Does anyone know whether the Council meeting next week to consider a City Centre skyscraper is merely a rubber-stamping job or will be fully and properly debated; see the front page of today's Sheffield Telegraph for more info. Did we really have to demolish that paragon of ugliness the Eggbox for something which is hardly any more tasteful?

The meeting is today and going on as we speak. Council officers have reccomended that councillors accept the proposal even though many it has faced opposition from some distungished experts.

About time we got some city scale buildings approved.

Totally agree that the replacement to the egg boxes is just as bad. No actually the new office buildings are worse, not least because they have repeated the same mistake of blandness and municipality only on a bigger scale.

Why did no-one in planning listen?

I liked the eggdox, it was a unique building, as is the winter gardens, the millenium gallery and the new hotel (to a certain degree), but the office building - oh dear, how dull.

BBC Radio Sheffield have just announced that the plans for a 32 storey tower have been reject by six votes to two. Councillors felt it would overshadow the Winter Gardens too much, which is quite odd when they built a sodding hotel next door to it.

They probably rejected it because it would have to come down one day...like those flats on t'other side of town :D

No, they rejected it because they are narrow-minded, provincial imbeciles.

I could have understood if they rejected it on the grounds of design but not because it overshadows the Winter Gardens. This means that they have agreed in outline the whole heart of the city project knowing that an important element will never be given full planning permission i.e a tower block on the site of the registry office.

Incompetence of the highest grade.

M

One is left with the distinct aftertaste that our council, whom I had previously given the benefit of the doubt, haven't a clue what they are doing. The whole bloody point of the Heart of the City regeneration project was to kick start projects like this. Why in Hades did they build the Winter Gardens if it would then become a hinderence to future projects. And the suggestion that the Conran project would block light to the Winter Gardens is made to look rather silly when the allow the building of a rather large, if nondescript, hotel right next door to it!

What will this mean for future developments?

Oh well, off go Conran and City Lofts to Leeds or Manchester or Newcastle or Nottingham or Liverpool.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :rant: :rant: :rant:

P*****............... Bloody bunch of incompetent prats..................

Would the skyscraper be more luxury flats or offices?

oh look investment in the city.....

god forbid.

as per usual the council shows why its the best place for lazy, middle aged incompetanets to work....

Originally posted by Deavon
Totally agree that the replacement to the egg boxes is just as bad. No actually the new office buildings are worse, not least because they have repeated the same mistake of blandness and municipality only on a bigger scale.

Why did no-one in planning listen? Please try to hang on to your hat until it is finished. It will look very different when the brie soliel are fitted.

The refusal? I'm so very depressed at the utter utter lack of ...

...well everything!

"It will be nice when it's finished!"

Now where have I heard that before?:hihi:

No Deavon, I said wait until it is finished.

As I said, it will look VERY different. THEN you can pass judgment. All you are doing at the moment is commenting on a building site. You might as well criticize the colour of the crane.

Originally posted by carcrash
Would the skyscraper be more luxury flats or offices?

Luxury flats probably given that 90% of recent new developments in Sheff end up as Luxury flats.. Which given the amount of alleged homelessness in Sheff (look at all the Big Issue sellers on the "Fargate Mile") seems a bit daft IMO.

You have a bit of land. This bit of land is right in the middle of your city. This bit of land is worth millions. You are given the best part of £120m by the European Union to improve your city, which is classed as deprived as parts of Eastern Europe. Your mission is to utilise this money to develop an environment likely to attract investors to come to your city. It's a tricky one, because a lot of people if your city are wary of change. They're especially wary because your predecessors in the 1960s promised a brighter future and made a bit of a mess of things. Some people in your city yearn for a past that has long gone. Some people can't wait for the future to arrive.

And so, on this piece of land - this thin sliver of the most expensive and desirable real estate in the entire city - you build a rather impressive greenhouse. The thing is though, this greenhouse is full of plants that are very sensitive to anything being built around it. So, when a big, posh company, who have built big, posh things, for big, posh people to live in (and hopefully bring big, posh jobs with them) employ Sir Terence Conran (a big, posh designer) to create a big, posh development you turn them down.

You do, however, allow a nondescript hotel to be built next door to the plants. Well done. You may be open to accusations of not having the faintest idea what you're doing though, but don't let that stop you.

Originally posted by Tony
when the brie soliel are fitted.

Sun cheeses ?

Originally posted by Tony
No Deavon, I said wait until it is finished.

As I said, it will look VERY different. THEN you can pass judgment. All you are doing at the moment is commenting on a building site. You might as well criticize the colour of the crane.

I understand your point Tony, but I don't agree with it.

The colour (or lack of it) on the cranes, the noise coming from the site, the interaction between the workers and the general public is very, very important and perhaps deserves comment, but not here, by me.

The replacement to the 'egg box' looks this awful (http://www.j-f-finnegan.co.uk/finncon_off.html) in imagery provided by the construction company.

It looks as appalling in real life (so far). That may change but I doubt it.

The problem seems to stem from the fact that the council would rather sanction dull, squat buildings than approve confident, tall, ambitious projects.

Staggeringly, a city councillor said the reason she voted against it was because it was 'just another block'. Yes dear, a 32 storey glass block designed by Sir Terence Conran. Look at what you've bloody built next to the Winter Gardens! Look at the squat, square things in St. Pauls Place!

Aarrrgggh!!!! What is it with this lot?

*Brain snaps*

I can't comment too much on those squat, square things as I don't live in Sheffield at the moment and I haven't seen them yet.

Originally posted by SheffieldSean
Staggeringly, a city councillor said the reason she voted against it was because it was 'just another block'.

Like Derwent House ?

Why would we want a 32 storey shadow cast over the city centre? I like the relative open plan-ness of Sheffield, and it's contours give it enough light issues already without artificially detracting from it's environment.

In my opinion, apartments should only be approved if there are 2 allocated parking spaces per master bedroom and one for each additional bedroom. Parking in other cities where apartments have sprung up is detracting from the experience of other city centre users (mainly due to reduced pedestrian flow)

I'm not looking forward to seeing the roads round the new student quarter near Bramall lane after all the student drivers that the council have overlooked move in :rant:

It's not all that surprising that this scheme has been refused given that the decision has been made by 'laymen' councillors. The decision has been taken for political reasons, and the political reasons are directly related to the people who elect them, THE PEOPLE OF SHEFFIELD!

