I hope the council throws it out again

read link:-http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=416

I hope they dont reject it... We need a tower, and this one will look spot on well built..
Stop living in the past!

This design looks particularly bland and characterless IMHO, so let's hope it is rejected and replaced with something suitably creative as a landmark building.

Mark.

Originally posted by Sony
I hope they dont reject it... We need a tower, and this one will look spot on well built..
Stop living in the past!

I'm not sure we "need" a tower, but if we do we don't "need" it there, the bottom of the Moor would be more appropriate.

But we've been through this a thousand times before.

i think it depends who deals with it... some are more into urban design and building on the urban fabric than others at scc...

if calas pulled out its brave of these to plough on tho eh...

think sheffs in a difficult position as we arent like manc or leeds

xx

Originally posted by Sony
I hope they dont reject it... We need a tower, and this one will look spot on well built..
Stop living in the past!

I'm not living in the past,I'm a big fan of tall buildings,having been to many cities in the US like New York and Boston and seen many lovely tall buildings and how they blend old in with new,it proves it can be done but this building is bland and unimaginative (from this pics we have seen),a better design is what's needed,I wish they could make it slimmer as it gets higher and it wouldn't look like a big rectangle block.
At the end of the day it's all about money and making a profit.

Originally posted by SheffBloke
I wish they could make it slimmer as it gets higher and it wouldn't look like a big rectangle block.
At the end of the day it's all about money and making a profit.

Exactly, slimming the tower will reduce the floor space on the upper floors, and as most of it is going to be apartments priced by the floor space, they won't want to do that.

I'm a big skyscraper fan and really want sheffield to become a forward thinking modern city at ground level as well as in the skies - But this building is RUBBISH.

Who cares if it blocks out the sun in the winter garden, the point is its in the wrong place full stop. Terrible architecture.

Originally posted by SheffBloke
I hope the council throws it out again

read link:-http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=416

That web site has us as the 9th biggest city, that can't be right.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/cities.php

Something like this, but not as big woulod look good :

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/imagesall.php?ref=189&idi=Citygate+Ecotower&self=nse&selfidi=189CitygateEcotower_pic3.jpg&no=3

I think it might be New York where all skyscrapers have to have some empty space in front to "allow the buildings to breathe". The Arts Tower has this as a car park. We should insist on breathing space in this city.

re; the breathing space, I saw a documentary series about skyscrapers on BBC 2 earlier this year that had quite a lot of info on New York's regulations.

Apparently the higher up a building you go, the further from the sidewalk it has to be. Hence the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings thin towards to summit.

And why this building curves the way it does, I presume:
http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow/NY03/Skyscrapercurving.jpg

I think it was an oversight when building skyscrapers in such close proximity to each other, as it was plunging the streets below into total darkness. So the authorities brought in regulations which stated the above rule, to allow sunlight to find it's way down to street level.

You also notice many tiered buildings, with terraces (think Manpower Services building, but less ugly) in NY, which will probably be another way of working around the regulations.


Off-topic even more, the same programme explained that entrances to skyscrapers have to use revolving doors to created a kind of air lock, otherwise you get really strong winds causing problems up and down the building.
Service entrances at the back of skyscrapers often use airlocks to get around the problem, apparently!

I noticed the strong gust of wind blowing up the lift shaft in the Empire State, but never realised it would cause actual problems...

Even the scousers get better buildings than us

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/imagesall.php?self=nse&ref=441&idi=Lime+Street+Gateway+Tower&selfidi=441LimeStreetGatewayTower_pic1.jpg&no=1

Originally posted by jackthedog
You also notice many tiered buildings, with terraces (think Manpower Services building, but less ugly) in NY, which will probably be another way of working around the regulations.

Off-topic even more, the same programme explained that entrances to skyscrapers have to use revolving doors to created a kind of air lock, otherwise you get really strong winds causing problems up and down the building.
Service entrances at the back of skyscrapers often use airlocks to get around the problem, apparently!

I noticed the strong gust of wind blowing up the lift shaft in the Empire State, but never realised it would cause actual problems...

The revolving doors are required because the hot air rising inside the skyscraper sucks cold air in at the base (like when you cover a fireplace to cause the air to be drawn in to get it burning), without the revolving doors people would get sucked in off the street !

The best shape for not blocking out sunlight is a pyramid, obviously thats not feasable for the middle of New York, though they did implement the pyramid shaped tops on blocks and the terracing you described.

Originally posted by nick2
The revolving doors are required because the hot air rising inside the skyscraper sucks cold air in at the base (like when you cover a fireplace to cause the air to be drawn in to get it burning), without the revolving doors people would get sucked in off the street !

Ha, how much would I love to see that!

Interesting thing though. I'd like to bet people never thought of that when building early towerblocks.

Erm, yeah we're gonna need revolving doors boss. An old woman with a dog was swept up through the lobby and straight up the stairs. She's been pinned against the roof of the stairwell for a month now.

if you look at my previous thread there are a few pictures of propsed buildings for sheffield

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54868

Id love to see some tall buildings in Sheffield, what i dont want is dull looking square shaped blocks, id love to see something along the lines of the worlds tallest building

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=329425

or

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=229682

There's some fantastic tall buildings going up in Dubai, perhaps something similar would be more 'artistic' for Sheffield? Sorry, don't know how to post a link :(

Originally posted by SheffBloke
Even the scousers get better buildings than us

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/imagesall.php?self=nse&ref=441&idi=Lime+Street+Gateway+Tower&selfidi=441LimeStreetGatewayTower_pic1.jpg&no=1

The scousers have always had better buildings than us. Most cities have better buildings than Sheffield I'm afraid to say, but Liverpool is particularly rich in this area.

Originally posted by Hopman
I think it might be New York where all skyscrapers have to have some empty space in front to "allow the buildings to breathe". The Arts Tower has this as a car park. We should insist on breathing space in this city.

The Arts Tower was built in 1966 & has been an eye sore ever since. 32 storeys 320 storeys. Who cares. Its the design. It looks just plain ugly. Compare, contrast, discuss.

Originally posted by Tim42
The Arts Tower was built in 1966 & has been an eye sore ever since. 32 storeys 320 storeys. Who cares. Its the design. It looks just plain ugly. Compare, contrast, discuss.

It's not a very nice building (like the Hallamshire hospital) but at least it's not in the city centre and it looks ok where it is.

Originally posted by nick2
The revolving doors are required because the hot air rising inside the skyscraper sucks cold air in at the base (like when you cover a fireplace to cause the air to be drawn in to get it burning), without the revolving doors people would get sucked in off the street !
Don't be so silly nick2 :nono:

Originally posted by Tony
Don't be so silly nick2 :nono:

It's true.

(well perhaps not the sucking people off the street bit)

but the updraft bit is true, thats why they have revolving doors.

