Channel 4 are making a new series to be broadcast in the Autumn in which viewers can nominate a building that they would like to see Demolished(free to vote through website).

I have nominated the Roxy/Odeon Buildings for obvious reasons and sent them a link of previous discussions on this website to back up the case.
If we all pull together you never know what we might achieve!

http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/D/demolition/index.html

I vote for Hyde Park! :clap:

Before anyone else points this out, I realise the building is listed! It's just on my personal wish-list!

K x

Winter Gardens, Hyde Park, Howden House, Kettles, Novotel, DWP, to name a few ugly ones

it always amuses me when people talk about architecture. they'll always start off with 'sheffield looks like a crap in a bath' and everyone will agree. Then after about two more sentences, we all realise that I like modernism and low key buildings, you like classical stuff, you like new buildings etc etc.

So fair enough, it's all subjective and we can't agree. But how on earth can you hate the winter gardens, Captain Scarlet? It's beautifully shaped, made out of wood, not too big, warm and free and happy inside, public.

My choices would be anything that they've reclad in cheap looking plastic: in particular, redvers house and milton house. Milton house, argh please stop, it looks so fake that I expect to see it on a channel 5 expose soon.

Redvers House was a genuinely good looking building with some great detailing - that unfortunately had not been maintained properly.

It's gone from being a little gem to going on my Demolition list!

Grosvenor Hotel would be my nomination.

I thought the Grosvenor was going to be demolished anyway!:confused:

My vote would go with either the Roxy, Milton House or Redvers House.

Kristian - I though most of Hyde Park had already been pulled down?:confused:

royal plaza, west one, the new sinclairs building (save time to do it now), wards brewery flats, exchange brewery flats and so on.

I don't mean it really, but people will be looking to demolish them all in about 20 years.....

Originally posted by tom_common
? It's beautifully shaped, made out of wood, not too big, warm and free and happy inside, public. It's the most unappropriate, ugly and pointless building ever, cost millions to the Lottery fund, it's a greenhouse, there's nothing in it... You want me to continue ?
It's made out of glass and wood, which is pretty lame for CITY CENTRE ! If it had been down in Cornwall at the Eden Centre it'd be where it should be, but not in a flippin garden centre !
Build shops, hotels, tall things with limestone ! Stuff like Telegraph House (High Street), Quicksilver (Pinstone St), stuff that looks classy, not cheap like a 20 by 10 metre greenhouse !
Thank god we won't have see it once the hotel is built !!!! :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

I vote for the new hotel they're building next to the Winter Gardens. Whose great idea was it to put it there "where shall we put this new high-rise building? I know, next to Sheffield's landmark glasshouse, if we position it right we should be able to block out most of the light on a good day".

Originally posted by Captain_Scarlet
It's the most unappropriate, ugly and pointless building ever, cost millions to the Lottery fund, it's a greenhouse, there's nothing in it... You want me to continue ?
It's made out of glass and wood, which is pretty lame for CITY CENTRE ! If it had been down in Cornwall at the Eden Centre it'd be where it should be, but not in a flippin garden centre !
Build shops, hotels, tall things with limestone ! Stuff like Telegraph House (High Street), Quicksilver (Pinstone St), stuff that looks classy, not cheap like a 20 by 10 metre greenhouse !
Thank god we won't have see it once the hotel is built !!!! :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

But the whole point is that it is not like the rest of the city centre!! I love going in there because it is quiet, calm, warm and light. It's a little haven, and I would far rather have that than another "tall thing" out of limestone!

I have an idea for a new programme - lets vote for a building that we DO like! Wouldn't that be novel - actually praising something and acknowledging that there are good buildings in Sheffield and that they can have a positive impact on our lives.

The Winter Gardens is pretty disappointing considering the fuss that was made about it, as glass-houses go it's not all that special (and it does feel like it ought to have more plants in it, but hopefully that'll come as the current ones grow), but we've got it now and we ought to make the most of it. Building a hotel next door, to make it look even more squashed in than it does already, is a dumb idea: far better to make some sort of small urban park between the Winter Gardens and the Peace Gardens.

I don't think any building in sheffield is horrid. i do think its a shame when good buildings go and just the facade is kept and the rest of the building is rubbish, for example the hospital which was on west st (can't remember think it might have been the royal, my dad worked there but i can't be bothered to shout him) and the bus station down by the leadmill.

i agree it looks all crammed in next to the winter gardens, i think they wanted another hotel for the snooker which er sheffield will prob lose this year as there are 5 cities bidding, its a load of **** I'm so mad about it (both cross and mad about snooker lol)

Hard to limit myself to only one ...

Hard to choose between the United Reform Church at Hunters Bar, which is truly appalling and the concrete monstrosity that sits on charter row - diagonally opposite waitrose. what is it? - apart from an eyesore?

That thing opposite waitrose is an electricity sub-station

Originally posted by tom_common
That thing opposite waitrose is an electricity sub-station

I always wondered what that was!! Now I know :thumbsup:

My vote is Roxys and the hotel going up in front of Winter Gardens.

I agree about Roxy and the Odeon.
Kingdom nightclub with it's red and mirrored fronting.
The office block outside the train station, which is blue. It looks emtpy but its looks like a security/receptionist stays on the front still. And the old uni building next to it - at least they've half covered that up with what they're dreaming of for the station :rolleyes:
And I'm sure there's loads more...

And agree with the pointlessness of building a greenhouse, only to be blocked by high buildings. They could have at least swapped them around - have the hotel at the back and the Winter Gardens looking onto the Peace Gardens.