So, lots of people complain that the new hotel overshadows the wintergardens (It doesn't - it's almost directly to the north of the winter gardens, which many educated people will know is a direction that sunlight rarely comes from), and blocks views. Hey presto, the next large building to be proposed near by is rejected as the Councillors want to avoid a backlash from the voting public.

simple really.

IMO, the council should've accepted this one. Tower blocks in cities are generally not a great thing, but one or two 'landmark' towers if well designed doesn't cause a big problem.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this decision - mainly because not enough facts have come out yet.

If your city has a thriving economy and lots of established central high rise development, then you as Councillors can afford to reject all but the most architecturally inspiring developments - tall or not, because there will always be another developer around the corner willing to submit a more impressive scheme for that plot of land, as there's vast amounts of money to be made. You are also not worried about potential public outcry that the building is out of scale with its surroundings.

If however your city, for various reasons, has very little history of central development much over 3 or 4 storeys and you have an economy akin to that of a small village in Slovakia, there are only a small number of times you can p*ss the big developers off by refusing planning permission. That developer is likely not to come back with anything better (more expensive), and other developers are likely to be put off. After all there is a lot of speculation in their attempting to enter the Sheffield market as it is less well proven for expensive appartments and commercial rents. Also you will worry that a 32-storey tower will not juxstapose nicely with your ONLY centrally located grade 1 listed building - the Town Hall, nor all the surrounding relatively low buildings of the city centre.

So the planning committee at the Council have a difficult balance to strike, between rejecting a building they presumably think is in the wrong place for its scale and maybe they think is not inspiring enough for such a prime location (despite all the mediocrity they have approved nearby already) and trying not to put developers off and gain a reputation for party pooping which might cut off vital future investment.

Yes, politics may well have come into it. "Listening to the people, who didn't wan't the Winter Gardens overshaddowed" might seem like a vote winner to some on the planning committee, especially as they have all been given such a hard time about allowing just that to happen with the MacDonalds Hotel and No. 1 St. Pauls Place.

But the real tragedy here is that the (unelected experts) City Planners had recommended that the 32-storey scheme be approved, whereas the (elected non-expert) Councillors have rejected it by a big majority. This in spite of the planners working with the developer to make the building taller and slenderer than the original proposal (22-storeys?) and working with them to address the concerns about the building blocking sun light from the Winter Garden vital for some tropical plant's growth.

This must look appalling to the developer and any other potential developers in the city looking on. Its like one city institution saying "yeah, spend lots of time revising your scheme otherwise we won't recommend it", then another city institution saying "we don't care for your revised scheme - it's not for us".

Originally posted by Strix
Why would we want a 32 storey shadow cast over the city centre?

:rolleyes: Why don't you join the council????

Looks like Sheffield will never get out of the giant shadows cast over it by near city rivals Leeds and Manchester :mad:, and whilst 48-storey 301 Deansgate is going up in Manchester, and 32-storey Bridgewater Place going up in Leeds, and more talls in the pipeline for both cities, like 58-storey Piccadilly Tower and 44-storey Crown Building approved in Manchester, and approvals for 31-storey Globe Road and 40-storey City One in Leeds. :rant:

Its not unusual in planning / council politics. The developers will be upset no doubt, but if there's money to be made they'll be back, either with a revised scheme of an appeal. It wouldn't surprise me if the council didn't fight an appeal and let them go ahead anyway.

anyhow: heres my favourite cities: Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Copenhagen. total number of city centre sky scrapers? Zero.

Originally posted by firecracker
Looks like Sheffield will never get out of the giant shadows cast over it by near city rivals Leeds and Manchester :mad:, and whilst 48-storey 301 Deansgate is going up in Manchester, and 32-storey Bridgewater Place going up in Leeds, and more talls in the pipeline for both cities, like 58-storey Piccadilly Tower and 44-storey Crown Building approved in Manchester, and approvals for 31-storey Globe Road and 40-storey City One in Leeds. :rant:

I really pity you guys. Sheffield has some lovely places, fantastic parks and greenery, and some of the nicest people in the world. But it's completely spoilt by a terrible council.

They are one aspect of the city I do not miss and this latest refusal is just another hindrance that is holding Sheffield back, and being overtook by smaller towns.

It all has a knock-on effect. Lack of good, modern housing for city dwellers will prevent big businesses from moving to the city, and will only result in professionals moving to Leeds and Manchester to get the big paying jobs. The closure of the airport is a big enough kick in the teeth to start with.

I was going to say that city living is rather passé now, if you were going to do it, do it five or ten years ago like Manchester.

But, like you say Firecracker, the Deansgate tower is coming on in leaps and bounds. You can start to see it towering up on the approach roads into the city and it looks absolutely fantastic. If it wasn't wanted, it wouldn't have been built.

How long will it be before Rotherham gets a high-rise before Sheffield does?

The building design was actually pretty good, and would have looked the part in the city. Overshadowing the winter gardens? Pull the other one......

Originally posted by alchresearch
I really pity you guys. Sheffield has some lovely places, fantastic parks and greenery, and some of the nicest people in the world. But it's completely spoilt by a terrible council.

They are one aspect of the city I do not miss and this latest refusal is just another hindrance that is holding Sheffield back, and being overtook by smaller towns.

It all has a knock-on effect. Lack of good, modern housing for city dwellers will prevent big businesses from moving to the city, and will only result in professionals moving to Leeds and Manchester to get the big paying jobs. The closure of the airport is a big enough kick in the teeth to start with.

I was going to say that city living is rather passé now, if you were going to do it, do it five or ten years ago like Manchester.

But, like you say Firecracker, the Deansgate tower is coming on in leaps and bounds. You can start to see it towering up on the approach roads into the city and it looks absolutely fantastic. If it wasn't wanted, it wouldn't have been built.
And as an extra innovation, I read something about there being a proposed restaurant on the 40th floor of City One in Leeds in the Yorkshire Post. Talk about dining with a view for miles around. So City One must be 41 storeys rather than 40.

I think a lot of you are actually missing the point.