I was trying to make it sound more interesting.

Hehe, I thought that you were having a wind up.

From a technical POV there is no reason for revolving doors, however they are thought of as being more upmarket and prestigious, but they are not essential.

They do have heat loss benefits, but they make it very difficult to move large numbers of people at peak times, and they cannot be taken into account in fire escape calculations, so you always need enough normal doors anyway. Revolvers are in essence a frippery.

Few office buildings have them these days for that reason. In fact, the monument to tack that is the NY Trump Tower doesn't even have them.

As for internal updraft, there is none (as a rule with rare, designed in exceptions). Each floor is separated for fire protection, there is no permanent vertical interconnection.

... now what were we originally talking about? :huh:

Originally posted by nick2
It's true.

(well perhaps not the sucking people off the street bit)

but the updraft bit is true, thats why they have revolving doors.

I was trying to make it sound more interesting.


It was certainly an amusing idea, but the only way up for an updraught is either the lift shafts which are sealed by the lift cars, or the emergency stairwells, which have at least one set of fire doors, and often two sets, on every landing.

Fink its anurban miff ;)

Is Sheffield going to see these mini-skyscrapers? Is it a case of WHEN not 'if'?
I sincerley hope you get them. There's something about these type of buildings that gives an air of confidence in a city.

From looking at your thread I'd have to say that only the Orio Tower is one that I'd like to see. That looks pretty attractive. Maybe V1 Velocity Living as well if they do it right. The rest are horrible and might as well have been built in the 60s.

The Castle House redevelopment might be ok but I don't think putting that steel and glass tower next to the red brick building which is a carpet factory at the moment just doesn't work. It could be a nice place to live if they ever demolish the Castle Market and under the remains of the castle as part of a small park though.

Originally posted by Greybeard
It was certainly an amusing idea, but the only way up for an updraught is either the lift shafts which are sealed by the lift cars, or the emergency stairwells, which have at least one set of fire doors, and often two sets, on every landing.

Fink its anurban miff ;)

It's called the "stack effect".

So there !

Originally posted by MrDearne
Is Sheffield going to see these mini-skyscrapers? Is it a case of WHEN not 'if'?
I sincerley hope you get them. There's something about these type of buildings that gives an air of confidence in a city. That's exqctly it, you know a city's economy is on the upside when companies spend that extra money building larger towers to house their offices. People also are impressed by their size, and I think it's bout time we stopped saying "were avin none of it coz i dont want it"

Originally posted by nick2
It's called the "stack effect".

So there ! That's a different thing Nick, and it can be used in the exceptions that I alluded to earlier.

It's basically used as a part of the M&E system as a form of 'natural' ventilation and it's designed in, not something that occurs naturally or by accident. It's obviously a bit more complicated, but stack effect certainly wouldn't create updrafts of the type that you are suggesting.

Originally posted by Tony
That's a different thing Nick, and it can be used in the exceptions that I alluded to earlier.

It's basically used as a part of the M&E system as a form of 'natural' ventilation and it's designed in, not something that occurs naturally or by accident. It's obviously a bit more complicated, but stack effect certainly wouldn't create updrafts of the type that you are suggesting.

:(

I still believe it though.

Next time I'm in New York I'm going to check it out.

Does anyone know when the news will be relased on when or if its going to be built ?Its been a few weeks already, ive no idea how long things like this take

Sheffielders have got to move away from the negativity that's
held us back for 30 years. I hope the tower and all the other exciting projects in the centre get built so that in another 10 years we WILL rival the other big cities.Sheffield really is beginning to boom -- make no mistake!!!!

Originally posted by souldave
Sheffielders have got to move away from the negativity that's
held us back for 30 years. I hope the tower and all the other exciting projects in the centre get built so that in another 10 years we WILL rival the other big cities.Sheffield really is beginning to boom -- make no mistake!!!!
To rival other cities, it needs the sort of development that other cities are getting, as can be seen on the links below. Manchesters Beetham Tower would look pretty good in Sheffield.

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=153163

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=124076&page=15&pp=20

The West Central Phase 2 tower in Leeds will be 52 storeys.

This proposed tower should be built but not in Sheffield and before anyone says Im dont live in the past. We need buildings that are pleasing to the eye not eyesores like this tower.
The council did one thing right by o.k`ing. the Winter Gardens then proceed to block it in by giving planners the red light. I just dont comprehend the logic.

Originally posted by Sony
I hope they dont reject it... We need a tower,
Why?

what really annoys me is as soon as anyone metions developments in sheffield people instantly have to get there word in on what developments are being made in other cities, think of it the other way around do people on a manchester forum say woohoo a new tower is being built and you know what ? its nothing like the crap they build in sheffield ? When people say we should look at manchester and leeds to see where they got it right in terms of development i dissagree i think we should look further afield to more sucessful international cities.

I think you've got your logic in a muddle there, eighty4. Naturally Manchester, which is already far more successful than Sheffield and has better buildings, isn't going to compare their new projects with what is being built here.

Sheffield, however, is so far behind in the game that we naturally look to our near neighbours and examine what they're doing. Its rather pointless trying to emulate cities further afield when we can't even keep up with what is happening next door. We're meant to be competing with them, not downtown Auckland.

Originally posted by SheffieldSean
Sheffield, however, is so far behind in the game that we naturally look to our near neighbours and examine what they're doing. Its rather pointless trying to emulate cities further afield when we can't even keep up with what is happening next door. We're meant to be competing with them, not downtown Auckland.

Very true. And if an investor is looking to site their business or operation in a Northern town, Sheffield is going to get overlooked.

Originally posted by SheffieldSean
I think you've got your logic in a muddle there, eighty4. Naturally Manchester, which is already far more successful than Sheffield and has better buildings, isn't going to compare their new projects with what is being built here.

Sheffield, however, is so far behind in the game that we naturally look to our near neighbours and examine what they're doing. Its rather pointless trying to emulate cities further afield when we can't even keep up with what is happening next door. We're meant to be competing with them, not downtown Auckland.

i know people from manchester dont compare their buildings to us lol i was being sacrcastic. As for international cities, ive been to auckland and it was my least favorite city infact ive never met any other person who's liked it lol now sydney is an international city but i cant see us ever been that good

we need a iconic building in sheffield a tall tower that is iconic not bland in sheffield we live in the past

I'm totally FOR tall buildings in Sheffield, but hope the council doesnt approve this tower its so blocky, we deserve something better in the heart of the city.

Originally posted by alchresearch
Very true. And if an investor is looking to site their business or operation in a Northern town, Sheffield is going to get overlooked.

You obviously walk(drive?) around with your eyes closed :loopy:

Can't think of all the names off the top of my head but some very large companies have based their head office's in Sheffield.