You can't realy vote for the hotel next to the winter gardens as you haven't actually seen it yet, it might be fantastic, you never know.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gemma86
[B]I agree about Roxy and the Odeon.
Kingdom nightclub with it's red and mirrored fronting.
The office block outside the train station, which is blue. It looks emtpy but its looks like a security/receptionist stays on the front still. And the old uni building next to it - at least they've half covered that up with what they're dreaming of for the station :rolleyes:
And I'm sure there's loads more...


These two are going to be demolished shortly anyway.

Originally posted by sjw1705
I always wondered what that was!! Now I know :thumbsup:

My vote is Roxys and the hotel going up in front of Winter Gardens.

An planning application has been put in to the council to floodlight the Sub station!

Originally posted by unners
An planning application has been put in to the council to floodlight the Sub station!

I'm all for it.

Can't think of any building in Sheffield that needs demolishing (that isn't already earmarked for it).

I suppose the worst is the one next to the Train station but someone said that's going to be demolished soon anyway.

Why not just look after and maintain the building we have already got? Surely that would be cheaper?

I for one love the winter gardens, it is such a shame that a large hotel is going to obscure it.

A city like Sheffield should have a variety of architecture that represents each era/decade and that is what makes it special and unique. Just knocking down buildings and putting up new one's makes the city look like every other city that doesn't know what it wants to be. There are some wonderful buildings in Sheffield that are neglected and should be looked after.

Originally posted by nick2
I'm all for it.

Me too i just hope they put multi coloured lighting up,that would be a bit different from the normal white or blue lighting schemes!

Originally posted by unners
Me too i just hope they put multi coloured lighting up,that would be a bit different from the normal white or blue lighting schemes!

Exactly, we should celebrate it's functionallity.

Originally posted by nick2
Exactly, we should celebrate it's functionallity.

May be they should use Gas Lamps to light it,now that would be ironic!

Originally posted by nick2
You can't realy vote for the hotel next to the winter gardens as you haven't actually seen it yet, it might be fantastic, you never know.

Who says I can't? OK, can I vote that they knock down what's there already, then hopefully they won't be able to build the rest.

For all I know the Hotel might be fantastic, but even so it'll only be a fantastic hotel. I've stayed in some of the best around (St Martin's Lane & The Sanderson in London, to name just two) and I can tell you for certain it won't be anything like as good as them; even if it was, it's still badly positioned on a piece of land which would be far better used as open space.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I've stayed in some of the best around (St Martin's Lane & The Sanderson in London, to name just two) and I can tell you for certain it won't be anything like as good as them

a) they are 4* London hotels
b) they are not the best in London
c) why are you comparing them to a hotel in Sheffield ?

thats like saying "I have been to the British Museum and Weston Park is never going to be that good".

Originally posted by Kristian
I vote for Hyde Park! :clap:

Before anyone else points this out, I realise the building is listed! It's just on my personal wish-list!

K x

I didn't know Hyde Park was registered :?. Are you sure you don't mean Park Hill ;)

Originally posted by nick2
a) they are 4* London hotels
b) they are not the best in London
c) why are you comparing them to a hotel in Sheffield ?

thats like saying "I have been to the British Museum and Weston Park is never going to be that good".

Hehe, the best hotels don't usually bother with star ratings - it's far too shabby to have customers thinking that you might be compared to something owned by a chain.
;)

Theres a particularly disgusting building on Bramall Lane - smells quite badly too, much like a pigsty. The sooner it's demolished the better.:hihi:

Originally posted by nick2
a) they are 4* London hotels
b) they are not the best in London
c) why are you comparing them to a hotel in Sheffield ?

thats like saying "I have been to the British Museum and Weston Park is never going to be that good".

a) Star systems are an assessment of the services offered by a hotel. They are not a rating of the building's design.

b) I never said they were the best in London, but in the context of this discussion they are certainly the most relevant. And also, now I come to think of it, they probably are the best in London; unless you are some Arab businessman who wants a huge rococo suite and a butler at the door.

Have you ever been to either hotel? Or even have any idea what they are like. Check out their websites:
http://www.stmartinslane.com/
http://www.sandersonhotel.com/

c) I did not compare them to a hotel in Sheffield. Read my post again. I said that even if the Sheffield hotel is as good as one of them, which it won't be, then it won't be right for that particular space.

I'm not stupid, I realise that Sheffield is unlikely to ever have hotels of that standard, there's just not the clientele in this city, snooker or no snooker. But I mentioned them specifically because both have a modern, art-led design which comes about as close as is possible in a hotel to something that would fit in with the Winter Gardens, Peace Gardens & Millenium Gallery. But if pigs started flying and Ian Schrager decided to build a hotel in Sheffield then I'd tell him to sod off and build it on the other side of the galleries (in the spot where there's already a hotel).

BTW Weston Park could have given the British Museum a run for its money while it still had an art gallery. Unfortunately, now that Sheffield Galleries in their infinite stupidity have decided to do away with that, I don't see myself visiting it anything like as often (if and when they ever get around to re-opening it).

Damn Lestat - you beat me to it.

Got to agree that it really spoils the appreciation of St Mary's church. And when the wind's in the wrong direction......................................... ...................

Originally posted by wendy
I thought the Grosvenor was going to be demolished anyway!:confused:

My vote would go with either the Roxy, Milton House or Redvers House.