One councillor may have rejected it because it would shade the winter garden, but i think a lot of them just thought the building was'nt distinct enough and we need more quality.The plans did just make it look like 'a block'.

There will be another scheme brought forward that will be better - we might just have to wait a little longer. It is likley to be another 'sky scraper'.

We have ended up with the drab St Pauls Place because of members blindly following council officer reccomendation - well done i say.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
How long will it be before Rotherham gets a high-rise before Sheffield does?

The building design was actually pretty good, and would have looked the part in the city. Overshadowing the winter gardens? Pull the other one......

The design got slated by various expert bodies.

Quote from the Sheffield University Alumni magazine today - " A vision for the future - Sheffield has the ambition to develop its own distinct profile as a renaissance city. With a history of Utopian ideals, as typified by such figures as John Ruskin, it now has the opportunity to explore the influence of its distinctive topography on its character". Reading the posts on this thread, most people seem to be working on the basis of 'Manchester or Leeds has got one so we've got to have one', or 'well if we don't have one, Rotherham will get one before us'. Well we're not Leeds or Manchester, thank God, and I for one hope we never will be. I'm proud of my city, and don't want to see it turned into another clone. I'm no lover of the Council, but in this case I'll say well done. Just because a box is designed by Conran doesn't make it a better box. The Winter Garden has been a prize winner, and raised the profile of Sheffield. If this tower was built, half the plants would have to be changed because of the the light cut out by this building. We've a superb open space in the Peace Gardens, where Sheffielders go to enjoy the space and the sun. This tower would block an appreciable amount of sunlight , and for what, so we can say "Ooh look, we've got a big tower like Manchester and Leeds". There's more to a city than tall buildings, there's people, and they're what make a city. .:rant:

Originally posted by algy
There's more to a city than tall buildings, there's people, and they're what make a city. .:rant:

But unfortunately this doesn't bring in big business (Ikea?) or tourists.

Ok, if skyscrapers aren't going to bring in the regeneration, can anyone explain exactly what this 'distinct profile' is what will? A play-it-safe council who won't even invest in an airport or promote it's city out of the boundaries?

Aerial photo showing shadows cast by buildings (http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=435500&Y=387250&width=700&height=400&gride=436486.190500185&gridn=387810.33834698&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&pc=&zm=0&scale=5000&down.x=288&down.y=5)

Originally posted by alchresearch
But unfortunately this doesn't bring in big business (Ikea?) or tourists.

On the contrary, what's the purpose of attracting business and industry if not to provide jobs for the people? It's a skilled workforce and the quality of life in a place that attracts business, not high-rise buildings. I can't believe that any business decides to locate to a city on the basis of who's got the tallest buildings (unless it's a window cleaning firm). On the other hand, I agree with your comments about Ikea, the airport and promoting the city, and of course councillors commenting that we don't need west end stores because no-one would use them.

Originally posted by algy
Quote from the Sheffield University Alumni magazine today - " A vision for the future - Sheffield has the ambition to develop its own distinct profile as a renaissance city. With a history of Utopian ideals, as typified by such figures as John Ruskin, it now has the opportunity to explore the influence of its distinctive topography on its character". Reading the posts on this thread, most people seem to be working on the basis of 'Manchester or Leeds has got one so we've got to have one', or 'well if we don't have one, Rotherham will get one before us'. Well we're not Leeds or Manchester, thank God, and I for one hope we never will be. I'm proud of my city, and don't want to see it turned into another clone. I'm no lover of the Council, but in this case I'll say well done. Just because a box is designed by Conran doesn't make it a better box. The Winter Garden has been a prize winner, and raised the profile of Sheffield. If this tower was built, half the plants would have to be changed because of the the light cut out by this building. We've a superb open space in the Peace Gardens, where Sheffielders go to enjoy the space and the sun. This tower would block an appreciable amount of sunlight , and for what, so we can say "Ooh look, we've got a big tower like Manchester and Leeds". There's more to a city than tall buildings, there's people, and they're what make a city. .:rant:

Good grief! Some common sense!

Originally posted by goose
I think a lot of you are actually missing the point.

One councillor may have rejected it because it would shade the winter garden, but i think a lot of them just thought the building was'nt distinct enough and we need more quality.The plans did just make it look like 'a block'.

There will be another scheme brought forward that will be better - we might just have to wait a little longer. It is likley to be another 'sky scraper'.

We have ended up with the drab St Pauls Place because of members blindly following council officer reccomendation - well done i say.

wan't distinct enough :confused: there are loads of 32 storey building around it would merge in with? by famous designers?

Sheffield the new Barnsley:gag:

mods, is there any chance we could get some sort of council representation to answer questions on council related issues on here? since it would be providing a public service and all?

Oh did any one really expect our council to approve this?? C'mon you're pullin my plonker.We have the most dimmest council going.

Rejected Ikea..jobs investmet visitors etc....

approved Meadowhall now moan its killing the city...

They are bound to approve the SWFC housing scheme...why? cos the public dont want it! useless lot!

And this is coming on the day when a 52-storey scraper has been announced for Leeds, which will probably be around 170 metres or 560 feet tall.

I chose to live in Sheffield because I like Sheffield.

If I prefered Leeds I'd have lived there.

Can I make a suggestion?........ ;)

Originally posted by Mattski
No, they rejected it because they are narrow-minded, provincial imbeciles.

I could have understood if they rejected it on the grounds of design but not because it overshadows the Winter Gardens. This means that they have agreed in outline the whole heart of the city project knowing that an important element will never be given full planning permission i.e a tower block on the site of the registry office.

Incompetence of the highest grade.

M

:clap: Well said. No wonder Sheffield lags behind all of the other major UK cities. Buildings like this proposed apartment block belong in a large city like Sheffield but our council is so backwards that it never stood a chance. We will never be a major player.

Originally posted by t020
:clap: Well said. No wonder Sheffield lags behind all of the other major UK cities. Buildings like this proposed apartment block belong in a large city like Sheffield but our council is so backwards that it never stood a chance. We will never be a major player.
Theres only one way to make up for that - a 40-storey on the Dyson/Sheaf House site.

Originally posted by firecracker
Theres only one way to make up for that - a 40-storey on the Dyson/Sheaf House site.