To say Sheffield doesn't have an airport and has poor road links across the Pennines, i think our city does remarkably well in the commercial field. You can tell by the volume of traffic coming into the city each morning for starters.

i see your point sheffield has got top companies but a big company wanting to relocate to the north of england sheffield would be at least 3rd or 4th in line theres not enough going for sheffield .when u go to other places and come back to sheffield you think what a dump maybe if the council stopped messing about we would have a great city but its behind its time look at the ikea fiasco tell me this citys going forword by rejecting ikea .doncaster is the town in south yorks thats going forward and the council are forward thinking not like sheffield .

I'm confused as to why everyone thinks that a major sign of progress is to have a cheap Sweedish furniture store nearby ?

Originally posted by nick2
I'm confused as to why everyone thinks that a major sign of progress is to have a cheap Sweedish furniture store nearby ?

I thought that too?

Has anyone seen the queue's on the M62 on Sunday mornings?

Just what we need on the parkway hey!

ikea is a major company and cities lesser than sheffield want ikea lack of foresight in sheffield

It's because of foresight that we don't have a gridlocked parkway every evening and weekend.

The council did want IKEA, but a suitable site couldn't be agreed between the two.

Likewise, the council want the Conran (?) tower, but not unconditionally.

Originally posted by Herbaliser
It's because of foresight that we don't have a gridlocked parkway every evening and weekend.

The council did want IKEA, but a suitable site couldn't be agreed between the two.

Likewise, the council want the Conran (?) tower, but not unconditionally.

John Prescott intervened in the IKEA business and told them no.

Originally posted by dinp
John Prescott intervened in the IKEA business and told them no.

I thought that was only the Stockport site?

Like i said in the last tower block debate. Why dont they demolish all of The Moor and surounding streets, and build all the tower blocks there, to create a new area, rather than putting the odd building here and there as they do now.

And put some 'proper' tall buildings in, to create a nice tourist attraction and business area.

Originally posted by djash1000
Like i said in the last tower block debate. Why dont they demolish all of The Moor and surounding streets, and build all the tower blocks there, to create a new area, rather than putting the odd building here and there as they do now.

And put some 'proper' tall buildings in, to create a nice tourist attraction and business area.

I agree with that 100%

Originally posted by Unisol
I agree with that 100%

Me too, tall buildings - yes, next to the town hall - no.

It does make me so angry that all the other major core cities within the UK all have major developments proposed or under construction.

These other cities are just leaving Sheffield for dead and it makes me want to SCREAM!

Recently going into Leeds by train just takes your breath away at the scale of activity taking place there.

Take a look at the webcam (http://bridgewaterlive.aql.com/bridgewater.jpg) for Bridgewater Place to see the impact this impressive building is going to have on the leeds skyline and it hasnt even topped out yet!

I don't think blitzing the Moor is the real answer - thats why the problems around there started back in the early 40's.

we need take the existing street pattern and work with it, redeveloping un wanted buildings, refurbishing the good (Rockingham House is a little more interesting than most along the moor) and generally pumping investment into the area.


Coincidentley my sister (a comercial properties surveyor) was down last weekend and was rather shocked by the 'development' at St.Pauls place.

"The Hotel isn't bad but the office block is awful, are they demolishing that?"

Says it all really.

Originally posted by AndrewC
I don't think blitzing the Moor is the real answer - thats why the problems around there started back in the early 40's.

we need take the existing street pattern and work with it, redeveloping un wanted buildings, refurbishing the good (Rockingham House is a little more interesting than most along the moor) and generally pumping investment into the area.

if you look a map of the area (i'm not sure how to do links for that), the Moor and surrounding areas, its almost a perfect grid of roads, thats why i meant this area for tower blocks, also most of the buildings are post blitz, and have no real character.

Originally posted by AndrewC
I don't think blitzing the Moor is the real answer - thats why the problems around there started back in the early 40's.

we need take the existing street pattern and work with it, redeveloping un wanted buildings, refurbishing the good (Rockingham House is a little more interesting than most along the moor) and generally pumping investment into the area.


Coincidentley my sister (a comercial properties surveyor) was down last weekend and was rather shocked by the 'development' at St.Pauls place.

"The Hotel isn't bad but the office block is awful, are they demolishing that?"

Says it all really.
It seems as if your sister and Mattskis wife think alike if this beauty from Mattski on Skyscraper City is anything to go by:

So, another few admirers. However, getting to the point, when walking through the Peace Gardens my wife turned to me and said, turning towards St Paul's Place, "so are they demolishing that building as well?"

If by 'impact' you mean out of scale with it's surroundings then I agree. :wink:

But seriously, the problem is you can't tell what the quality of the final materials is going to be from the artists impression. I thought the development for the Wards brewery site looked good on paper, but when it was built the roof and windows looked really naff.

It's the same with the tower - I can't have a strong opinion one way or the other from one artist's impression. It looks pretty good, but then if the artist impression didn't look good someone isn't doing their job properly.

The council this afternoon has either approved or rejected another resubmission for the 32storey Heart of the City tower.

Here's (http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/dinpy2/citylofts.jpg) a render of what the revised tower looks like.

Anyone heard the outcome yet?:confused:

According to Radio Sheffield, the council have approved the plan. :thumbsup:

Oh good, now we can stand back and watch the companies fighting to move to Sheffield, ' Look, never mind the fact they've the worst roads in the country, a crap rail service, no parking, and a traffic system designed by a drunken spider called Baldrick,they've got a 32 storey building, so that's the city for us!' :loopy:

Originally posted by algy
Oh good, now we can stand back and watch the companies fighting to move to Sheffield, ' Look, never mind the fact they've the worst roads in the country, a crap rail service, no parking, and a traffic system designed by a drunken spider called Baldrick,they've got a 32 storey building, so that's the city for us!' :loopy:

Don't be so bloody negative, parking is forthcoming next door to the City Lofts site. Don't you remember? They're razing that lovely pub to make way for it ;)

Yeeaa! It's official just heard it on Radio Sheffield too, the tower has finally been approved by the council:clap: :clap:

Fantastic news!!!!!!!!!!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

So this is the building they have rubber stamped? If so, exactly where is it going to be placed.

It looks ok - nothing fantastic, but I'm always wary of artists impressions and in the cold light of day these things tend to look a lot different.. A lot will depend on the construction material (and please god let there be no plastic!!!)

http://www.h-jay.com/1884ArundelGateBlock1.jpg

Originally posted by algy
Oh good, now we can stand back and watch the companies fighting to move to Sheffield,

I think this is to be a block of flats - not offices ??

Is that what that tall metal pole thing is they have erected next to the lego block ?

It's a shame it will be mostly apartments, offices would have been more beneficial to the city as a whole, but, get rich quick.

Why does the artist impression look like it was drawn in the 1950's, in Russia ?