Kristian - I though most of Hyde Park had already been pulled down?:confused:

I think I must have meant Park Hill! :blush:

K x

Originally posted by Longcol
Damn Lestat - you beat me to it.

Got to agree that it really spoils the appreciation of St Mary's church. And when the wind's in the wrong direction......................................... ...................

LOL! :P - at least thats 2 votes for it!

Originally posted by Lestat
Theres a particularly disgusting building on Bramall Lane - smells quite badly too, much like a pigsty. The sooner it's demolished the better.:hihi:

even though victorian maps show hillsborough to be built on a pig farm- strange that.

Groan. The owner of the Classic Rock Bar got his planning permission through this week to demolish the pub. Don't much wanna nominate that though.

I nominate Park Hill, knock it down and build it again properly. I know it's listed, but hey, I can dream.....

How can they enforce this? Surely the owners of the building will tell channel 4 to ***k off...

Its got to be a disused building i believe.

Originally posted by scottf
Its got to be a disused building i believe.

How about one that's yet to be used? Like that hotel?

Originally posted by unners
Originally posted by gemma86
[B]I agree about Roxy and the Odeon.
Kingdom nightclub with it's red and mirrored fronting.
The office block outside the train station, which is blue. It looks emtpy but its looks like a security/receptionist stays on the front still. And the old uni building next to it - at least they've half covered that up with what they're dreaming of for the station :rolleyes:
And I'm sure there's loads more...


These two are going to be demolished shortly anyway.

Which two?

My vote would also be for the new hotel being built between the peace gardens & winter gardens. Sheffield doesn't need another and its a bloody stupid place to put one.

Originally posted by sanman
Sheffield doesn't need another and its a bloody stupid place to put one.

Yes it does, and no it isn't.

sheffield has the least amount of hotel beds per head of every city in the country i read in the star a while ago, it does need lots more hotels!!!!!

Originally posted by Tony
Redvers House was a genuinely good looking building with some great detailing - that unfortunately had not been maintained properly.

It's gone from being a little gem to going on my Demolition list!

Agree tony, now it is just another faceless block to join in with the rest of them that are being built in St' Pauls place, etc. Now the old education building has had some of the parts pulled down, I looked at what they did and they have pulled some good carvings down on the Leopold street side to make a new enterance which will no doubt be another faceless thing.

Originally posted by nightrider
How can they enforce this? Surely the owners of the building will tell channel 4 to ***k off...

I believe it is in association with RIBA Royal Institue of British Architects, who have brought in something called X-listing, can't remember the full details on it but they can knock down what they want almost with it.

sheffield has the least amount of hotel beds per head of every city in the country i read in the star a while ago, it does need lots more hotels!!!!!



What sort of measurement is that to denote the requirement for hotels. Surely it should be the amount of visitors to Sheffield as these are the most likely to stay in the hotels. I would have thought that Sheffield has more hotels now than it ever has had in the past.

To build a new one between the Peace Gardens & Winter Gardens is ludicrous as it will spoil the look of both. Why on earth build a huge green house and then block all the light on one side by building a hotel about 20 feet away.

The hotel is not blocking anymore light than the (much taller and wider) town hall was already, if you go in the Winter Gardens in the daytime it is still just as bright as it was before the hotel was built. If the amount of light had dropped signifficantly then the plants would be looking a bit starved, but they arn't.

Originally posted by duffman
I believe it is in association with RIBA Royal Institue of British Architects, who have brought in something called X-listing, can't remember the full details on it but they can knock down what they want almost with it.

even my house?!

Originally posted by duffman
Now the old education building has had some of the parts pulled down, I looked at what they did and they have pulled some good carvings down on the Leopold street side to make a new enterance which will no doubt be another faceless thing.
I can't believe they'd done that, when I walked past the other day. Such a shame.

in fairness to the developers, they have taken away the carvings etc into storage. They will be put back up when the development is finished. They had to remove them to allow access for the big machinery.

I'm sure I've said it before but my vote is for the Roxy and Odeon buildings, maybe noit demolishing them but certainly redeveloping them so access between the city and the station are vastly improved.
If it has to be a disused building then my vote would be for wherever the public consultation room is for the city planners as there doesn't seem to be any public consultation as yet another part of the city is bulldozed or another ugly featureless block appears.

there's a bit of a internet thing going on for Bramall Lane - most of the organised Owls fan message boards are voting for it...

Should be interesting - Turn the Pig Sty into a car park....

Originally posted by sham71
in fairness to the developers, they have taken away the carvings etc into storage. They will be put back up when the development is finished. They had to remove them to allow access for the big machinery.

The one's I saw wouldn't be as they were destroyed and skipped, maybe they are making some new ones for enterance. I would like this as you don't see many new developments do anything like that, let's hope.

Originally posted by duffman
The one's I saw wouldn't be as they were destroyed and skipped, maybe they are making some new ones for enterance. I would like this as you don't see many new developments do anything like that, let's hope.

well, I'm not sure where I read it, but it said they were preserving them.

However, it wouldn't be the first time a developer has said one thing to get planning permission and then done the opposite.

They always seem to have a random JCB driver at hand to knock down the listed bulding or the tree with a preservation order. They they get a small fine.

surely the builders won't just dump the carvings from leopold street and i was under the impression that they only demolished a more modern extension to the building. Leopold square sounds like a really exciting project, anyone know when its due to be completed?

Originally posted by Internetowl
there's a bit of a internet thing going on for Bramall Lane - most of the organised Owls fan message boards are voting for it...

