What next for store that once dominated city?
In the heart of Londonderry, on a prime city centre corner, stands the building once home to the world's oldest independent department store.
In 1830 - some 20 years before Harrods of London began trading and more than a quarter of a century before Macy's of New York opened its doors - Thomas Austin came to Derry and opened a drapery shop on a city centre corner.
Over the next 180 years Austins would become synonymous with shopping in Derry.
Since the shutters came down in 2016, the grand building has lain empty – now that is set to change.
On Wednesday Communities Minister Gordon Lyons said a grant of £1.2m from his department would allow Derry's Inner City Trust to complete the purchase of the building.
So what next for the former department store building?
"Well that's the question isn't it?," the Venerable Robert Miller, chairman of the trust, told BBC Radio Foyle.
"Nothing is ruled out or ruled in. We have saved a building, we have rescued it, now the next stage is to work to revitalising it."
Spread over five storeys and 25,000 sq ft, the Austins building dominates its corner of the Diamond.
For generations it dominated the city's retail landscape too.
Archdeacon Miller said it was a building people in Derry feel an affinity with.
Liz Doherty remembers school day lemon meringue pies in Austins café and trips to see her cousin who worked in the ladies fashion department for more than 30 years.
When Austins was in its heyday, she loved "the style of the building, the ladies fashion, the old radiators and the staircase".
"It had a beautiful atmosphere, it was so different to anywhere else. Whatever they decide to do next, like maybe a hotel, I hope they keep its old structure," she told BBC News NI.
"It really is a fantastic building, with such a sense of history to it."
Conor Green owns a coffee shop close to the building and told BBC News NI it has been empty for far too long.
"Whatever goes in there, I hope helps attract a lot more people, a lot more businesses into the city centre," he said.
He wants the old department store to be given a new lease of life.
"I'm thinking restaurants, cafés, maybe even a cinema," he said.
"Things that will draw people in and where they can enjoy themselves."
Archdeacon Miller said the trust knows how important the building is to the city.
"We are all mindful everyone is watching… that's good, whatever goes into it will encourage wider growth and development," he said.
Founded in the 1970s, with the then-Church of Ireland Bishop of Derry James Mehaffey and Catholic Bishop of Derry Edward Daly among its founding trustees, the Inner City Trust was designed to inject commercial and social life into the city centre after a decade of the Troubles.
It has, in the decades since, developed some of the city's most recognisable buildings, including the Tower Museum, the Tower Hotel, the Bishop's Gate Hotel.
"One of our principles at the Inner City Trust is to diversify our portfolio to ensure risk is mitigated as much as possible.
"But obviously it needs to be commercially productive…and benefit the community," Archdeacon Miller said, adding that work would begin almost straight away.
"The first element of it is stabilising the building, that gives us time in our conversations as to what might come next, on the next chapter because that will affect what it looks like inside," he said.
"It is not a case of saying 'who would like to come?' It is much more strategic than that."
As shopping habits changed in the early part of the new century, Austins came under pressure, posting significant losses in 2011 and 2012.
In November 2014 the listed building was sold to the City Hotel Group.
The receiver then sold the trading side of the business.
When it closed in 2016 more than 50 workers lost their jobs.
Conservation architect Karl Pedersen told BBC Radio Foyle's Mark Patterson Show the challenge that lay ahead was a "joyful one".
The building, he added, had been "caught just in the nick of time".
"There is a lot of the detail we will be able to restore and salvage and preserve," he said.