Yes, that's a good site currently being wasted with an empty eye sore. Whether you come into Sheffield on the train or by car and come off the Parkway, that area is the first part of the city you really notice first.

Why is there so much distain for the Council?? They are elected local representitives - If you think they are rubbish you can vote them out, if you think you could do a better job then you could stand for Council, or if you just want a say on a few planning issues, you have a statutory right to make representations.

Originally posted by RobertChiat
Why is there so much distain for the Council?? They are elected local representitives - If you think they are rubbish you can vote them out, if you think you could do a better job then you could stand for Council, or if you just want a say on a few planning issues, you have a statutory right to make representations.

Most parts of this city would vote in a chimpanzee if it put a red rosette on it's chest.

there yoo go then, join the labour party, stand for election and run the city the way you want to see it run!

Originally posted by RobertChiat
join the labour party

:o That's blasphemous! Although, it could be effective being on the inside. ;)

I've flipped and flopped on this building and the regeneration taking place around the city on many occasions. I'm firmly of the opinion that most of the residential developments are dull, unattractive and singularly fail to please the eye.

That said, I know that Sheffield needs to be dragged into the end of the last century, let alone this one, pretty bloody quickly.

There's too much of a narrow-minded, colloquial attitude to that words that dribble out of many Sheffielders mouths. We don't want to be like Manchester, they say - and perhaps that's fair enough, I chose not to live in Manchester either because I have a perfervid desire not to be shot dead - and they'll invariably point to the quiet, affable nature of Sheffielders. No fancy bars here. We don't need Harvey Nichols thankyou very much. None of that modern muck for us - there's plenty here if only you'll look for it. The trouble is, most people don't look for it - they don't even know its here. Sheffield is a stealth city; it passes under most people's radars. We can't sit quietly in the corner bemoaning the old days forever - indulging in meek solipsism about how great we all know Sheffield is and its everyone else with the problem, not us - or we'll be left behind for good and Sheffield will die slowly. You may argue this has already begun and it's too late now anyway.

The fact is that most northern cities are witnessing a decline in their populations, as their best and brightest head to London. If places like Manchester are struggling to maintain population levels, then what hope for Sheffield?

This thin sliver of land where the tower was due to be built, from Surrey Street to Howden House must be the most expensive and desirable in the city. Why then, build a large greenhouse - and then proceed to box it in behind a hotel and spoil the views - if it will hinder future development around it. It seems so crass, so utterly short-sighted as to almost be satire.

I know there are those who say that Sheffield should build high rises elsewhere. My question is where? Charter Row? That collection of hideous seventies rectangles overlooking a pedestrian underpass? With the Moor and its abject retail propostion of McDonalds, cheese pasties and shops selling everything for a pound nearby? Really? Would you live there? I know I wouldn't. I know that tentative plans are in place to redevelop that area in the years to come, but this tower would have been right in the heart of the city. A truly iconic building (and I'm prepared to accept this may not have been quite it for some people - it looked perfectly attractive to my untrained eyes anyway) right in the very heart of the city, with bars and gallaries right on the doorstep would have been the beginning of the process. Get it right here and developers will begin to recognise Sheffield.

Why reject the building on aesthetic reasons if you're quite prepard to throw up those squat low rises over the Peace Gardens and allow all manner of uninspiring residential boxes around the city? One councillor spoke of wanting something similar to Swiss Re, the Sir Norman Foster tower that become known as the Erotic Gherkin. That's rather like sitting behind the wheel of a Mark IV Cortina and expecting it to go from nought to sixty in a second without even turning the ignition on. If this tower had been a success then the next developers will want to go one better - the benchmark would have been raised for the future. Perhaps then we could talk with confidence about high rise clusters, skyscraper alleys and buildings like Swiss Re. For heaven's sake, even Croydon, that byword for all that is naff about South London has more high rise buildings on one street than Sheffield has at all.

Sheffield is a city with a bright future stretching out gloriously behind it. What a tragedy.

(I'll end with a brief clarification, by no means intended as an apologia. I know that there is more to a city than high rise buildings. I genuinely don't want Sheffield to become a low budget copy of elsewhere. I most certainly don't want the concomitant crime problems that blight Leeds and Manchester. I quite like the old pubs in Sheffield and I don't want the development of the city to be to the detriment of its existing citizens, who are as much a part of the place as a high paid software executive and his Audi TT.)

If Sheffield Council want a truly stunning piece of architecture then why not get Sir Norman Foster to design something? Or even hold a competition among the Architecture students at the University of Sheffield?

It would ruin the skyline (http://www.imsy.demon.co.uk/vbt/37%20centre.htm)
32 storeys is far too tall for that site.

Having said that, Sheffield needs a stronger skyline: see Liverpool (http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/ce/Liverpool_skyline.jpg), Leeds (http://www.leedscase.org.uk/images/photos/leeds%20skyline.jpg), London (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2004/03/17/4london.jpg)

Originally posted by Hels
If Sheffield Council want a truly stunning piece of architecture then why not get Sir Norman Foster to design something? Or even hold a competition among the Architecture students at the University of Sheffield?

Well, quite. But then that would require an ounce of vision wouldn't it? Something that I fear isn't too common amongst our leaders in the Town Hall.

Too true!

Norman Foster is (I think) a brilliant architect and has some of the most stunning buildings credited to him.

Just look at the 'gherkin' (I think it's the new City Hall) in London - a totally stunning and unique piece. Something equally stunning would help put Sheffield on the map i'm sure - and maybe attract more high class businesses up here too.

Originally posted by Deavon
The replacement to the 'egg box' looks this awful (http://www.j-f-finnegan.co.uk/finncon_off.html) in imagery provided by the construction company.

It looks as appalling in real life (so far). That may change but I doubt it.

The problem seems to stem from the fact that the council would rather sanction dull, squat buildings than approve confident, tall, ambitious projects.


I suppose a wedding cake made by Meccano can't be any worse than the eggbox...

The only distinctive style Sheffield centre now has is it's distinct lack of it. The Peace gardens is the only thing that's looked decent in years and now instead of expanding the theme of light and space they want to box it all in again...