Originally posted by Greybeard
I think this is to be a block of flats - not offices ??
That's right, I was referring to the much used argument that Sheffield needs a tower block to be like Leeds/Manchester/Birmingham so the companies will move here:thumbsup:

Great news, but i think a circular design would have looked much better.

A circular design would have reduced the shadowing effect on the winter gardens even further.

Diameter may have had to be quite large though for the rooms to work. Having said that it worked with one side of Coode, which incidentally is a much better looking building.

I just hope they put some effort into making it look good, and use quality materials, the thought of another cheap looking concrete and red brick apartment block is quite depressing.

I think they shopuld extend it to the right a bit to block out the hidious Novotel.

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1224409

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1224408

It a shame it became a polical football,what with the votes cast down party lines.
If it was up to the Democrats in 1996 there would'nt even be a Peace Gardens,Winter gardens etc to have a 32 storey building blocking out the sun.

I don't understand certain councillor's concerns for the Winter Gardens. The council have already contrived to hide the view of this building from virtually everywhere except the buildings that now surround it :loopy:

Remind me again why yet MORE "luxury apartments" in the city centre is a good thing???

Why are people applauding this? Do you work for high class interior designers? Or for a demolition company?

Originally posted by gremlin_mick
Remind me again why yet MORE "luxury apartments" in the city centre is a good thing???

Why are people applauding this? Do you work for high class interior designers? Or for a demolition company?

Because if this council and government INSIST on continuing this anti-car crusade, nobody will be able to reach the city centre any more. So the solution - build offices for people to work in and places for them to live.

Simple really.

Rendering scanned from the newspaper...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/dinpy2/citylofts2.jpg

Originally posted by dinp
Rendering scanned from the newspaper...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/dinpy2/citylofts2.jpg

I like it! First detailed render ive seen and the addition of the stone really changes its look, lets hope it gets built!

Look North hasn't even mentioned it in tonight's bulletin, how crap is that!

Sheffield Council are once again destroying the city centre with another monstrosity of a building.
Whats the point of building the Winter Gardens then blocking it in. The tower block should be built on Shrewsbury Rd away from the centre. I wonder what kind of inducement the planning committee received?

Originally posted by lazarus
Sheffield Council are once again destroying the city centre with another monstrosity of a building.
Whats the point of building the Winter Gardens then blocking it in. The tower block should be built on Shrewsbury Rd away from the centre. I wonder what kind of inducement the planning committee received?

The city isnt exactly brilliant as it is, and its stupid thinking people that are preventing this city from getting anywhere. Its inhabitants make comments like 'Build it in leeds!' and 'We dont want that here!' which help to keep up our image as a 'backward city', then spend all their days complaining about sheffield being pants.

BAH i say. Build more skyscrapers. Nothing says im great like a nice big fat building in the sky.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lazarus
Sheffield Council are once again destroying the city centre with another monstrosity of a building.
Whats the point of building the Winter Gardens then blocking it in. The tower block should be built on Shrewsbury Rd away from the centre. I wonder what kind of inducement the planning committee received? [/QUOTE

They have just demolished 3 tower blocks on Shrewsbury road.So they have been there and done that.

Originally posted by lazarus
Whats the point of building the Winter Gardens then blocking it in.

The Winter Gardens will still look impressive from Tudor Sq. It'll still look good inside. Shame to lose some of the views of it, but it'll still serve its main purpose.l

Originally posted by dinp
Look North hasn't even mentioned it in tonight's bulletin, how crap is that!

ITV has just lauched ITV Local in brighton,where you can upload your own stories,films ETC.If sucessful will lauch nationwide,lets hope Sheffield get one!

Originally posted by lazarus
Sheffield Council are once again destroying the city centre with another monstrosity of a building.
Whats the point of building the Winter Gardens then blocking it in. The tower block should be built on Shrewsbury Rd away from the centre. I wonder what kind of inducement the planning committee received?

So what do you suggest they put in place of the tower then? Perhaps a playpark for the kids, and a few more pounds on your council tax?

Originally posted by dinp
Rendering scanned from the newspaper...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b390/dinpy2/citylofts2.jpg


TBH it looks like a slice from Park Hill flats.

A single bedroom flat with a £100,000 price tag???

Originally posted by sccsux
TBH it looks like a slice from Park Hill flats.

A single bedroom flat with a £100,000 price tag???

Park Hill flats? :loopy:

But it looks boring. It's a big square building with a bunch of windows on either side and a bunch of bricks on either end. Wow, that's never been done before.

Instead of criticising the council for giving it the go ahead in the first place, we should be criticising their complete lack of imagination. And we should be slapping the muppet who designed this nondescript monstrosity up-side the head.

Always said Sheffield council had know idea. Screw up there own planning project

Its problem isn't its height but its appearance close up. There are taller towers planned or under construction in other cities which look far better than that tower, like Elphinstone Place in Glasgow, Criterion Place in Leeds, and the Beetham Tower in Manchester for starters. These are entirely glass on the outside which give them clean looks, and it looks a bit silly to have stone running all the way up a 32-storey building. At the end of the day it will resemble a 32-storey version of those ugly cubes next to it.

I wish people would stop moaning about the size of the latest building to get the go ahead,we need to have MORE tall buildings which will give the New York look to the city and when people come here they will feel the city is back on the up again, thers nothing better than seeing tall skyscrapers lighting up the sky.
I say the more the better.:thumbsup:

Originally posted by firecracker
Its problem isn't its height but its appearance close up. There are taller towers planned or under construction in other cities which look far better than that tower, like Elphinstone Place in Glasgow, Criterion Place in Leeds, and the Beetham Tower in Manchester for starters. These are entirely glass on the outside which give them clean looks, and it looks a bit silly to have stone running all the way up a 32-storey building. At the end of the day it will resemble a 32-storey version of those ugly cubes next to it.

People keep saying that Sheffield needs something interesting, something different, yet you want it to be made of glass on the outside like all the others? I like the stone on it, I think it makes it look unique. Its a clean, crisp, simple design and I like it.

Originally posted by nick2
That web site has us as the 9th biggest city, that can't be right.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/cities.php

Something like this, but not as big woulod look good :

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/imagesall.php?ref=189&idi=Citygate+Ecotower&self=nse&selfidi=189CitygateEcotower_pic3.jpg&no=3

The Sheffield Telegraph always seems to have Sheff down as "England's 4th Largest City" - but that can't be right either, as obviously there's London (1), Brum (2) and Manc (3) - and at least Leeds has "overtaken" Sheff size-wise some time ago. Not sure about Newcastle though..

I reckon we're about 6th, but as this whole tower debate confirms - "Size isn't everything" LOL (though I personally say "get it built!")

Sheffield is actually the 3rd largest district:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population

If you think about it, London is actually made up of lots of smaller districts (westminster, greenwich, etc)..