Stormont to fund purchase of Austins building
Austins staff 'devastated' at job losses

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pohlads Want Us to Believe MN Twins Sale is 'Closer to the End'
The Minnesota Twins 2025 rollercoaster season has been on the upswing for more than a few weeks, after they ripped off a 13-game winning streak to turn to turn things around, following a dreadful start. On Tuesday against the Tampa Bay Rays, the Twins became the third American League team to reach 30 wins, behind only the AL Central leading Tigers and Yankees. Unfortunately, while fortunes have turned around on the field, the same cannot be said off of it, where the Pohlad Family has had the team up for sale since October. Advertisement The Pohlads have sought out different avenues to provide a transition of power, but so far, they've yet to even start that process.. and last we heard, over the weekend, potential buyers were losing interest. The biggest problem has been price. Nobody has been willing to meet their $1.7 billion price tag. Minnesota Twins sale closer to finish line…? Credit: Jesse Johnson-Imagn Images But a new report from Phil Miller (Star Tribune) late Tuesday suggests things may be looking up. Apparently, there have been multiple 'potential buyers have visited Minneapolis' in the last few weeks, taking tours of Target Field and even meeting with team executives. Potential buyers of the franchise have visited Minneapolis over the past 2-3 weeks to tour Target Field and meet with the Pohlad family and the team's executives, a sign that progress is being made toward a sale, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the process. 'Business people don't take a couple days out of their schedule to fly somewhere and meet with executives if they aren't serious about their interest,' the source said. The Pohlads can indeed change their minds and decline to sell, but 'discussions about the team and the sale are happening on a daily basis.' Phil Miller – Star Tribune Advertisement Justin Ishbia stepped away from the table when he pivoted to the Chicago White Sox instead. That killed any hopes of a deal agreed to before Opening Day. At this point, it seems unlikely that a deal will be struck by the trade deadline, or even the end of the 2025 MLB season. A source even told Miller, 'The sale is a lot closer to the end than to the beginning'. While that reads nice on paper, I'm not sure how it's possible, given there's nothing in Miller's report indicating how many offers or current bids are even on the table near what the Pohlads are asking for. So, how can we be that much closer to the end, when we don't even have a buyer at asking price? That feels like a pretty crucial step that has yet to take place… Price tag still causing problems The Pohlads aren't struggling to offload the Minnesota Twins organization because nobody wants it. The problem is the price. Nobody is willing to meet their $1.7 billion price tag, when it's only valued at $1.4-$1.5 billion. So, does Nightengale's optimistic report mean the Pohlads have decided to bring down their current asking price? Advertisement Well, Dan Hayes (The Athletic) says no. The Pohlads are sticking to their original asking price, no matter what the independent valuations say. Why? We found out a handful of months ago that the Pohlads need the extra money to help absorb $300M-$400M in debt that they pushed onto the baseball books over the years. It sounds like there have been multiple suitors willing to pay the ~$1.5 billion… but nobody has yet come up to what the Pohlads need. And until that happens, they'll wait. Or at least, that's what they are trying to portray publicly. Though the Minnesota Twins are making progress in finding potential buyers, the Pohlad family remains firm in its desire for a $1.7 billion price tag, potentially extending the process…But with the Twins sticking to their asking price and concerns from interested parties about the team's future revenues, the end game remains fluid… 'There's no deadline,' the source said Tuesday. 'We're dealing with multiple parties, and whoever gets to the finish line first will be the winning party. (The Pohlads are) prepared to wait until the right deal comes along.' Dan Hayes – The Athletic Waiting for a Minnesota Twins sale… Until he here's something different on his end, Dan from The Athletic isn't ready to buy the optimism his colleague Bobby, over at the Star Tribune, is selling. And neither am I. Instead, it feels more like the Pohlad propaganda machine running on overdrive. Advertisement Until we have proof someone is willing to fill that $200 to $300 million to bring the sides together, I'm not sure how this gets resolved anytime soon. Throw in the possibility of a lockout after the 2026 season, and uncertain broadcast revenues… I'm gonna have to see it to believe it. Related: Report: Potential Minnesota Twins Buyers are Losing Interest But hey, even Hayes writes that 'a winning bid could materialize at any time'. Thankfully, while we all wait patiently for the Pohlads to leave, the Minnesota Twins are at least interesting on the field again. It remains to be seen if fans will flock back to Target Field all summer, but there's no doubt crowds have been better of late. Because no matter what else is happening behind the scenes, if you win baseball games, fans will come.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