Sun anyone? :suspect:

My knowledge about the technicalities of architecture is zero , so I'm going to find it difficult to express this :-
I've always felt that there's nothing good , per se , about huge buildings . I can imagine situations where it's useful to have big buildings . here and there , but I see that as mainly for industry and not in city centres.
I think that there must be an ideal , "ratio " between the size of buildings and the size of people.Things should be on a , "human scale "-----maybe , as a rough guide , say 4 storeys.
I know that won't be popular with a lot of people who like to be able to say , "My city has got the highest building of its sort in Europe ........"..or wherever. They look good in glossy magazines but living and working in or near huge blocks or flats or office blocks is not a pleasant thing , day after day. You get the feeling that humans are unimportant. "Wind tunnels " seem to form and there's a bleak aspect to it all. The same with huge motorways carving their way through cities , instead of dinky little streets.
It's significant that places like York , parts of London , Lincoln and many other places are popular amongst British and foreign tourists , precisely because they've retained the , "human" scale.
So , Sheffielders , don't be sad if the 32 storey building doesn't appear. Thank God , there are still some cosy , attractive places still left in Sheffield. One last point-----look what's happened to the huge modern buildings we've put up in Sheffield------Hyde Park , The Kelvin , The Egg Box Park Hill------not a resounding success were they ?But I bet they looked great in a guide book !i

Originally posted by Hels
Too true!

Just look at the 'gherkin' (I think it's the new City Hall) in London - a totally stunning and unique piece. Something equally stunning would help put Sheffield on the map i'm sure - and maybe attract more high class businesses up here too.

I agree, but Sheffield must be about 50 years behind the likes of London when it comes to architecture of any merit.

Nah, a pile of 5h1te at St Paul's will suffice for now thank you. That's more 'our' level ('our' being the council).

Originally posted by Hels
If Sheffield Council want a truly stunning piece of architecture then why not get Sir Norman Foster to design something?

Given the reaction to the modern art outside the Millenium Gallery do you realy think people in Sheffield will embrace a design by Sir Norman ?

Personally, I would like to wait until something unique is proposed, not just a copy of something someone saw on a day trip to Leeds.

Originally posted by Fareast
It's significant that places like York , parts of London , Lincoln and many other places are popular amongst British and foreign tourists , precisely because they've retained the , "human" scale.

Sorry but don't agree. York and Lincoln are tourist magnets because of their history, not because they don't have skyscrapers.

The same can't be said about Sheffield:

Heart of the city obliterated by Nazi bombers
Castle hidden under the Castle Markets
Sheffield Manor falling down

Other historic places in Sheffield....er....umm!

Sheffield should be moving into the 21st century. Realise that our past has gone, look to the future, attract new business. With this backward looking council (eg, "lets make it difficult for cars in the city centre so people will go on public transport" - yeah, right! Then "Oh, why is the city centre dying? Oh yes, they've gone to Meadowhall where they can park"), Sheffield will never achieve the greatness/reputation that it deserves as a major city in this country.

I just wonder what we'll get for the 2012 Olympics - rowing in Weston Park?

I think a steelworks and a coal mine ought to be built next to the Winter Gardens. It would allow Sheffield to carry on living in the past, provide useful employment for city dwellers, would have to be subsidised by the council to the tune of millions of pounds, and the winding gear of the latter would provide that distinctive skyline feature which is so lacking.

Originally posted by Deavon
I understand your point Tony, but I don't agree with it.

The colour (or lack of it) on the cranes, the noise coming from the site, the interaction between the workers and the general public is very, very important and perhaps deserves comment, but not here, by me.

The replacement to the 'egg box' looks this awful (http://www.j-f-finnegan.co.uk/finncon_off.html) in imagery provided by the construction company.

It looks as appalling in real life (so far). That may change but I doubt it.

The problem seems to stem from the fact that the council would rather sanction dull, squat buildings than approve confident, tall, ambitious projects.
It looks just like the sort of buildings that were thrown up in the 1960s and 70s, and are now being bulldozed up and down the country. At the weekend I noticed parts of these buildings and thought UGH! :gag:

Originally posted by metalman
I think a steelworks and a coal mine ought to be built next to the Winter Gardens. It would allow Sheffield to carry on living in the past, provide useful employment for city dwellers, would have to be subsidised by the council to the tune of millions of pounds, and the winding gear of the latter would provide that distinctive skyline feature which is so lacking.

A contender for Post of The Year methinks!

It's funny because it's so bloody true.

I only caught a glimpse of the propsed tower on the front page of the Telegraph, but it looked pretty good to me. Certainly a lot more interesting than the monstrous office building - though maybe we should hold back judgement on that until it's finished. I'm not hopeful at all, though.

Sheffield needs to move forward architecturally. Too many of the buildings in the city centre are horrifically ugly.

Originally posted by Fareast
It's significant that places like York , parts of London , Lincoln and many other places are popular amongst British and foreign tourists , precisely because they've retained the , "human" scale.

I disagree Fareast. The popularity of Lincoln and York is greatly increased by their cathedrals, both of which are on nothing like a human scale. In fact, these buildings were deliberatly designed to inspire awe in the massive grandeur and omnipresence of god.

Originally posted by Hels
If Sheffield Council want a truly stunning piece of architecture then why not get Sir Norman Foster to design something? Or even hold a competition among the Architecture students at the University of Sheffield?
Well for starters, the cost of a Norman Foster building would far outweigh it's commercial value, so I'm afraid that unless the Council wants to sponsor good architecture that idea is out.

Architecture students? Nice idea, but to be honest it takes them a few years to get some wool on their backs. Student architecture? No thanks.


Originally posted by Mattski
I disagree Fareast. The popularity of Lincoln and York is greatly increased by their cathedrals, both of which are on nothing like a human scale. In fact, these buildings were deliberatly designed to inspire awe in the massive grandeur and omnipresence of god.
Indeed. The skyscrapers of the day!

Aw, how disappointed am I?

Here was me thinking that if we had that 32 storey 'tower block' we might at least have the chance of its collapsing onto No 1 St. Paul's.

Naturally, I wouldn't wish to harm anyone given the pleasure of working from such a desirable location (or living in The New Kelvin) so the collapse would have had to happen

a) before the 32 storey block was completed; &

b) on a Sunday when no-one would be working at St. Paul's.