Should be interesting - Turn the Pig Sty into a car park....

Now, now Internetowl. There's more chance of turning Hillsborough into a football ground!;) ;)

Mod: Ahem... Footy chat in the sport section please :nono:

listing notwithstanding, it seems the Arts Tower is getting off very lightly.

The Fosters Flats in High Green need knocking down!

I'd like to see the Arts Tower recladded rather than demolished.

How can anyone possibly think Redvers House looks worse now than it did before? It looked drab before and now looks much more aesthetically pleasing, as well as suiting its surroundings better.

I think the substation on Moore Street needs some work, as does the BT Tower on Charter Row (planning app due to go in for a reclad soon).

Sheaf and Dyson House's days are numbered, so that leaves most of Castlegate and the Roxy/Odeon for demolition.

Castlegate is ugly as sin, the Odeon/Roxy isn't that bad when you consider the surroundings are a lot nicer.

SO my vote goes, not to a building, but to Castlegate as a whole. If you're demanding a building, I suggest you start with that 'tower' with the spiraly staircase on it.

Originally posted by dudu
listing notwithstanding, it seems the Arts Tower is getting off very lightly.

I quite like the Arts Tower! At least there is some kind of story behind it, and although it is a bit crap (in that it is cold, overcrowded, the lifts always break, water pours in to the lower ground floor when it rains etc) it is kind of an icon for Sheffield. When coming in to Sheffield on the train, I always smile to myself when I see the arts tower in the distance, because I know I'm nearly home!

west bar police station is a ugly building

Sheffield needs a few more taller building like the Arts Tower, albeit a bit more modern.

As for the Macdonald hotel, i think it would have worked better being very tall and slim so that it wouldn't block out the winter gardens.

Originally posted by Unisol
Sheffield needs a few more taller building like the Arts Tower, albeit a bit more modern.

Why do you think Sheffield needs more tall buildings?

the entire of Orchid square, i hate that place.

Just had a phone call from a Channel 4 researcher saying that they were really impressed with my nomination for the Roxy and my reasons behind it.And that they want me to do a video diary for them!! So watch this space.

If anyone has any memories of the Roxy or Fiesta club private me please, the more information on how people use to feel about the place in its hay day and how you feel about it now the better.

Thanx

Neil

PS i mentioned the Forum.

actually how about putting in a word for the flattening of meadowhall pleaassseeeeeeeeeee!!!

Originally posted by beckyaa
Why do you think Sheffield needs more tall buildings?

This may seem like a capitalist pigdog attitude, but tall buildings (skyscrapers if you like) signify wealth and success.

We're obviously not talking on the scale of New York, but most major cities have a striking syline but Sheffield's is somewhat lackluster.

Anyone who's been to Barcelona will have noticed how modern and historical mix very well together. I am not comparing the two cities, just giving an example of what can be achieved with some better planning.

Sheffield has some fantastic old architecture but our modern buildings aren't exactly brave or interesting in their design.

Sheffield struggles to keep up with other large cities because people aren't prepared to take gambles.

A good article was written in the Telegraph about this a few weeks ago.

Having said all the above, i'm a native Sheffield'er and love living here. It's good to see the changes that are coming, especially within the city centre and hopefully 'Snow Mountain'

This programme airs all this weekend until Monday.Park Hill is in the top 12 you also get to see the demolition of Sheaf House.

http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/D/demolition/index.html

Roxy

Park Hill

Hackenthorpe Shops

"Ya think you used enough Dynamite there Butch?"

:heyhey:

Not just the Roxy - that whole block with all those derelict shops and take-aways needs to go.

"BTW Weston Park could have given the British Museum a run for its money while it still had an art gallery"

sorry, just seen this, and thought i'd add the following. can't remember who posted it, but....

you're wrong, that's one the most ridiculous statements i've heard for ages.

The building which I hate in sheffield is the Novotel. It is the single most ugly building in the town centre.
The new buildings around it are looking quite nice to me now and Novotel lets the whole block down.

park hill flats.....i used to live there :rant:

The roxy is the most horrible building in sheffield. Redver's house does look worse now than it did before.

Park Hill

Roxy

DWP building

I believe they are featuring more about the Park Hill estate on the Demolition prog C4, it was the only building to be in there top ten and to be a listed building!!!!

1 ST Paul's Place!!! - It has destroyed the Peace Gardens and it's as ugly if not worse than the old Egg Box. It has killed the centre of our city.

Please vote to demolish this building, along with the office of whoever was responsible for sanctioning this monstrosity in the council!!!

Originally posted by JimFX
1 ST Paul's Place!!! - It has destroyed the Peace Gardens and it's as ugly if not worse than the old Egg Box. It has killed the centre of our city.

Please vote to demolish this building, along with the office of whoever was responsible for sanctioning this monstrosity in the council!!!

i disagree i think it looks nice now its kinda finished and cant wait to see what the rest sheffield has to offer. IF you are goin to nominate a building to be demolised be a little more realistic, they have only just just built the hotel FFS !

I think the program showed sheffield in a possitve light, we should be proud of our city :-)

I agree - I kinda like it, don't be such fuddy duddy's.

I was walking up t' Moor the other evening and there are hotel rooms with those sweeping glass vistas - they overlook the Peace Gardens, Town Hall and Moor all lit up - that must be a fantastic sight from the room.