Also, if you want to dice this up by City population , then Sheffield is 5th:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_cities_by_population

And the way this is usually presented is "Outside of London, Sheffield is the UK's 4th Largest City"..

the people who are moaning about sheffield being destroyed bla bla bla etc are the same people who constantly moan about the city and its apparent shortcomings. Can't win either way.

I personally think sheffield is a fantastic place but it does need greater density in the centre, to give it the feel of the 4th biggest city.

I like the new render, the stone should look quite good. To be fair it could have been a bit more slender but think what the view will be like for people coming in from the train station!

If the Arts Tower is 17 stories, then this new suped-up block of flats will be almost double the size. Blot on the landscape springs to mind...

I agree with everyone who says that some WELL DESIGNED buldings would improve the city, but not a cuboid of blandness. And as for blocking the Winter Gardens - there should be no qualms about that - as it has already been pointed out they'll be just as lovely from the front and the inside, and, as it has been confirmed, the shadow cast by the tower will be for a minimal amount of time each day.

However, I think the question of 'breathing space' was a valid one. A building of that size perched precariously on the edge of a main road and just across the square from the old Town Hall will look positively awful. Especially as it is similar in design to the office blocks in St Paul's Place - throwbacks to the architectural dark-ages of the 1960's.

Apparently, according to those articles in the Star, it is postioned on the top of the hill so that people arriving in Sheffield via the train station will be able to negotiate their way to the ciy centre. I've got a better idea - knock down the Roxy and you'll be able to see the centre just fine...

Originally posted by Pilon
If the Arts Tower is 17 stories, then this new suped-up block of flats will be almost double the size. Blot on the landscape springs to mind...


Not quite double - residential towers aren't as tall per floor as office buildings, i'm not sure what the ratio is but it wont be double.

Originally posted by dinp
Not quite double - residential towers aren't as tall per floor as office buildings, i'm not sure what the ratio is but it wont be double.

Arts tower is 78m tall (Hallamshire hospital 76m incidentally).

The new City Lofts development will be "around 300 feet", which is 91 and a bit metres (sorry that's so vague, best I could find out). Hope that helps, Looks like it won't be that much taller than the Arts Tower.

101m in height.

The building is quite slim from the ends so it won't stand out that much from certain angles, not like if the arts tower was in the middle of town.

It does look a bit dull, but you can't tell from artists impressions, it might look realy good once it's built.

Originally posted by Unisol
101m in height.

Ah, thank you. So there we go, only 23m difference, not double then. Ta

Originally posted by tgigreeny
Arts tower is 78m tall (Hallamshire hospital 76m incidentally).

The new City Lofts development will be "around 300 feet", which is 91 and a bit metres (sorry that's so vague, best I could find out). Hope that helps, Looks like it won't be that much taller than the Arts Tower.

OK, I stand corrected. Ever been up the Arts Tower via the paternoster elevator though? It's still pretty tall... one could almost say it's the tallest building in Sheffield... ;)

Originally posted by dinp
So what do you suggest they put in place of the tower then? Perhaps a playpark for the kids, and a few more pounds on your council tax?
Just why do they have to build there? Three new buildings crammed in a small area isnt exactly planning is it?
The space left by the demolshed flats of Shrewsbury Rd is a good place for the Tower giving a good prospect over the City and as for what to put on the site of the proposed tower why not just grass it and leave it or is that no good either?

Originally posted by lazarus
Just why do they have to build there? Three new buildings crammed in a small area isnt exactly planning is it?
The space left by the demolshed flats of Shrewsbury Rd is a good place for the Tower giving a good prospect over the City and as for what to put on the site of the proposed tower why not just grass it and leave it or is that no good either?

City centres by description are built-up places and the government's main objective with planning is to ensure that it is sustainable.

Building this tower in the 'Heart of the City' IS sustainable in that people can live, work, shop, socialise and utilise public transport opportunities, all within a stone's throw of each other. It reduces the need for cars and will provide Sheffield City Centre with an extra 500 wallets-worth of cash that it needs if it is to attract higher profile retailers and investment.

Every year, when council tax increases are announced, people whinge their backsides off. The Heart of the City project is being done at no overall cost to the taxpayer, so they needed to sell this piece of land for development, as they did for the hotel and office block. If they grassed these sites over, council tax would rise due to the money lost from developers, but also because of the maintenance costs, as people would whinge again if the area became untidy wouldn't they?

Grassing over is a bad idea, unless you don't mind paying for it.

We have the Peace Gardens which is an excellent public space - soon to be extended to the Millennium Square in front of the office block and Hotel. Devonshire Green isn't too shoddy either.

I wonder if the same people who would replace the Hotel, Office Block and Tower (eventually) with grass are the same people who moan that Sheffield lags behind other cities for shops and facilities :suspect:

There's plenty of greenery in Sheffield's suburbs and back garden (Peak District), we don't need it all over the city centre as well. If that's what you desire, may I suggest a lovely village with a green and village shop as an alternative place to reside :heyhey:

Sheffield does need tall buildings but it also needs buildings that are not just plain and regular shaped. If we are going to have buildings that make Sheffield stand out then they have to be different and not just boxes or tall slender buidings that are like boxes extended!!

Also they have to be in the best place and not built in the damn middle of the prime piece of land in the city centre and over shadowing a really imaganite shape of a building, the winter garden.


To say that the tower is boring and in the wrong place for a 32 storey structure is not bemoaning Sheffield. Its saying that yet again the council and the planners just haven't thought this though. Othe sites for his yes, but where it is going to be very questionable.

Originally posted by isaidthat
Sheffield does need tall buildings but it also needs buildings that are not just plain and regular shaped. If we are going to have buildings that make Sheffield stand out then they have to be different and not just boxes or tall slender buidings that are like boxes extended!!

Also they have to be in the best place and not built in the damn middle of the prime piece of land in the city centre and over shadowing a really imaganite shape of a building, the winter garden.


To say that the tower is boring and in the wrong place for a 32 storey structure is not bemoaning Sheffield. Its saying that yet again the council and the planners just haven't thought this though. Othe sites for his yes, but where it is going to be very questionable.

I think that the shape is perfect for the location - I mean nobody wants the beautiful town hall to be overshadowed by experimental and possibly peculiar architecture - the tower will do its job of guiding people from the station to the city centre, without seeking to 'beat' the town hall in terms of architecture.

Conran and Partners themselves admit that the design is not supposed to be fashionable, but timeless. The shape fits in well with the surroundings current and planned:

- Owen Building
- Novotel
- Office Blocks @ St Pauls Place
- Stoddart Building
- Library
- Car Park (on Yorkshire Grey site)

I think they have thought this through very well - the plan for the Heart of the City is certainly not piecemeal, it is all designed to work together and the tower is another piece in the jigsaw.

I agree that Sheffield should have interesting tall buildings, but not at this location. I think the Moor is more the place for that kind of thing. I think they have this decision spot on.