I wonder what wonderful design we can look forward to now the tall tower block has been thrown out?

May I recommend a circular building with a central open area? It could be called The Sheffield Begging Bowl as the council would have us believe the only way it can be built 'at no cost to the rate payer' is to give the job to the first, plastic, pathetic and uninspired, bland 1960s design on the table. (We'd also be reminded - a la St. Paul's - that this was to be a 'background building'.)

It could attract all the city's beggars and their dogs to sit outside the front doors.

Now that would be an impressive first impression on visitors entering Sheffield via the railway station!!

Well , I'm sure not everyone goes to York and Lincoln just to visit the cathedrals-----and what about all the other pleasant cities with ,"human scale " architecture ? Lancaster ? Chester ?
certain areas of London ?
I do realise that Cathedrals and churches were built to dwarf surrounding buildings of their area but does that mean that we must follow suit ? Wiil the modern buildings be built with the same care and attention as the ancient cathedrals ?
The cathedrals were indeed built to inspire awe and wonder and the simple , easily impressed people of thet time WERE impressed . Perhaps simple people today are still impressed by sheer size-----they really are !
The cathedrals were built to inspire respect for God ; ;well , yes . What are today's huge buildings supposed to do ? Inspire us with respect for MacDonalds or some huge corporation ?
The second biggest building in the world is the one erected by N. Causesco [?] in Bucharest. It looks impressive and takes your breath away the first time you see it. When you get up close , however , you realise it is half empty , no-one seems interested in it and the grounds round it are forlorn and neglected. Looks very impressive on propoganda posters and films. But , for everyday living and working , you couldn't beat certain parts of Bucharest that had managed to escape the old dictator's clutches------attractive little streets , offices , cafes , shops and bars , all jumbled together to form a , "living " , organic , whole. You never seem to see anybody around huge buildings.
Maybe it's simply a matter of taste but I think , "New " and , "Big" are nearly always , "Worse ".

It's a bit ironic that people who are looking for a civilised lifestyle are moving out of London in droves to live in small towns and villages in the South West mainly or Wales ------or anywhere ! They don'tseem to miss London's massive buildings or modern architecture.
I remember when Hyde Park and Park Hill were built------better than anything Leeds had at the time. Architects and planners came from all over the world to study and mainly admire them On every promotion of Sheffield as a thrusting , modern , go-ahead city, there they would be , Hyde Park , Kelvin and Park Hill -----not to mention the cluster of tower blocks at Norfolk Park :---wonderful , shiny , huge and above all modern-----that magic word !Now , I wonder what went wrong there ?
I don't think Sheffield has declined any further than other comparable cities and I can't see that its city centre architecture has swung things one way or another. It's a matter of creating a city centre that Sheffielders and outsiders want to visit and we want them to spend their money , hopefully , in attractive shops , restaurants , cafes and bars. Do people really come to Sheffield to look at big buildings ? Yeah , perhaps once , say , "Oh , look at that ," and then go and spend their money elsewhere. What was that about IKEA ? A joke ?

Originally posted by Fareast
It's a bit ironic that people who are looking for a civilised lifestyle are moving out of London in droves to live in small towns and villages in the South West mainly or Wales ------or anywhere ! They don'tseem to miss London's massive buildings or modern architecture.
I remember when Hyde Park and Park Hill were built------better than anything Leeds had at the time. Architects and planners came from all over the world to study and mainly admire them On every promotion of Sheffield as a thrusting , modern , go-ahead city, there they would be , Hyde Park , Kelvin and Park Hill -----not to mention the cluster of tower blocks at Norfolk Park :---wonderful , shiny , huge and above all modern-----that magic word !Now , I wonder what went wrong there ?
I don't think Sheffield has declined any further than other comparable cities and I can't see that its city centre architecture has swung things one way or another. It's a matter of creating a city centre that Sheffielders and outsiders want to visit and we want them to spend their money , hopefully , in attractive shops , restaurants , cafes and bars. Do people really come to Sheffield to look at big buildings ? Yeah , perhaps once , say , "Oh , look at that ," and then go and spend their money elsewhere. What was that about IKEA ? A joke ?

council shud look at sorting out retail in the city centre first. closed up shops dont look good

I don't subscribe to the view that Sheffield should build a tower block - just to be on parr with other large cities. OK, cities such as Leeds and Manchester are thriving, building huge blocks etc but why?

Sheffield is a unique city, Sheffield should have a city center to be proud of - because of its uniqueness not its ability to copy other city centre models.

Naturally, lessons can be learned from how other cities (Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham) have regenerated the city centre but it should not mean we produce a carbon copy.

One of the reasons I like Norman Fosters work is that he (IMHO) has the ability to design building which are unique, add something aesthetically but are also excellent for the purpose they are required to meet. He also doesn't just design for designs sake, he thinks carefully about the environment, location, local history and purpose.

Given the prime location, the building will be a landmark and as such, derserves the best, this means high quality design, build and materials. Anything less will be a disappointment. Of course not everyone will agree with any final design - be it a modern masterpiece or a bland, squat but functional design.

Originally posted by Hels
...One of the reasons I like Norman Fosters work is that he (IMHO) has the ability to design building which are unique, add something aesthetically but are also excellent for the purpose they are required to meet. He also doesn't just design for designs sake, he thinks carefully about the environment, location, local history and purpose.
I guess you haven't been in the Public Toilets in Trafalgar Square then...

...all mirrors and polished stainless steel, striking, but decidedly un-fit for purpose, anyone with any visual impairment is immediately lost in this "hall of mirrors" environment.

Sir Norm', no thanks, too flash and impractical (not to mention too much cash required) for us Yorkshire folks thanks.

:)

Originally posted by metalman
I think a steelworks and a coal mine ought to be built next to the Winter Gardens. It would allow Sheffield to carry on living in the past, provide useful employment for city dwellers, would have to be subsidised by the council to the tune of millions of pounds, and the winding gear of the latter would provide that distinctive skyline feature which is so lacking.

:clap: :hihi: I like that one, it sums things up nicely.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Sir Norm', no thanks, too flash and impractical (not to mention too much cash required) for us Yorkshire folks thanks.
:)

You should sit on the Council as a Labour member with an attitude like that....... what was it?