Ideally the hotel should have been built where the Winter Gardens are and the Winter Gardens should have been in front of the hotel but new buildings take time to assimilate

I lived in the North East when they were constructing the 'Angel of the North', bye eck you have never heard such criticism - everyday the local papers just printed, 'waste of money', 'blot on the landscape', 'carbuncle' - it was savage criticism - do we hear that now?

Change is a funny thing

Originally posted by eighty4
i disagree i think it looks nice now its kinda finished and cant wait to see what the rest sheffield has to offer. IF you are goin to nominate a building to be demolised be a little more realistic, they have only just just built the hotel FFS !

I think the program showed sheffield in a possitve light, we should be proud of our city :-)

the macdonalds hotel is ok i suppose, but i agree that 1 st paul's place is a monstrosity:gag:

Originally posted by Unisol
This may seem like a capitalist pigdog attitude, but tall buildings (skyscrapers if you like) signify wealth and success.

We're obviously not talking on the scale of New York, but most major cities have a striking syline but Sheffield's is somewhat lackluster.

...

Sheffield has some fantastic old architecture but our modern buildings aren't exactly brave or interesting in their design.


The national Pop centre (however ill conceived) is a great building. As are the millenium galleries, park hill flats, the winter gardens & the DWP Ziggurat.

I think one of the best features of Sheffield is it's natural, geography. Not many buildings actually alter the natural curves of the hills, or stick up above them, which gives it a unique undulating skyline.

I think the best view is sheffield has to be from the banner cross area looking down ecclesall road/encliff park. Its just a sea of green trees, with occasional old buildings just poking out of the canopy.

stunning.

Apart from macdonalds hotel & the horrific st apaulings place. The proposed, its not built yet but people want it knocked down already, monstrous 32 story st apauling tower slab. Sheffield city centre! What a dreary ugly dump!

Originally posted by Tim42
(snipped) The proposed, its not built yet but people want it knocked down already, monstrous 32 story st apauling tower slab. Sheffield city centre! What a dreary ugly dump!

I agree, tim,

the slums of the future, IMO

PT

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The national Pop centre (however ill conceived) is a great building. As are the millenium galleries, park hill flats, the winter gardens & the DWP Ziggurat.NO they aren't... As heard and seen on 'Demolition' people in general do not like buildings that stand out, out of place or which do not fit in what is already there. All of the cited buildings above fit these criterea.

X list 'em all !

Perhaps if we returned our centre into what it was meant to be and built as originally then we would agree on the true class of we deserve.

Originally posted by Captain_Scarlet
NO they aren't... As heard and seen on 'Demolition' people in general do not like buildings that stand out, out of place or which do not fit in what is already there. All of the cited buildings above fit these criterea.

What people like, and what is good, are invariably not the same thing. Eye of the beholder is the crucial factor

X list 'em all !

Perhaps if we returned our centre into what it was meant to be and built as originally then we would agree on the true class of we deserve.

That doesn't actually make sense.

Maybe if we knocked down the monstrous Town Hall, we'd be getting somewhere.

Originally posted by Captain_Scarlet
NO they aren't... As heard and seen on 'Demolition' people in general do not like buildings that stand out, out of place or which do not fit in what is already there. All of the cited buildings above fit these criterea.

X list 'em all !

Perhaps if we returned our centre into what it was meant to be and built as originally then we would agree on the true class of we deserve.

If we stuck to architecture that fits in with old buildings we'd end up with a very dull and uninteresting world.

We don't always get it right, but it's necessary to try brave new designs in order to create a dynamic city.

I agree with Phan, all of those buildings have broken away from normal architectural constraints. They're the buildings that people talk about. Every visitor that I've entertained in Sheffield makes positive comments about buildings like the NCPM and Winter Gardens.

Watching Demolition at the mo, they just showed clips of the various places they will be visiting and I am fairly sure that Kevin McCloud is walking through Park Hill (i know its going to be featured in the top 12) when he nearly gets hit by a missile from above.
Way to go chavs of Sheffield *sigh*

Originally posted by Andy78
If we stuck to architecture that fits in with old buildings we'd end up with a very dull and uninteresting world. No we'd end up with a beautiful extravagant and almost wild centre, with buildings having many unique features. Look at the few buildings between Pinstone St and Cole Brothers, magnificent, best way to see em is from the top floor of the car park.

You mistake fit in with building the same... I see your point but it's off.

Interesting programme last night.

I was amazed to hear that English Heritage talked about the redevelopment giving the building a life of another 20 or 30 years!

Is this what taxpayers are shelling out £35m for? Do potential buyers of apartments in Park Hill know about this forcast? It all seems very odd to me.

Originally posted by eighty4
i disagree i think it looks nice now its kinda finished and cant wait to see what the rest sheffield has to offer. IF you are goin to nominate a building to be demolised be a little more realistic, they have only just just built the hotel FFS !

I think the program showed sheffield in a possitve light, we should be proud of our city :-)

I am very proud of our city, which is why I despise this monstrosity that has destroyed the peace gardens, the central focal point of our city centre. I can't see from what angle it 'looks nice'. Whoever sanctioned that eyesore should have their offices and homes demolished along with this ugly f@#ing heap of rubble!!!!

And I actually like the Winter Gardens and NCPM. I think that they bring some variety to the architectural landscape of Sheffield but 1 St Appauling's Place cannot be considered 'nice' by any stretch of the imagination. Apart from the retro-minimalist design that harks back to a time during which most buildings built are now being demolished, it has simply taken over space that would have been much better left open.

