay, vertical integration! This shit needs to be stopped. Similarly to movie theaters and movie studios, venues, ticket providers and distributors/streamers/studios should not be allowed to be owned or controlled by the same entities.
OK, but the effect you are worried about won't be caused by Apple's owning 1 venue with a capacity of 600 people when there are many 100s of much larger venues.
Oh yeah? You gonna go stop it?
And the only picture of Battersea Power Station shows the underwear of Lady Gaga. Thanks BBC /s
Would an iDevice be required to enter? /s