"Sheffield women don't want posh frock shops"

Originally posted by goose
You should sit on the Council as a Labour member with an attitude like that....... what was it?

"Sheffield women don't want posh frock shops"
Trouble is, I reckon they're all like that on the council, whether Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or Independents. All probably hostile to anything new or tall.

Originally posted by goose
You should sit on the Council as a Labour member with an attitude like that....... what was it?

"Sheffield women don't want posh frock shops"
That's not quite what I was saying now is it?

Come on, pay attention, read the bulk of my objection to Mr Fosters design of the toilets in question, not just the lighthearted summary.

The point was that his design was impractical, and expensive, hardly a wise design for a public toilet in such a well used location, or is the "designer label" of Sir Norm' enough for you and to heck with the problems.

The above comments can be ditto'd to firecracker.

What annoys me is this assumption that we have to be one thing or another. Sheffield is a big enough place to enjoy both aspects of a modern city. It isn't a case of modern buildings bad, old ones good, or vice versa. It's about quality and location.

A city which doesn't respect its heritage quickly becomes a city without a clear identity. A city which doesn't embrace new ideas will always be stuck in the past.

There is a place for skyscrapers, but it isn't next to the Winter Garden. Even the artist's impression (and we know how reliable those are) showed this block of flats looking out of scale with everything around it. It would have towered over the centre, dominating a skyline which, despite the planners' best efforts, is still a pleasing mixture of steeples and gables. It would have been the only tall building in the immediate vicinity and in my view would have made the city skyline unbalanced.

I believe there is a place for skyscrapers in Sheffield, and I would like to see them built as high as possible. But the only way for this to work is to have an area dedicated to tall buildings. Skyscrapers look far more impressive and imposing in clusters than they do alone. Having one tall central focus, with other buildings of a lesser height around it would bring balance to our modern architecture.

It's rarely tall buildings that people object to; it's usually the position. I believe Moorfoot and Charter Row should be used as a "central business district", with a concentration of tall buildings. That would leave the rest of the city for more traditional buildings more in keeping with our heritage. Moorfoot is ideal as it is probably the flattest part of the city centre, has space around it for development and would offer a panoramic view of the buildings from Moorhead.

Sadly, until our planners and politicians do a tour of successful cities in Europe, America and Australia, we'll get a lack of cohesion and inspiration in the development of our city centre.

Originally posted by nick2
Given the reaction to the modern art outside the Millenium Gallery do you realy think people in Sheffield will embrace a design by Sir Norman ?

Personally, I would like to wait until something unique is proposed, not just a copy of something someone saw on a day trip to Leeds.

but its really not art is it. Its just a big train like iron thing.

now if they put something interesting/good up then there would be no issue.

Originally posted by RobertChiat
there yoo go then, join the labour party, stand for election and run the city the way you want to see it run!

I've not laughed so much for ages ;)

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
What annoys me is this assumption that we have to be one thing or another. Sheffield is a big enough place to enjoy both aspects of a modern city. It isn't a case of modern buildings bad, old ones good, or vice versa. It's about quality and location.

A city which doesn't respect its heritage quickly becomes a city without a clear identity. A city which doesn't embrace new ideas will always be stuck in the past.

There is a place for skyscrapers, but it isn't next to the Winter Garden. Even the artist's impression (and we know how reliable those are) showed this block of flats looking out of scale with everything around it. It would have towered over the centre, dominating a skyline which, despite the planners' best efforts, is still a pleasing mixture of steeples and gables. It would have been the only tall building in the immediate vicinity and in my view would have made the city skyline unbalanced.

I believe there is a place for skyscrapers in Sheffield, and I would like to see them built as high as possible. But the only way for this to work is to have an area dedicated to tall buildings. Skyscrapers look far more impressive and imposing in clusters than they do alone. Having one tall central focus, with other buildings of a lesser height around it would bring balance to our modern architecture.

It's rarely tall buildings that people object to; it's usually the position. I believe Moorfoot and Charter Row should be used as a "central business district", with a concentration of tall buildings. That would leave the rest of the city for more traditional buildings more in keeping with our heritage. Moorfoot is ideal as it is probably the flattest part of the city centre, has space around it for development and would offer a panoramic view of the buildings from Moorhead.

Sadly, until our planners and politicians do a tour of successful cities in Europe, America and Australia, we'll get a lack of cohesion and inspiration in the development of our city centre.

Well said, couldn't agree more!

My thought on learning that the Council was holding a planning meeting to discuss a city centre skyscraper was surprise and dismay.

I was gladdened to learn permission was refused and trust an appeal will not be an option under consideration. That skyscraper is definitely not in keeping with the immediate environment and is better placed in the City of London.

It makes a very pleasant change to learn the COuncil has some sensitivity to the City Centre's environment and that they are now doing something about the site of the former eggbox; it would be even nicer if Sheffield inhabitants and Council Tax Payers were properly informed of what our "City Fathers" plans are for this plot of land.

Still nicer would be that all future proposals be subjected to public meetings with full access for everyone including all disabled people with a view to making known the wishes of Sheffield residents.

Although I understand several options have previously been considered these options never got any further because they lacked the requisite sensitivity to requirements for the immediate environment.

The manner in which our dearly beloved "City Fathers have conducted this exercise is yet another example of the opaqueness and lack of transparency affecting the way that the Council spends OUR COUNCIL TAX payments.

Speaking of council tax, objections to the Hotel next to the Winter Gardens were met with the explanation that this private investment is critical to the whole of Heart of the City project and that without it local tax payers will need to bear an additional cost through increased council tax payments. So, will this also be true if the residential element of the project is scrapped?

Just to add that my post previous to Mattski is a composite of thoughts from my neighbour and me. In addition to being phone phobic he wont have anything to do with computers, so good soul that I am, am giving him an opportunity to chip his oar in as well :D

I can't stand this "Sheffield should be different than leeds and manchester" argument. Sheffield is different. All the culture is pushed away from the town centre which is more like Widnes or maybe Warrington (betraying my roots there) that a city of this size. Its embarrasing.