The mughal emperor who had the Taj Mahal built got the architect's hands chopped off so that they would never again design anything as beautiful. I think that in the case of 1 St Appauling's Place we need to do the same to the unimaginative architects, greedy developers and corrupt council officials responsible for it, so that they never again build anything as UGLY as this in our beautiful green city! :gag:

I bet Sheffield people were the first to sabotage the machines of the Industrial Revolution. I don't know about the future, it looks like the present is too modern for some of us.

And we wonder why big companies don't re-locate to Sheffield ?

No, I have absolutely nothing against modern design, if it's done well. 1 St Appauling's Place certainly isn't modern. It's just a pretend retro-modernist eyesore!

Originally posted by JimFX
No, I have absolutely nothing against modern design,

as long as it looks old fashioned ?

I spent last week at the IT Furnace, which is on the 5th floor across the road from 1 St Paul's Place and has a great view of the area. The more I saw of 1 St Paul's Place the better it looked.

I find it hard to see how they are going to fit 3 buildings of similar size on that plot of land though.

Originally posted by nick2
as long as it looks old fashioned ?

No, like I said before, I like the Winter Gardens and NCPM, which don't look old fashioned. If anything is old fashioned (i.e. circa 60s) it is St Appaulings!

Originally posted by JimFX
No, like I said before, I like the Winter Gardens and NCPM, which don't look old fashioned. If anything is old fashioned (i.e. circa 60s) it is St Appaulings!

Touche! Well put. My vote goes to Currys on Furnival Gate. Battlehsip grey plastic cladding. Nice.

Originally posted by JimFX
If anything is old fashioned (i.e. circa 60s) it is St Appaulings!

It looks nothing like the 60's buildings in Sheffield.

Originally posted by nick2
I bet Sheffield people were the first to sabotage the machines of the Industrial Revolution. I don't know about the future, it looks like the present is too modern for some of us.

And we wonder why big companies don't re-locate to Sheffield ?
I don't know any other city that harks back with misty eyed sentimentality to the good old days when 'Little Mesters' worked 7 days a week for pittance pay and the reward of a lovely lingering blood coughing death by the age of 35 though silicosis or the joy of a stone grinding wheel exploding in the face at any random moment.

Originally posted by Tony
I don't know any other city that harks back with misty eyed sentimentality to the good old days when 'Little Mesters' worked 7 days a week for pittance pay and the reward of a lovely lingering blood coughing death by the age of 35 though silicosis or the joy of a stone grinding wheel exploding in the face at any random moment.

They would strole home down broad leafy evenues through a neo-classical masterpiece of town planning with architecture to rival Rome or Venice. They might linger in one of the many parks and squares for a rest and to watch the children happily playing with their kites or to admire the well-tended flower borders. Finally they arrived home at their quaint little cottage which was small and humble but served their needs.

Oh, if only we could turn the clock back ?

What about Stokes tiles on Moore Street?

Originally posted by nick2
They would strole home down broad leafy evenues through a neo-classical masterpiece of town planning with architecture to rival Rome or Venice.

Well, I'd much prefer Sheffield to look like Rome or Venice than Milton Keynes, which is how far the imagination of the St Pauls place developers seems to go.

Originally posted by noobie
Well, I'd much prefer Sheffield to look like Rome or Venice than Milton Keynes, which is how far the imagination of the St Pauls place developers seems to go.

The problem is that they would have never got planning permission if they were too imaginative, image if they proposed something like the Lloyds building, Sheffield folk would faint at the thought of something so radical.

I prefered Sheffield circa 1945 when it was all blitzed.Better than the modern rubbish going up now.(being sarcastic)

I reckon if Winter Gardens swapped places with the St Paul's disaster, it could have been much a better use of the space. Too late now... The city suffers from talentless (or corrupt) planners i guess.

http://sccplugins.sheffield.gov.uk/press/news/release.asp?akey=3283

http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=2&newsID=1959

Originally posted by m0nkey
http://sccplugins.sheffield.gov.uk/press/news/release.asp?akey=3283

http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=2&newsID=1959 I'm confused, if the 32 storey tower is going there where's this car park and casino going then ? in between St Paul's and tower (which I believe was given the green light a while ago and discussed in another thread) ?

Yeah, the imagination of this council's planners doesn't stretch far beyond Casinos, Strip Bars and Car Parks - anything their greedy developer mates want to invest in. So this is what 'regeneration' means to them!

Originally posted by nick2
They would strole home down broad leafy evenues through a neo-classical masterpiece of town planning with architecture to rival Rome or Venice. They might linger in one of the many parks and squares for a rest and to watch the children happily playing with their kites or to admire the well-tended flower borders. Finally they arrived home at their quaint little cottage which was small and humble but served their needs.

Oh, if only we could turn the clock back ?

One of the problems with the debate on architecture is this patronising tendency of those who think they're being "modern" to class anyone who disagrees with them as being "old fashioned". It's an easy stereotype and allows architects, planners and designers to gain the moral high ground.

In fact, this debate has nothing to do with whether buildings are "old fashioned" or "modern". It has everything to do with people and human nature. Human beings weren't meant to live in cities. We do so out of necessity. Many of us believe that if we have to live in a city, it should be beautiful.

Unfortunately, architectural dogma for the last 70 years has been based on human ideals that real people don't match up to. The principal theory which has taken hold of architecture is that if a building functions as it should, then people will, in time, recognise its inherent beauty. What cobblers.

I want to live in a vsiually stunning city, and I don't especially care whether it's stunning because of its old buildings or because of new buildings. If people look back on old buildings with misty-eyed fondness, it's because until comparatively recently, the goal of architects was to create beautiful buildings. It's no coincidence that many of the pinnacles of architectural achievement have drawn on the past for their inspiration (try the renaissance, or the gothic revival or neo-classicism).

Sadly, we live in times where people arrogantly believe that they can change the way things have been done for thousands of years, and - more importantly - that they can change human nature.

Sorry for the length of the post but ill-informed people trying to force an argument on fallacious grounds wind me up!

That told me - last time I try to have a bit of a laugh.

Houndsfieldjr. How eloquent. How well put. Brilliant! Brilliant! Brilliant!

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
One of the problems with the debate on architecture is this patronising tendency of those who think they're being "modern" to class anyone who disagrees with them as being "old fashioned". It's an easy stereotype and allows architects, planners and designers to gain the moral high ground.

Too right, mate! Like someone said earlier, this is the sort of attitude that, if left unchallenged, would turn the city into another Milton Keynes. Functional but bland!

Although, I'd still debate how 'functional' St Appauling's place is.

Originally posted by JimFX
Too right, mate! Like someone said earlier, this is the sort of attitude that, if left unchallenged, would turn the city into another Milton Keynes. Functional but bland!

Milton Keynes was built from scratch, so all the buildings are modern, there is no mix of old/new, thats why it looks so dull. Sheffield will never end-up like that, unless we get rid of every old building first.

Originally posted by nick2
Milton Keynes was built from scratch, so all the buildings are modern, there is no mix of old/new, thats why it looks so dull. Sheffield will never end-up like that, unless we get rid of every old building first.

So, now are YOU saying that Modern = Dull ? :confused: I don't believe that at all and it certainly doesn't have to be that way. It boggles my mind that this city is supposed to have some of the best architecture and design schools in the country and yet much of the new stock of buildings cropping up here are some of the ugliest in the world. What happens to all of those bright young graduates - do they all F-off to London or what?

Originally posted by JimFX
So, now are YOU saying that Modern = Dull ?

I'm saying Milton Keynes is dull.

I don't think all modern buildings are dull, I think some modern buildings are dull, as are many old buildings.

As for the architecture students, yes, I think they do go to London or another city where people are a bit more foreward thinking and prepared to take a risk or two.

I don't believe that it is Sheffield people that aren't forward thinking enough. I think we're victims of clueless or corrupt planners in the council as someone else mentioned earlier.

I think we do kind of have ourselves to blame, look at the reaction of people on here to

a) the winter gardens
b) the new hotel
c) the office block
d) the proposed tower
e) the re-development of Leopold Street buildings
f) the NCPM kettles

we don't give anything a chance, people saying they look crap before their even finished, even (and this I found most amusing) people saying they look worse than the egg-box. Anyone from the council reading it would think "good grief, they dont' like anything new", so they only give permission to bland buildings that don't provoke any kind or reaction, like Derwent house.

JimFX, the planners aren't (on the whole) clueless, and I have never ever seen or heard any evidence of them being corrupt either.

However, Sheffield gets the buildings that its economy can support.

Higher rents will mean more expensive buildings. However, when most new buildings are occupied by Government Departments or low wage wage earners the money will not be spent on more expensive architecture, materials and design.

Blame the economy of Sheffield, not the planners, developers or architects.

Are you really saying that it takes extra money to be imaginative.:confused:

Are you implying that we get the buildings we deserve?

As a city we should insist on standards of.....imagination....will the building add to our well being...will it provoke thought and above all be habitable (Park Hill).

We should be part of the planning process - people should be consulted - then the buck stops with us.

Blimey....I'm off for a lie down after that:rant:

Originally posted by Teabag
Are you really saying that it takes extra money to be imaginative.:confused:
No, it takes extra money to pay for it.

Originally posted by Teabag
Are you implying that we get the buildings we deserve?
Yes

Originally posted by Teabag
As a city we should insist on standards of.....imagination....will the building add to our well being...will it provoke thought and above all be habitable (Park Hill). See answer 1

Originally posted by Teabag
We should be part of the planning process - people should be consulted - then the buck stops with us.
People are. You just obviously don't take enough interest to make your thoughts known where it matters. People like a moan, but not enough to get involved or pay for it. Planning is a public process. So, see answer 1 again.

Originally posted by Teabag
Blimey....I'm off for a lie down after that:rant:
Hehe, it's good that you care enough to get agitated. Now if you are prepared to help build an economy that can sustain typical rents of £25 /sq. ft in dozens of buildings we will be making a start. See answer 1 yet again. :thumbsup:

I don't think it takes lots of money to be imaginative.

I don't think we have to have to be some kind of Tiger economy to plan and build something that is beautiful.

Your views are hard and officious. If thats the real world, don't quote it - change it!!

:clap:

Got to say I'm with Teabag on this one. Imagination is free. Beauty doesn't cost.

The state of the city's economy is only part of the story and an easy excuse for lame architects and ineffectual planners. Developers have got our planning department convinced that they are poor, misunderstood philanthropists.

The truth is that they try and get away with the cheapest option, and more often than not the planners swallow it. If the planners were on the side of the citizens of Sheffield, they would dig their heels in and show that they are not a soft touch. A scheme which brings a developer 20% profit is just as likely to proceed for an 15% profit but with better materials.

The history of architecture is littered with examples of buildings which inspire through good design but which do not cost the earth. I suppose it comes down to whether our planners and politicians continue to believe that if it's cheap, it has to look rubbish.