I'm actually becoming more used the idea of this tower block, it's difficult to tell from the artist impression exactly what it will be like though... I hope the windows are reflective glass that will pick up and reflect the older (and newer) buildings around it.

Originally posted by dinp
- Car Park (on Yorkshire Grey site)

Anybody else think that this is a shame - to remove a building simply for car parking space? With city centre space (and public space at that) at a premuim, to give a piece of prime city centre space over to car parking seems crazy. I would have thought that an underground car park could have been created or at least incorporated into the City Lofts build.

Of all the "buildings" within a city, car parks are the ones that suck most of the life out..

Originally posted by Dave h-j
Anybody else think that this is a shame - to remove a building simply for car parking space? With city centre space (and public space at that) at a premuim, to give a piece of prime city centre space over to car parking seems crazy. I would have thought that an underground car park could have been created or at least incorporated into the City Lofts build.

Of all the "buildings" within a city, car parks are the ones that suck most of the life out..

It's not a great looking building really though is it (the pub)?

I think for the whole area to be developed properly, the pub needs to go.

Sorry!

Originally posted by Dave h-j
Anybody else think that this is a shame - to remove a building simply for car parking space? With city centre space (and public space at that) at a premuim, to give a piece of prime city centre space over to car parking seems crazy. I would have thought that an underground car park could have been created or at least incorporated into the City Lofts build.

Of all the "buildings" within a city, car parks are the ones that suck most of the life out..

There used to be a substantial car park under the old 'egg-box' Town Hall extension. This seems to have been destroyed in the building of the hotel and office block.

What the new buildings will do is turn the Peace Gardens from a light and airy open space into a dull and sunless little oasis, deep in the shadow of Sheffield's tallest building. Certainly not an attractive place for an al-fresco lunch, even in the summer.

I imagine most of the spaces in the car park building will be reserved for the residents of the 300 flats, guests of the two hotels and workers in the office blocks, so will offer little in the way of public amenity, although the ground floor will be available for services like shops, bars and restaurants.

The whole complex will stand in stark and rather brutal contrast to the Victorian aspect of the Town Hall, Pinstone Street and St.Paul's Parade.

Originally posted by Greybeard

The whole complex will stand in stark and rather brutal contrast to the Victorian aspect of the Town Hall, Pinstone Street and St.Paul's Parade. [/B]

Just like the Egg box did.

Originally posted by unners
Just like the Egg box did.

True :D - I was no lover of that monstrosity. I quite like the hotel but the office block looks cheap and shabby. The council should have insisted on a degree of conformity in the appearance and quality of the claddig, at least on the elevations visible from the Peace Gardens.

Dunno what the other office block looks like but I believe the car park is to be a windowless metal-clad affair. Probably stainless steel made in Korea or China.

But I thought you were more interested in cranes than architecture :P

Originally posted by unners
Just like the Egg box did.

but without the imagination and daring of the Egg box.

Originally posted by Greybeard
There used to be a substantial car park under the old 'egg-box' Town Hall extension. This seems to have been destroyed in the building of the hotel and office block.

What the new buildings will do is turn the Peace Gardens from a light and airy open space into a dull and sunless little oasis, deep in the shadow of Sheffield's tallest building. Certainly not an attractive place for an al-fresco lunch, even in the summer.

I imagine most of the spaces in the car park building will be reserved for the residents of the 300 flats, guests of the two hotels and workers in the office blocks, so will offer little in the way of public amenity, although the ground floor will be available for services like shops, bars and restaurants.

The whole complex will stand in stark and rather brutal contrast to the Victorian aspect of the Town Hall, Pinstone Street and St.Paul's Parade.

Obviously Greybeard you haven't been taking much notice of this development,all the office buildings contain underground parking,and possibly the tower will as well,The car park in this development is needed (ever been in town on a saturday and seen the queue's for the Car Parks).The Yorkshire Grey isn't exactly a building of Arcitectural imortance and it's a crap boozer anyway.

Originally posted by Greybeard
True :D - I was no lover of that monstrosity. I quite like the hotel but the office block looks cheap and shabby. The council should have insisted on a degree of conformity in the appearance and quality of the claddig, at least on the elevations visible from the Peace Gardens.

Dunno what the other office block looks like but I believe the car park is to be a windowless metal-clad affair. Probably stainless steel made in Korea or China.

But I thought you were more interested in cranes than architecture :P

Nothing wrong in a healthy interest in tall metal structures.But then again maybe i should get a life!

Originally posted by lazarus
Just why do they have to build there? Three new buildings crammed in a small area isnt exactly planning is it?
The space left by the demolshed flats of Shrewsbury Rd is a good place for the Tower giving a good prospect over the City and as for what to put on the site of the proposed tower why not just grass it and leave it or is that no good either? Not to be pedantic or anything, but is implied by the term 'City Centre' is dense building...

But as for laying grass where they put the concrete plaza & flower pot fountain then yes, go for it.

Grass it over? The city is not a park. The idea is to mix open spaces (new squares, winter gardens, Devonshire green etc.) with high denisty buildings. Although i must say i think another 7/8 storey building would have been the right choice for this site. I think we should build on the existing mid-rises around charter square/moorhead if we want to build tall - no problems about blocking sunlight down there.

Originally posted by AndrewC
Grass it over? The city is not a park. The idea is to mix open spaces (new squares, winter gardens, Devonshire green etc.) with high denisty buildings. Although i must say i think another 7/8 storey building would have been the right choice for this site. I think we should build on the existing mid-rises around charter square/moorhead if we want to build tall - no problems about blocking sunlight down there.

Damn right the city is not a park - but having a 7 or 8 storey building on the tower site is such a waste, it will make the entire Arundel Gate area look flat and will barely be visible from the train station.

I always seem to have a controversial view, but I think they've got the Heart of the City layout spot on, with exception of how the office block looks :gag:

Originally posted by dinp
Damn right the city is not a park - but having a 7 or 8 storey building on the tower site is such a waste, it will make the entire Arundel Gate area look flat and will barely be visible from the train station.

I always seem to have a controversial view, but I think they've got the Heart of the City layout spot on, with exception of how the office block looks :gag: I would tend to agree but I'd add the Peace Gardens to itas with the current building work the older grassy gardens were nicer. I mean like now 2/3rds of it are concrete...

So Sheffield is to get its own replica of London's Centrepoint? I wonder if it will also create its own micro-climate and get the strange wind that seems to be permanently whipping round the base of the London version?

At least it looks a tiny bit more interesting than the St Paul's Toytown Office block which is the 'New Egg Box' - Ptarmigan Eggs though, it being home to lawyers. ;) Even that is better than the proposed car park which is quite the most vile building I've ever seen, clad in loose sheets of metal which on a windy day will give it the impression of a buidling which is in the latter stages of disintegration. The metal cladding will also look lovely once weathered by diesel fumes and pigeon crap.