People Who Voted For Trump In 2024 Are Sharing How They Really Feel About The Tariffs
I was pretty shocked the other day to read about actual price differences caused by tariffs, and I wanted to learn specifically about how Trump voters feel about the tariffs — whether they think they're a good idea or not. So, I decided to ask Trump voters to tell me what they really think about the tariffs; and, for good measure, I turned to the answers to a post on the subreddit Ask Trump Supporters that asked, "Do Trump supporters see the new tariff policy as a smart negotiating tactic with allies, or is there concern it could backfire?" Here are some people's answers: 1."I love the idea of Trump pushing the tariffs. It will teach the consumer what is really important to be spending their money on and learn how to be conservative. Plus bring back the businesses to the grand ol' USA." —Anonymous, 72 years old, Kansas City, Missouri 2."Not me, but my grandad. He has said that he regrets voting for Trump, even though he hates Harris. One, the tariffs are going to make his small business (golf balls) suffer, and he's worried about my business (cosmetics) suffering, too." "Two, he thinks Trump has dementia, because of the way Trump has been talking and stuff. He also thinks Trump is really violent. Also, my grandad was absolutely horrified when Elon did the Nazi salute thing (why did everyone just forget about this?) because, even though my grandad is Catholic, he has multiple Jewish friends, and was actually the one who kickstarted my interest in the history of the Holocaust. When Trump made that 'joke' about wanting to be the new Pope, that was the breaking point for him." —Anonymous 3."Good decision, time will prove it was a good one." —Anonymous, 78, Moline, Illinois 4."Tariffs are not going to help small businesses or consumers. A tariff is a tax that is passed on to the consumer. The government will collect this tax. What they will do with it is anyone's guess." "Trump lied to his voters. Tariffs increase prices of goods and services. Once prices go up they will never come down. Many small businesses will close as they will not be able to pay the insurmountable prices added to products which were already too high. Many people will lose their jobs, and things will just get worse. Meanwhile, Trump is making all types of deals in the Middle East for his business. God bless America." —Anonymous 5."My boyfriend voted for him in 2016, 2020, and 2024, and he still argues that China (or whoever) pays the tariffs." —Anonymous, 46, California Related: This FSU Student Had A Scathing Message For Donald Trump, And It's Going Mega Viral 6."Absolutely genius. Europe is already buckling. They want reciprocal free trade, but are not yet willing to remove VAT on imports and all the other shenanigans they pull to restrict trade. Trump is not falling for it." —u/whateverisgoodmoney "What exactly has been gained by all this chaos?" —u/dsteffee "Nothing yet. Trump is offering time to negotiate. But in a few months, deals come off the table, and they must suffer the tariffs or comply." —u/whateverisgoodmoney 7."Well, I'm skeptical and on the fence. There are countries that totally deserve, like, a 300% tariff, like China. And I've always been very, VERY suspicious of a global economic system that seems to favor a country like China just too much. Let's see what happens." —u/Ivan_Botsky_Trollov "I just don't get how this hurts China. How does this not favor China more and potentially catapult China into being the reserve currency/preeminent economic superpower? To me this feels like the US just conceding the top spot for nothing, while China gets to swoop into all of these other countries and say, 'We've got you, we won't abandon you like the US did,' slowly building their sphere of influence until they have the political and military cache to strongarm the US in diplomatic situations." —u/Ok-Release1928 8."I hope it's just a negotiating tactic in order to get other countries to lower their tariffs against us, something everyone should support. But I think Trump might actually just love tariffs and hate deficits." —u/flyingchimp12 Related: "There's No More Hiding Their Ideology" — People Cannot Believe This "Terrifying" Post By Trump Is Real 9."It's a risky gambit, I won't deny that. But what we were doing was unsustainable and going to bankrupt us in time, most likely much sooner than we'd like, and I don't hear Democrats offering any better alternatives, just screaming, 'Trump Bad!'" "What Trump's trying to do — if it succeeds — could pay off big-ly, enough that even the more moderate of Trump's opponents might be forced to admit that he did a good thing. Heck, if Trump can simply get the countries with tariffs on us right now to lower their existing tariffs in exchange for our previous tariff rates, that alone would do a lot. If we can get reciprocal tariffs with countries that enjoy other benefits from the US, such as funding or alliance stuff, even better." —u/Jaded_Jerry 10."This isn't about making life easier for investors. Sure, once a new business is established, it'll be more competitive with experience, and perhaps not need tariffs to be competitive in four years." "What it's really about is empowering those willing to do work, and making those businesses viable before the next presidency. I'm sure some tariffs will remain in four years, and hopefully the next president sees the wisdom in maintaining them." —u/neovulcan 11."I think it's more than a negotiating tactic, though he is obviously using them to that effect at times. But I think Trump is not a free trader at his core, and do not think his goal is just to get other countries to lower their trade barriers to zero (they won't do that anyway)." "I think Trump views us as having gone way too far in the direction of maximizing short-term profit by eating the seed corn of industry, so to speak. It's a long-term and potentially watershed policy shift with huge ramifications. There are definitely nerves and there are definitely risks." —u/KnownFeedback738 12."I don't have confidence that the tariff policy laid out last week will be successful. They were also calculated incorrectly, and Trump likely exceeded the legal authority he is using to levy the tariffs." —u/Gaxxz 13."Somehow, back in the 1950s-1980s, people managed to buy lots of American goods without even owning credit cards, generally. I wonder if local manufacturing jobs helped. The 1970s oil crisis created inflation twice as high as it's ever been in your life (unless you're over 50). And nobody even knows. By the Reagan '80s boom, it was forgotten. All it did was spur the invention of fuel-efficient cars." Scott McPartland / Getty Images, NBC —u/itsakon 14."More competition for workers in USA means wages go up." "30% extra import tax means the cost price of a Nike shoe they sell for $90 in the USA goes up from 10 dollars to 13 dollars. Nike can decide if they charge the three dollars extra to customers, take it from their enormous yearly profit, or if they build more shoe plants in the USA so there is more work in the USA. If they choose A or B then the government has three dollars they don't have to get somewhere else." —u/lordtosti 15."We don't have enough thinking-type jobs to sustain young US workers. I don't know if the country will make more money, but the goal is better jobs than young workers currently can access." —u/noluckatall 16."It's a risk. But Trump is not the habit of letting things age — he wants to make deals. Some countries he might want to keep tariffs on, if it's judged to be good for the US. Otherwise, tariffs should be lower a year from now." —u/jackneefus finally: "I honestly don't know; at this point, I'm waiting to see what happens." —u/beyron What do you think? I'm interested in hearing all your opinions down in the comments below. Or, if you have something to say but prefer to stay anonymous, you're more than welcome to write in to the anonymous form below. Please note: some comments have been edited for length and/or clarity. Also in In the News: Well, Well, Well, For The Second Time In 2 Weeks, People Are Letting JD Vance Know EXACTLY How They Feel About Him In Public Also in In the News: This Dem Lawmaker Is Going Viral For His Extremely Shady Question To Secretary Kristi Noem Also in In the News: This Conservative Said He Wears A Fake ICE Uniform For A Really, Really, Really Gross Reason


Buzz Feed
9 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Trump Voters Are Sharing Their True Thoughts On Tariffs
I was pretty shocked the other day to read about actual price differences caused by tariffs, and I wanted to learn specifically about how Trump voters feel about the tariffs — whether they think they're a good idea or not. So, I decided to ask Trump voters to tell me what they really think about the tariffs; and, for good measure, I turned to the answers to a post on the subreddit Ask Trump Supporters that asked, "Do Trump supporters see the new tariff policy as a smart negotiating tactic with allies, or is there concern it could backfire?" Here are some people's answers: "I love the idea of Trump pushing the tariffs. It will teach the consumer what is really important to be spending their money on and learn how to be conservative. Plus bring back the businesses to the grand ol' USA." —Anonymous, 72 years old, Kansas City, Missouri "Not me, but my grandad. He has said that he regrets voting for Trump, even though he hates Harris. One, the tariffs are going to make his small business (golf balls) suffer, and he's worried about my business (cosmetics) suffering, too." "Two, he thinks Trump has dementia, because of the way Trump has been talking and stuff. He also thinks Trump is really violent. Also, my grandad was absolutely horrified when Elon did the Nazi salute thing (why did everyone just forget about this?) because, even though my grandad is Catholic, he has multiple Jewish friends, and was actually the one who kickstarted my interest in the history of the Holocaust. When Trump made that 'joke' about wanting to be the new Pope, that was the breaking point for him."—Anonymous "Good decision, time will prove it was a good one." "Tariffs are not going to help small businesses or consumers. A tariff is a tax that is passed on to the consumer. The government will collect this tax. What they will do with it is anyone's guess." "Trump lied to his voters. Tariffs increase prices of goods and services. Once prices go up they will never come down. Many small businesses will close as they will not be able to pay the insurmountable prices added to products which were already too high. Many people will lose their jobs, and things will just get worse. Meanwhile, Trump is making all types of deals in the Middle East for his business. God bless America."—Anonymous "My boyfriend voted for him in 2016, 2020, and 2024, and he still argues that China (or whoever) pays the tariffs." "Absolutely genius. Europe is already buckling. They want reciprocal free trade, but are not yet willing to remove VAT on imports and all the other shenanigans they pull to restrict trade. Trump is not falling for it." "Well, I'm skeptical and on the fence. There are countries that totally deserve, like, a 300% tariff, like China. And I've always been very, VERY suspicious of a global economic system that seems to favor a country like China just too much. Let's see what happens." "I hope it's just a negotiating tactic in order to get other countries to lower their tariffs against us, something everyone should support. But I think Trump might actually just love tariffs and hate deficits." "It's a risky gambit, I won't deny that. But what we were doing was unsustainable and going to bankrupt us in time, most likely much sooner than we'd like, and I don't hear Democrats offering any better alternatives, just screaming, 'Trump Bad!'" "This isn't about making life easier for investors. Sure, once a new business is established, it'll be more competitive with experience, and perhaps not need tariffs to be competitive in four years." "I think it's more than a negotiating tactic, though he is obviously using them to that effect at times. But I think Trump is not a free trader at his core, and do not think his goal is just to get other countries to lower their trade barriers to zero (they won't do that anyway)." "I don't have confidence that the tariff policy laid out last week will be successful. They were also calculated incorrectly, and Trump likely exceeded the legal authority he is using to levy the tariffs." "Somehow, back in the 1950s-1980s, people managed to buy lots of American goods without even owning credit cards, generally. I wonder if local manufacturing jobs helped. The 1970s oil crisis created inflation twice as high as it's ever been in your life (unless you're over 50). And nobody even knows. By the Reagan '80s boom, it was forgotten. All it did was spur the invention of fuel-efficient cars." "More competition for workers in USA means wages go up." "We don't have enough thinking-type jobs to sustain young US workers. I don't know if the country will make more money, but the goal is better jobs than young workers currently can access." "It's a risk. But Trump is not the habit of letting things age — he wants to make deals. Some countries he might want to keep tariffs on, if it's judged to be good for the US. Otherwise, tariffs should be lower a year from now." And finally: "I honestly don't know; at this point, I'm waiting to see what happens." What do you think? I'm interested in hearing all your opinions down in the comments below. Or, if you have something to say but prefer to stay anonymous, you're more than welcome to write in to the anonymous form below.