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
The history of architecture is littered with examples of buildings which inspire through good design but which do not cost the earth.

for example....... ?

Take a look at buildings in Scandanavia - Stockholm, Copenhagen - Finland. Go to the Netherlands and look at the low cost housing that is being built at present - all with an eye for good solid but attractive design.

I am sure forum members can give many more examples and perhaps closer to home.

On a last note - I went to Manchester yesterday and saw the new art gallery that has opened there - the new building is fabulous - just across from Selfridges. The building resembles the 'flat iron' building in New York but this is built from glass - you turn the corner and it is quite stunning - turn the corner from Surrey Street and I don't think you get the same reaction from the Millenium galleries - although they are a great asset to the city.

It does not always take money - people need to think out of the box, flare, boldness and take an artistic risk. Sheffield needs to make better statements - the city has so much going for itself, the main asset of which is its people - our buildings ignore that.

:clap: :clap:

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
Got to say I'm with Teabag on this one. Imagination is free. Beauty doesn't cost.

The state of the city's economy is only part of the story and an easy excuse for lame architects and ineffectual planners. Developers have got our planning department convinced that they are poor, misunderstood philanthropists.

The truth is that they try and get away with the cheapest option, and more often than not the planners swallow it. If the planners were on the side of the citizens of Sheffield, they would dig their heels in and show that they are not a soft touch. A scheme which brings a developer 20% profit is just as likely to proceed for an 15% profit but with better materials.

The history of architecture is littered with examples of buildings which inspire through good design but which do not cost the earth. I suppose it comes down to whether our planners and politicians continue to believe that if it's cheap, it has to look rubbish.
I'm sorry hounsfieldjr you're just wrong on all of the above points.

Originally posted by Tony
I'm sorry hounsfieldjr you're just wrong on all of the above points. And clearly you've made a point to prove your point.

I made it days ago, and I made it with the benefit of 20 years experience in that industry. I sincerely wish that the answer was different, but the realities are that it isn't. It is easy to have a 'wish list' but it is very different when faced with the realities.

Other cities are ahead of Sheffield for the simple reasons that I have stated, not because anyone in the development industry treats Sheffield any differently, or is any less capable. Sheffield doesn't exist in a bubble. it has to compete with other towns and cities and face up to the fact that other towns and cities provide a far better prospect of financial success.

Why would a developer want to make 15% profit when the the funders insist on 20% cover before ageeing to lend the money? Why would they want to make less money in Sheffield when they can make more in Leeds / Manchester / Doncaster?

In the same way that the joiner goes to the site that pays more, so does the developer that pays the joiner. Perhaps the joiner should have smaller wages so that the developer can pay for a better building?

I'm afraid I think that's awfully naive. There's more than one developer in the country. Developers have to compete for land as well. They don't just click their fingers and the world comes running. If they have a chance of a profit, they take it.

20 years of following the same wrong path doesn't make it right.

And your explanation of why I'm supposedly wrong on every point ignores the cold, hard fact that imagination is free....

The cold hard facts are that I do this every day of my working life, and I am more than aware of the problems, the solutions, and the realities of the market in applying those.

However, to kick off on the right foot, you are right, imagination is free. However, the skills to implement the imaginative design process is a rather more expensive one.

Firstly, employing the right people are very expensive. It might come as a surprise, but not all designers, engineers, builders, developers, etc are the same.

The good, cutting edge, innovative architects are more expensive than those that put up workaday buildings. The buildings that those same sexy architects design are also more expensive in concept, technique, construction and materials.

Then, the bricks, steel, concrete, and the labour to put them all together is very expensive. About double what is was only half a dozen years ago.

The rentals and values haven't followed suit in Sheffield. They are undoubtedly better, but they are nowhere near other similar sized cities.

Let me give you a very simple example. The purchase price for apartments in Sheffield based on GIFA is creeping over £200 / sq.ft. In Leeds it is over £350 / sq.ft.

Raw build costs a few years ago were under £50 /sq.ft. They are now well over £100 /sq.ft. They are the same for the equivalent building regardless of where it built.

So do you see how the achievable values have a direct consequence on the quality of the buildings in a city?

You quite rightly question the development system as being wrong, and I would agree with that sentiment, but that is a very different discussion. Briefly, in simple terms the current D&B system actually produces more expensive and lower quality buildings whilst dressing it up as a more efficient procurement method. I've seen it get worse in 20 years, not better, and the customer and the builder are to blame. It does however make plumbers very well off. ;)

This doesn't answer it all. I'm not going to argue with your figures - you clearly know the maths.

But a decision to build in a particular city isn't just based on building costs. It's based on land costs, land availability, whether a developer understands the particular market, whether a developer can compete with other developers in other markets, demand from the business community (which itself is influenced by other factors), and of course the emotional pull of a particular place.

The issue is whether our planners should be working harder to get quality into Sheffield. The blind acceptance that developers will only come here if they make a specific level of profit ignores the other factors. We have a serious problem with the public sector mentality in Sheffield. I'm by no means saying that should privatise the planning function but a bit of that private sector "can do" attitude wouldn't go amiss. It would be nice if we could work with business to put the squeeze on developers rather than being stuck in the middle.

Still, good to hear you agree that we're paying peanuts to get monkeys, architect-wise!! Maybe we should ask developers to think "outside the box" when appointing architects; otherwise, boxes is what we'll continue to get.

Anyway, going home now!