The Heart Of This City has already been ripped out. I am not a moaner by any means but the Tower block is wrong for the place where its allocated.

Originally posted by lazarus
The Heart Of This City has already been ripped out. I am not a moaner by any means but the Tower block is wrong for the place where its allocated.

What would you suggest we do to put the heart back? I hear naysaying, but no solution - that goes for a lot of the posts on here.

Originally posted by dinp
What would you suggest we do to put the heart back? I hear naysaying, but no solution - that goes for a lot of the posts on here.

I've always had some ideas. One is that the city centre has no 'flow' - it is actually quite difficult, even unpleasant to shop there due to the shape of the centre. The shopping streets go in a Y shape (the Y being on its side, legs akimbo to the left). Instead it needs making more triangular. This would take a shopping street to be run up from the Moor up to West St/Division St. A major development of shops (the usual chains, and higher priced places such as Habitat, a department store, M&S) could have been run up that way, with parking behind it, and maybe some high rises, flats/offices etc. This would have encouraged movement around rather than through town. Coupled with this could have been some 'arcaded' streets and alleys with small units for independent retailers.

Originally posted by Mathom
I've always had some ideas. One is that the city centre has no 'flow' - it is actually quite difficult, even unpleasant to shop there due to the shape of the centre. The shopping streets go in a Y shape (the Y being on its side, legs akimbo to the left). Instead it needs making more triangular. This would take a shopping street to be run up from the Moor up to West St/Division St. A major development of shops (the usual chains, and higher priced places such as Habitat, a department store, M&S) could have been run up that way, with parking behind it, and maybe some high rises, flats/offices etc. This would have encouraged movement around rather than through town. Coupled with this could have been some 'arcaded' streets and alleys with small units for independent retailers.

You're right - the centre is a crap shape, far too long instead of compact. I'd like to see it change too, but its not an overnight process sadly :(

Originally posted by Mathom
I've always had some ideas. One is that the city centre has no 'flow' - it is actually quite difficult, even unpleasant to shop there due to the shape of the centre. The shopping streets go in a Y shape (the Y being on its side, legs akimbo to the left). Instead it needs making more triangular. This would take a shopping street to be run up from the Moor up to West St/Division St. A major development of shops (the usual chains, and higher priced places such as Habitat, a department store, M&S) could have been run up that way, with parking behind it, and maybe some high rises, flats/offices etc. This would have encouraged movement around rather than through town. Coupled with this could have been some 'arcaded' streets and alleys with small units for independent retailers.

You've almost described the idea behind the new retail quarter.

Sadly, the retail quarter is just that bit too far to the east to truly make shoppers circulate. If it could begin almost at Moorfoot, then it would be much more effective, literally creating an entirely new shopping area - and would provide tons of room for a really big, luxurious department store, a 'destination' shop. In addition, the area it might go through is not one of the most attractive parts of Sheffield, and small, interesting places like the Washington and the one or two Mesters workshops left round there could in fact be incorporated, giving a variety of scale.

It would also mean that Devonshire Green might become a little more friendly and safe a place to visit, serving as a 'hub' at the top of the new street.

Originally posted by Pilon
OK, I stand corrected. Ever been up the Arts Tower via the paternoster elevator though? It's still pretty tall... one could almost say it's the tallest building in Sheffield... ;)

It IS the tallest! I have been up the paternosters, in fact I've been up onto the roof itseld. The view from atop all the walkways up there is amazing!

Retail quarter on look north - looks interesting, but why not sort out another area of town?

- The 'tall one' is great in height, sickening in its dullness.

- Arts tower may be shorter, but isn't it on a hill, and therefore will remain the highest building in Shef?

TRW

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL should approve plans for a building that would make the empire state building in ny,look positevly SMALL in comparrison.build the biggest building in the world period. just think of all them tourists BRILLIANT:clap: :thumbsup: right hear in sheffield if were goin to build a skyscraper,lets do the job right dont mess about:thumbsup:

Originally posted by no55sammy1
SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL should approve plans for a building that would make the empire state building in ny,look positevly SMALL in comparrison.build the biggest building in the world period. just think of all them tourists BRILLIANT:clap: :thumbsup: right hear in sheffield if were goin to build a skyscraper,lets do the job right dont mess about:thumbsup:

I've read your posts in the City Traffic thread and just have to ask - do you ever talk any effin sense? :rant:

hey dnip i take it you dont like the thought of the worlds tallest skyscraper being right here in sheffield, i think its a brilliant idea[HONEST] it would put sheffield on the world stage instantley. ;) weres the brickies lets get on with it:heyhey:

Originally posted by no55sammy1
hey dnip i take it you dont like the thought of the worlds tallest skyscraper being right here in sheffield, i think its a brilliant idea[HONEST] it would put sheffield on the world stage instantley. ;) weres the brickies lets get on with it:heyhey:

Skyscrapers don't get built for the fun of it you fool, they have to make financial sense. For the tallest skyscraper in the world to be built, the economic climate in the city has to match i.e rents per square foot etc and rates of return. Whilst i am very pleased that confidence and the economy in sheffield is really starting to pick up, we are a million years from having the economic environment to encourage the worlds tallest skyscraper to be built.

However, St Pauls will be a bloody good start and will surely encourage investor confidence in the city.

Even the Empire State building was nicknamed the 'Empty State Building' when it was completed because of a low occupancy rate - lets fill a 32-storey before we go for the 100+ ones yeah ;)

wooah what happened to the famous sheff sence of humour.if im not mistaken the posts topic was about a skyscraper being built in sheffield over the next couple of years. i personally think its a wacky [bad] idea:loopy: your right half of it will stay empty.but what amazes me the most is that 2 apparantley normal bright human beings would actually BELIEVE i meant it when i said sheffield should build THE TALLEST BUILDING IN THE WORLD.:clap: :clap: dont forget folks john cleese for PM oh dear heres to swimmin with bow legged women:help:

Originally posted by TheRedWizard
Retail quarter on look north - looks interesting, but why not sort out another area of town?

- The 'tall one' is great in height, sickening in its dullness.

- Arts tower may be shorter, but isn't it on a hill, and therefore will remain the highest building in Shef?

TRW

By that logic a house up on the manor or further up crookes is 'the highest building Sheffield'.

The Arts tower is the TALLEST building in Sheffield, but the new Conran Tower will be TALLER. From pavement to the top of the roof the new tower will be 101m, thats about 25m taller than the Arts tower.