Originally posted by wendygs
The manner in which our dearly beloved "City Fathers have conducted this exercise is yet another example of the opaqueness and lack of transparency affecting the way that the Council spends OUR COUNCIL TAX payments.

Sad as it may make you personally, the Council sold that land it the highest bidder who then paid a fee to the planning department for their planning application to be considered.

Your council tax doesn't come into it anywhere.

Ah well I knew we didnt count anyway so this just consolidates my beliefs in our dearly beloved :rolleyes: "city fathers" to consider any of the needs, wants and wishes of their constituents. :mad:

They do have consider the needs and wants of their constituants. You have a statutory right to be involved in the planning process (which I would guess you have chosen not to exercise), you have a local councillor who should represent you where citywide issues effect you, and if you do not feel they are doing their job properly, you have a right to vote them out, or to stand for Council yourself!

There seems to be a feeling among some posters that Sheffield needs an imposing skyline like other cities, i.e. skyscrapers etc. This city has a skyline unlike others, and one that attracts paople to live here, or why else do so many Sheffield graduates stay here or return. We have a skyline from most parts of the city of the moors and hills around us. For my money, no architect, Norman Foster or anyone else, can offer us a prospect to rival it. If you want to live in a concrete jungle be my guest, go to Manchester, Leeds liverpool, London, or dozens of other cities in this country who would love to have what we've got. And before you ask, yes I've lived in all 3 of my examples, and couldn't wait to get back to Sheffield. What attracts people here is the quality of life, not concrete, and long may it be so. :rant: I'll get me coat, but I'm not leaving!

Originally posted by algy
If you want to live in a concrete jungle be my guest, go to Manchester, Leeds liverpool, London, or dozens of other cities in this country who would love to have what we've got. And before you ask, yes I've lived in all 3 of my examples, and couldn't wait to get back to Sheffield. What attracts people here is the quality of life, not concrete, and long may it be so. :rant: I'll get me coat, but I'm not leaving!

You can live in Manchester and not be a part of a concrete jungle. I live on the Western outskirts and have a pretty fantastic view of woodlands and the Cheshire plains from the window right at the side of me.

But, I do love the atmosphere of Manchester city centre and the vibrant buzz, the feeling that it's moving all the time and not stagnating or being left behind. To be honest, I don't think I would live in a city centre apartment, I like my house and garden too much. But, I would like one as a second home and would become a regular at the restaurant that would be sited on one of the higher floors.

Would the skyscraper company have even submitted the plans if there was no demand? And where will the people who were considering living in this new tower think of going to now? I'm just wondering what the long term factors of this rejection will be, particularly from a construction and potential buyer's point of view.

All I can say about this news is that it is a crying shame they have rejected the plans, but at the same time I'm not surprised, after all Sheffield is stuck with a backwards thinking, unimaginative council. It looks as though the site where this slender, modern, striking and landmark building was going to be built will end up being used as a sight for unimaginative offices that look exactly the same as the others in the city.

Its a crying shame, but it looks as though Sheffield will never be able to compete with other leading British cities - what a suprise.

Thank god i've only got another 8 weeks to suffer, then its back off to Manchester. :)

I've read most replies, but too many to agree and disagree with.
So, my 2 pence worth.

1. With so much space in Sheffield, why demolish 'The Wedding Cake' (yes, outdated, but unique), and one of a hundred examples, demolishing the yorkshire grey, (just simply, why?)

2. I agree not to put the 32 storey building there.

3. Buildings like 'Jet Centro' should never even be allowed to leave the drawing board.

4. Why not demolish ALL of the Moor and its surrounding little concrete matchboxes, and create a mini new 'financial'city centre, full of huge skyscrapers, maybe 10 or so (and put the 32 storey building there). They would be a tourist attraction, a financial attraction for big businesses, and they wouldnt over shadow any nice buildings, because what the Luftwaffe missed, Sheffield Council didn't.

SO we have a council that downsizes and closes all the city centre roads before finishing their ring road off and rejects the landmark tower that would anchor their precious 'Heart of the City' development that would truly define the link from Station to centre.

Am I living in a bowl of jelly, or are these people complete and utter oafs?

Now watch them reject the Nelson House proposal because it overshadows their Redvers House offices, costing them more electricity, which of course Tommy Taxpayer would have to foot!

Marvel as they approve a 2-storey squatters den on the site of Sheaf House and demolish Park Square roundabout in favour of student accommodation and a simplified, signalised T-junction.

Whatever will they do next!? Stay tuned to the hottest soap around, 'Planning....... SHEF-F---I---E---L---DDDDDDD'!!!

Back in the 60s SCC published a book called 'Sheffield Emerging City', well with all that cr*p SCC still manages to pull it still hasn't emerged. Honnestly, it hasn't... It's great, but can you come up with a bunch of people that hold back development more than our dear Council ?Originally posted by alchresearch
But, I do love the atmosphere of Manchester city centre and the vibrant buzz, the feeling that it's moving all the time and not stagnating or being left behind. To be honest, I don't think I would live in a city centre apartment, I like my house and garden too much. But, I would like one as a second home and would become a regular at the restaurant that would be sited on one of the higher floors. Yes I do love that big 200m long concrete wall they've built next to that concrete garden (not)...

Originally posted by algy
Manchester, Leeds liverpool, London, or dozens of other cities in this country who would love to have what we've got. And before you ask, yes I've lived in all 3 of my examples,
:confused: Liverpool isn't a concrete jungle, but you did say you'd lived in only 3 of your four examples ;)

Norman Foster:
I was given the task of writing an essay on one of three architects, and I chose Richard Rodgers over Norman Foster :thumbsup:
http://www.richardrogers.co.uk/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,2

Plain and simple the city centre is a dump, bland and boring.

The trouble with this council , who i voted against, is they dont see the BIG picture.

The whole lay out of the city is too vast and long stretching too far.

The Moor should be flattened and totally rebuilt akin to something like Birminghams bullring...but Jan and co haven't got the balls..they just want to stay in power.

And when you do object in your masses ie McDonalds hotel..they just ignore you anyway.Contempt for us all.

Can we have something with these (http://www.richardrogers.co.uk/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,847) considerations?

Just discoverd sheffieldforum. Well, it proves that you cannot please all of the people all of the time