Originally posted by no55sammy1
SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL should approve plans for a building that would make the empire state building in ny,look positevly SMALL in comparrison.build the biggest building in the world period. just think of all them tourists BRILLIANT:clap: :thumbsup: right hear in sheffield if were goin to build a skyscraper,lets do the job right dont mess about:thumbsup:
They'd never approve of anything like the Petronas Towers in Sheffield - it'd put too many plants in the shade and spoil the view of the Park Hill flats :hihi:

Originally posted by AndrewC
The Arts tower is the TALLEST building in Sheffield, but the new Conran Tower will be TALLER. From pavement to the top of the roof the new tower will be 101m, thats about 25m taller than the Arts tower.

I think I'm right in saying that the Hallamshire Hospital is actually the tallest building in Sheffield. Apologies if I've got that wrong.

I agree with everyone who has said that they agree with the principle of tall buildings, just not here. A tall building here will look out of place. In fact the original plan was for a much shorter building. To have any impact at all, tall buildings need to be built in "clumps" (eg. well, pretty much every successful city in the world). A single tall building among lots of shorter buildings has a habit of looking a bit of an eyesore, no matter how good its architecture.

As I walked towards work along Leopold Street this morning, I glanced up and saw how lovely the Town Hall is. Won't be the same when it has a massive shadow over its shoulder. Shame we can't preserve what's good in our city as well as trying to move forwards.

Do you think anybody in the Council listens to our views?

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
I agree with everyone who has said that they agree with the principle of tall buildings, just not here. A tall building here will look out of place.

Every big city starts off with just one.

As I walked towards work along Leopold Street this morning, I glanced up and saw how lovely the Town Hall is. Won't be the same when it has a massive shadow over its shoulder. Shame we can't preserve what's good in our city as well as trying to move forwards.

Perhaps the siting is wrong. Manchester has an equally magnificient old town hall, but its not overshadowed by any of the skyscrapers we're getting (yet).

Originally posted by alchresearch
Every big city starts off with just one.

True, but usually they can build up around it. There isn't room to do that on this site, unless they knock down some pretty important historic buildings like the Town Hall, the Central Library, the Lyceum etc.

Surely they wouldn't.....?

Gulp!

^^ Thats been one of my great problems with this tower, theres no scope for the development of a cluster, not like there is further down towards moorhead/Charter Square.

weren't you talking about buffalo joes at some point?

Originally posted by alchresearch
Every big city starts off with just one.

Manchester has an equally magnificient old town hall, but its not overshadowed by any of the skyscrapers we're getting (yet).
Very true. Although the Town Hall in Manchester knocks spots off the one in Sheffield if we're honest.

Anyway, there already are well thought out and defined areas for high rise development, based around a few nodes on the 75m contour line. So, don't worry too much that there will be skyscrapers plonked randomly all over the city. Clusters are the idea.

The sections on display for the NRQ last week were quite revealing.

One showed the profile of the area with the much-hated BT building rising above everything. The man from the planning department conceded that the BT building was an unfortunate mistake. When I pointed out that the section for the other direction showed an equally out of place tall building, he looked rather sheepish and told me it was the St Paul's Tower.

Oh for a crumb of intelligence in our planning department and the ability to learn from their mistakes!

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
The sections on display for the NRQ last week were quite revealing.

One showed the profile of the area with the much-hated BT building rising above everything. The man from the planning department conceded that the BT building was an unfortunate mistake. When I pointed out that the section for the other direction showed an equally out of place tall building, he looked rather sheepish and told me it was the St Paul's Tower.

Oh for a crumb of intelligence in our planning department and the ability to learn from their mistakes!

Wonderful.

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
I think I'm right in saying that the Hallamshire Hospital is actually the tallest building in Sheffield. Apologies if I've got that wrong.

I agree with everyone who has said that they agree with the principle of tall buildings, just not here. A tall building here will look out of place. In fact the original plan was for a much shorter building. To have any impact at all, tall buildings need to be built in "clumps" (eg. well, pretty much every successful city in the world). A single tall building among lots of shorter buildings has a habit of looking a bit of an eyesore, no matter how good its architecture.



Has nobody else noticed that the empire state building is itself surrounded by no other tall buildings?? The closest one is the Metlife (the old Panam) building but thats a good way off. If anyone here goes on skyscrapercity forums do a search for the sheffield forum and theres and interview with the architect behind the new conran tower, he explains why its shaped the way it is.

Originally posted by bathingape
Has nobody else noticed that the empire state building is itself surrounded by no other tall buildings?? The closest one is the Metlife (the old Panam) building but thats a good way off.

Thanks for the specious argument. Manhattan's skyline is 6.5 miles of skyscrapers.

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
Thanks for the specious argument. Manhattan's skyline is 6.5 miles of skyscrapers.

I think youll find thats lowermanhattan :thumbsup: most buildings around it are like 8 storeys tops untill you get to times square and thats about 6 blocks away

Originally posted by bathingape
I think youll find thats lowermanhattan :thumbsup: most buildings around it are like 8 storeys tops untill you get to times square and thats about 6 blocks away

It's the exclamation mark at the end of the sentence.

If you took the Empire State Building and all those "like 8 storey tops" neighbours and planted them in the middle of nowhere, miles away from the other skyscrapers, do you think the Empire State Building would look good? Or would it look isolated and a bit of a sore thumb?

Sorry to disappoint, but Sheffield isn't New York, and St Paul's Tower isn't the Empire State Building.

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
It's the exclamation mark at the end of the sentence.

If you took the Empire State Building and all those "like 8 storey tops" neighbours and planted them in the middle of nowhere, miles away from the other skyscrapers, do you think the Empire State Building would look good? Or would it look isolated and a bit of a sore thumb?

Sorry to disappoint, but Sheffield isn't New York, and St Paul's Tower isn't the Empire State Building.

But when the building was originally built it stuck out like a sorethumb until people accepted it and begun to love it as part of the cityscape. The conran tower isnt in my opinion a bad design, people are contrasting it with the town hall, when in reality its designed more to match in with the uni oppsite and the offices surrounding it.

Whatever you build next to the town hall is going to look odd, unless you build it in a fairytale gothic style that was popular 100+ years ago using tonns of real stone and marble, which is just too expensive these days.

Originally posted by nick2
Whatever you build next to the town hall is going to look odd, unless you build it in a fairytale gothic style that was popular 100+ years ago using tonns of real stone and marble, which is just too expensive these days.

Exactly :clap:

Not that i want any old rubbish to be put up. We dont want to turn into Nottingham now do we :hihi:

There is a debate on at the Showroom about Tall Buildings on the 1st December. Architects, city planners and the public are going. I think it's totally booked up now though.

i think the tower will look great if you can see it behind the town hall- a beautiful old building with a (mainly) glass tower rising up behind. It will be a great mix of old and new, what all great cities have, including new york!

Originally posted by jazz
i think the tower will look great if you can see it behind the town hall- a beautiful old building with a (mainly) glass tower rising up behind. It will be a great mix of old and new, what all great cities have, including new york!

Hooray, that makes 2 of us then! 2 fans of this lovely tower! :clap: