The time has come to nominate what you think is the most unappealing structure in the whole of Sheffield...what'll it be, and why!!

I nominate Hanover block on Upper Hanover St...1960s architecture at it's worst, the fact that it's not on an elevated surface makes it all the worse:rolleyes:

Any chance of some photos / map location please? I don't wanna go outside again...

http://www.emporis.info/en/wm/bu/?id=184867 :P

Sheffield Cathederal, come on that extention with bricks that dont even match the original... it looks a right midge modge.

It gets my vote for ugliest building!

My vote would go to 'Dyson House' near the station... Just ugly, and decrepit- thank goodnwess it's now closed- hopefully it'll be demolished too.

BTW, does anyone have any idea what the large building is right at the bottom of Hanover Way, opposite the flats and on the corner of the roundabout with Charter Row?

My vote goes to Parkhill flats (sorry all that live there) but it looks really derelict and run down - although I'm sure that the people who are there are not.

Second vote goes to the Winter Gardens. Ewwww. Looks like an out of shape paperweight.

The one on the Charter Row / Hanover roundabout gets my vote too. I think it's some kind of electricity sub station owned by Yorkshire Electric but it looks more like a prison.

Col

Now then: I don't know what it is but there is an enormous smoked glass monstrosity on St Mary's gate (as you go down on the left hand side towards the Safweway roundabout) who's only useful purpose seems to be so that you can check and see if your car roof is clean as you drive past.

I agree with all the above so far, but would also like to nominate the hallamshire hospital, as it has no design whatsoever, just a big grey lego brick, that you can see from pretty much everywhere in sheffield.

I'd go for the never-occupied NUM building beside the city hall.

I'd nominate all those buildings that were bombed during the war and still not rebuilt

Originally posted by rtapper
I'd nominate all those buildings that were bombed during the war and still not rebuilt

Can we have some examples?

I'd nominate those that were bombed during the war - and then rebuilt in 60s concrete brick style, such as that block opposite the new city council offices (at the back of Streetwise on Pinstone Street)

Originally posted by Cols
The one on the Charter Row / Hanover roundabout gets my vote too. I think it's some kind of electricity sub station owned by Yorkshire Electric but it looks more like a prison.

Col

This really is the ugliest building ever.

I'm told that this is where the main electricity supply comes in to the City Centre before it is stepped down to a more usable voltage. I guess other City Centres have the same thing - but as ugly as this?

The interior of Midland Station. You look at the likes of York train station, and you can't help feeling that Sheffield has let itself down in this respect.

Originally posted by Sam Miguel
Now then: I don't know what it is but there is an enormous smoked glass monstrosity on St Mary's gate (as you go down on the left hand side towards the Safweway roundabout) who's only useful purpose seems to be so that you can check and see if your car roof is clean as you drive past.
It's called Kings Court and its a Jobcentre Plus Head Office Building.:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Funky Dave
The interior of Midland Station. You look at the likes of York train station, and you can't help feeling that Sheffield has let itself down in this respect.

Not just the interior. The exterior is just as bad. Manchester Pic, York, Leeds, Liverpool, Brighton, Waterloo all have sweeping roofs of glass. Look very old but old architecture on that type of building looks awesome. Also! Keeps you warmer and dryer than on Sheffield (Midland) Station!

The Kingdom building in Barkers pool (old Odeon in my younger days), also the John Lewis store next to it isn't very pretty.

of the ramshackle rusted
tin church opposite Currys
on Chesterfield Rd.

Has anyone else noticed it?

Buildings that house Kingdom and Roxy. The Novotel - while not too ugly I think it's shape was dictated by buildings that are no longer there, so it looks odd in it's 'new' context. The Peace Gardens hotel and offices. Not irredeemably ugly in their own right but dull and a total missed opportunity as far as their site goes. The NUM building - again not the worst in the city but it's now messy and always was inappropriately sited and looks weird on it's high pedestal. Think we're lucky that the pub at the end of it (on Division St) wasn't demolished as was the original plan.

I don't like tarnishing every 60's building with the same brush, but by and large I'd agree that most are a disaster in Sheffield. Modernist architecture is not a cheap solution and needs constant maintenance to keep it looking acceptable. The initial building programmes and ongoing maintenance weren't funded properly so the city now looks a mess and most 60's Modernist buildings, which should still be looking clean and crisp, look more worn out than the Victorian (and earlier) buildings. If there's one thing to be said for the Peace Gardens, that's that it has at least been built of durable materials and it's being properly maintained.

Originally posted by Spangle
of the ramshackle rusted
tin church opposite Currys
on Chesterfield Rd.

Has anyone else noticed it?

I have :) It is a mess, but it's considered of historic value (one of last few left, tenuous link with certain period in history). I think it should stay and be properly maintained, as it is quite unique and the city needs variety. It isn't pretty, though.

Ok, another point i'd like to raise: Does anyone think that the problem with the 60's buildings is being repeated today? For example, west one, though an impressive structure, doesn't really have any great design to it, i think that in 10 years time it will look as bad as the buildings that we despise from the 60's. It seems to me that most modern developments are designed to be put up quickly, but lack anything special.
Just a thought, what do you think?

I agree Andy78. There's not much to be said for the exterior of these new apartments. Another opportunity to improve Sheffield's image is being wasted.

Originally posted by Funky Dave
The interior of Midland Station. You look at the likes of York train station, and you can't help feeling that Sheffield has let itself down in this respect.

I'll agree with this. I feel the station has always been lagging behind in all aspects including design and decor.

Good point about West One and all the other new apartment blocks being thrown up all over town. It's been a niggling worry of mine for a while, glad someone else agrees.

These places are so modern and 'now' that I cant beleive they will have a very long shelf-life.

Remember the last time Sheffield was at the forefront of modern housing? Anyone seen Park Hill rencently?

The cynic inside me can see Sheffield putting all it's effort into this City Living thing, for it all to go out of fashion in 10 years.
And then were gonna be stuck with loads of great ugly buildings that need tearing down. Again.

Originally posted by Funky Dave
The interior of Midland Station. You look at the likes of York train station, and you can't help feeling that Sheffield has let itself down in this respect.

Have you seen Manchester's train station? It's a mini-Meadowhall!!

Originally posted by Cols
The one on the Charter Row / Hanover roundabout gets my vote too. I think it's some kind of electricity sub station owned by Yorkshire Electric but it looks more like a prison.

Col

You're not wrong - its a rude and obtrusive building. It used to be owned by Yorkshire Electricity for the purpose of a substation - but since Yorkie doesnt exist anymore - im guessing that it falls under ownership of N Power.

The Roxy building is horrible - do they still use it? It looks like the sort of place full of Sharon's and Kevin's - hehe

When I was a lad we used to play football in Concorde Park and one of the changing huts (nearest the playground at the top end) was a disgrace. The paint was peeling off and the rot had well and truly set in. The tarpaulin on the top was hanging over the side, and all the windows were all smashed in.

I don't know if it's still there, but it was such a sight.

Gotta be where t020 lives :-)

I think the obvious choice is the old office building on Savile Street which is now used for storage and other dubious activities by the look of it. I think it may be called Savile House.

From whatever angle you look at it, it is just a dirty, horrible, run down mess which should have been knocked down years ago.

Yeah Savile House.

That is an awful place, stuck up there on its' own while all the surrounding buildings are gone. The adjoining pub 'Hole in the Wall' or whatever it's called is farily intruiging though.

Reading through the posts on this topic, I must say The Midland Station looks far worse than even that changing hut from my youth-hood in Concorde Park.

What a horrible impression of the city visitors must get. It really is most foul - on the inside, as well as the outside.

When I drive past it, it makes me feel all downbeat and ashamed.

Originally posted by chalicefc3
You're not wrong - its a rude and obtrusive building. It used to be owned by Yorkshire Electricity for the purpose of a substation - but since Yorkie doesnt exist anymore - im guessing that it falls under ownership of N Power.

Yorkshire Electricity doesn't exist any more????

Why am I still buying my meter tokens from them?! Noone told me!

Do I just carry on?!

Originally posted by babygem
The Roxy building is horrible - do they still use it? It looks like the sort of place full of Sharon's and Kevin's - hehe

I think an evangelist church uses it now...

I went clubbing there twice years ago... it was rough!

The smashed up building behind Crookes Valley Park looks awful, especially in such pretty surroundings <sigh>

Originally posted by purplepippa
The smashed up building behind Crookes Valley Park looks awful, especially in such pretty surroundings <sigh>

You mean what's left of the Dam House restaurant. It's currently in the process of being done up I believe.

Nomme
(p.s. Welcome back pp - long time no see!)

http://citysnapper.org/dm/sheff2001/09/2001091837moorest.jpg

Do not look if easily offended:)

Yes, Ok I've changed my mind, it is that ^^^ building. When you see it in real life I think your brain blanks it out but in a photo... yuk!

Wonder who the architect was?

Next time you drive up East bank Road, have look at the Earl Marshall pub, and in particular the yellow band of paint that goes all around the bottom half of it.

Yuk!

Originally posted by Andy78
Ok, another point i'd like to raise: Does anyone think that the problem with the 60's buildings is being repeated today? For example, west one, though an impressive structure, doesn't really have any great design to it, i think that in 10 years time it will look as bad as the buildings that we despise from the 60's. It seems to me that most modern developments are designed to be put up quickly, but lack anything special.
Just a thought, what do you think?

I agree entirely and have been saying this for a while. A lot of these new flat developments look to be cheaply built too.

There is a total lack of invention in the design of pretty much all the apartment blocks in the centre. I think this was likely sacrificed to keep the building costs down and to get the flats built quicker.

Originally posted by Fudbeer
http://citysnapper.org/dm/sheff2001/09/2001091837moorest.jpg

Do not look if easily offended:)

yes, this is the most horrible building in the centre, I get to see it out the window at work every day too, lucky me eh?!

I was reading in the winter gardens a few months back how they are going to make that area the 'gates to the city' by having 2 large flats/retail/office developments, one on the site of the old mercedes garage and the other on the patch of wasteland behind the inland revenue building. It's not going to be the most inspiring set of gates if that buliding is still there, it'll be a bit like a freshly laid turd on your door mat.

With it being an electricity sub-station, and obviously pretty important to the city, it seems very unlikely that it would ever get torn down in a hurry, how depressing...

My vote go's to Castle Market.

It should have been pulled down years ago:thumbsup:

A nice new shopping complex would be good for the area:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Fudbeer
http://citysnapper.org/dm/sheff2001/09/2001091837moorest.jpg

Do not look if easily offended:)

I've seen that building before...I think it was in Quake II ;)

What about the Manpower services Building?

The most hideous peice of architecture known to man.
About the size of The Queen Mary 2, ugly as sin and serves to isolate London Road/Bramall Lane from the rest of town.

What even happens in there? I dont know anybody that knows.

In fact, i'm so used to seeing it that I cant remember the last time I saw it. Is is still there?

God I hate that place.

Has to be my place of work!
Queens Rd Mecca is just a big ruddy eyesore and it fills me with an enormous sense of dread every time I cross the threashold
...........argh the torture :loopy:

Originally posted by jackthedog
What about the Manpower services Building?

The most hideous peice of architecture known to man.


Agreed, this is an awful building. Is it still being used??

There is a similar building in Huddersfield at the University which is just as hideous!

Do you mean the main site at Huddersfield where the library is? Ok that's not pretty, but it doesn't dwarf its surroundings. The manpower thing is like Sheffield's own Mount Doom sprouting out of the city centre.

Mount Doom :D

Good name Dave.

I'm starting a new thread to see what goes on inside mount doom.

Originally posted by Funky Dave
Do you mean the main site at Huddersfield where the library is? Ok that's not pretty, but it doesn't dwarf its surroundings. The manpower thing is like Sheffield's own Mount Doom sprouting out of the city centre.
Yes it's at the main site, but a different colour and not quite as big.

Andy 78 says; Ok, another point i'd like to raise: Does anyone think that the problem with the 60's buildings is being repeated today? For example, west one, though an impressive structure, doesn't really have any great design to it, i think that in 10 years time it will look as bad as the buildings that we despise from the 60's. It seems to me that most modern developments are designed to be put up quickly, but lack anything special.

I totally agree, absolutely characterless. I get the impression the only thing that separates these 'modern city living' flats from conventional flats is a bit of laminate flooring and 'mood lighting' - oh and a price premium.

As for the ugliest buildings, my nominations include:

1, Manpower services building

2, The old Yorkshire Electricity building at the Charter Row/ Hanover roundabout

3, Co-op building on Angel Street

4, Midland station

Originally posted by Cols
The one on the Charter Row / Hanover roundabout gets my vote too. I think it's some kind of electricity sub station owned by Yorkshire Electric but it looks more like a prison.

Col

I heard that the building contains huge fuses for Sheffield's power supply. Apparently if you go in there, you have to keep your mouth open in case one of them happens to blow, because if you had your mouth shut and one blew, the air pressure would blow out your eardrums or something.

Possibly a load of twaddle...

What about that horrible grey church on Eccy Road, opposite Eccy Park? I feel punished just looking at it.

My house, purely because my kitchen is a hell hole

Originally posted by jackthedog
I'd go for the never-occupied NUM building beside the city hall.

Im pretty shure that the one you are talking about is going to be demolished along with john lewis (coles) and the rest of the city centre. ( that is where the new shopping areas and the retail quarter will be)

P.S. when you are in front of the city hall, there is a crane that sticks up in the distance just to the side of the city hall. Is that the 23 storey residential building that is under construction? I cant wait for that. ( I also cant wait for the other 20+ storey building that is going to be in the retail quarter)

Are you being sarcastic with that last statement?

Ah, your profile suggests not.

You live in a good place if you like scyscrapers then? I'd say NY is the place to be.

Speaking of ugliest building(s) I'm looking forward to the demolition of the ex-Hallam halls of residence in Ranmoor...the debate as whether or not to build flats 4 or 5 stories on the land...why don't they demolish it then take their time deciding?:loopy: They're becoming increasingly painful to look at I might need counseling if they're still there in 2 weeks time:confused:

The Odean/Roxy building gets my vote..awful!

How about that half burnt building on Infirmary road with no roof that has been allowed to stand there for years on end. Strange that Planning Officers get uptight about a few double glazed windows, and then allow these monstrosities to lie there from one year to the next.

Can't picture that one. What's it near?

Originally posted by Carynne
How about that half burnt building on Infirmary road with no roof that has been allowed to stand there for years on end. Strange that Planning Officers get uptight about a few double glazed windows, and then allow these monstrosities to lie there from one year to the next.

You have just reminded me of another eyesore.

Does anyone remeber the Chuck Ranch on Holme Lane Malin Bridge?.

It burnt down in about 1985/6 and still to this day 1/2 of the bulilding is still stand and the other 1/2 is just a great big hole:mad:

yeah, I cant believe it's still there. I was born in 82, so cant remeber the original thing. So for my entire living memory, that has been a burnt hole on the corner. Absolutely ridiculous.

I was born in 82 aswell and I have always wonderd what that was but no one I knew could tell me.

I walked past the glassed DWP building nr the old power station, all i can say is why?

I have to say that the cathedral, park hill flats and the grosvenor hotel are the ugliest buildings in sheffield.

You really do seem to have serious issues with the Grosvenor tower, Manhattanman. If it mysteriously burns down one night, I can imagine who may be the prime suspect. ;)

Originally posted by jackthedog
Ah, your profile suggests not.

You live in a good place if you like scyscrapers then? I'd say NY is the place to be.

Oh yeah, the place is heaven for me. i would like to see a modern high rise in sheffield as a little boost for it. something refreshing (compared with concrete and tiles)

I dont hate any building at all, but im not very keen on the grosvenor - its grose you have to admit.

I've been up the Empire State. I thought it was absolutely breathtaking, so I can understand your enthusiasm for skyscrapers!

I've been to the ex-observatory at the top of the Chrysler Building... beat that Manhattanman!!:D

What about the job centre next-door to Takapuna on West Street?

I'm sure I've seen them 'moving out' recently and it looks empty. Is it being removed as part of the redevelopments?

Hope so!

Anyone know what might go in its place??

does anyone dislike the arts tower at sheffield uni? I know its listed cos its tall, but that doesn't make it nice to look at! the only good thing about that building is the views!
holiday inn is an eyesore from my bedroom window, as is sorby hall and the hallamshire!

Well I just felt the need to stand up for the The old Yorkshire Electricity building at the Charter Row/ Hanover roundabout, in my opinion this is one of the most original and honest buildings in Sheffield!

Have you ever stood and looked at it - well, have you! it's so well thought and well refined, people spent a lot of time pulling down true modernist buildings and putting up mock this mock that building my numbers cr*p all over the place.

OK so it's not up there with Lubetkins penguin house at London Zoo but it's as close as Sheffield gets - and good on them for cleaning it and bringing it's true modernist splendor back to life!

I love it, and so does my mate Dave, so I'm not the only one!

Any of the new 'luxury flat complexes' will do as my worst buildings in sheffield, The Ward brewery for example, was a fine building, now look at - makes my blood boil!! And don't get me started about that complete mess at the end of Division Street...

There are so many

1. Parkhill without a doubt, listed building what is that all about
2. Sorby halls of residence in broomhill
3. Hanover flats: they may have made them colourful but still an eye sore
4. Flats above 7 spices at West Bar

Reading all these comments here, I really don't think that people are actually LOOKING at the buildings, just forming opinions based on rhetoric and a mass hysteria about modern architecture.

Remember, architecture is art! You can certainly have an opinion, but it's rarely considered without study. I would rather have a city full of modern buildings that made people think (even if you don't like it) than one full of anodyne mock Victorian tat.

I disagree. The views expressed on this board are typical of those regularly expressed by ordinary people, and to dismiss them as somehow lacking a critical consideration is, I'm afraid, typical of the attitude taken by the majority of our architects and planners. The implication is that their opinions are worth more than ours.

I do agree that architecture SHOULD BE about art. I disagree that it IS. It's a profession of engineers, not artists.

Until the early 20th century, architects aimed for beauty in architecture, invariably by means of an interpretation of more classical designs. The modernist movement began by advocating that true beauty was best expressed in functionality, leading to a more utilitarian approach. Innovation became the key criterion of success.

So the present fashion (and it's no more than that) is for buildings which are architecturally innovative rather than beautiful. They offer little emotional connection to ordinary people. I have no interest in the awards won by architects or the critical acclaim a building might receive. I simply want to live in beautiful surroundings.

It should also be remembered that after the critics have cast their patronising eye over a design, the building remains with the people. In 1932, the City Hall was unveiled and architects derided its "backward looking" neo-classical design. The same profession today lauds this building. It has always been loved by ordinary people.

I'd rather see a modern take on classically beautiful designs than the anodyne blocks that keep getting imposed upon us.

So there.

A few points in response...

1. Architecture is still about art. The training is the longest imaginable. A doctor qualifies 2 years earlier than an architect. I know which I trust more. I can take my own pulse and recommend an aspirin.

2. Unfortunately, the "ordinary people" as you call them demand cheap low cost housing, offices and factories, as they do with food, cars, finance, etc. This of course oten results in the lowest common denominator.

3. We use a completely different technology now than before. It is simply not possible to build with the same techniques and styles as before. A whole new vocabulary constantly needs to be created and developed that also caters for changes in law, style, taste and technology. If you want a "modern take on classically beautiful designs" than I suggest you take a look at a few post modern buildings and tell me if you really think the same afterwards.

4. Architecture is truly art that is available to the common man to touch, feel, use and occupy. Each age is beset my nostalgia for the one before. St Paul’s Cathedral was pilloried when it was built.

5. Each age has good and bad. The Victorians were the best jerry builders since the Georgians, and don't even think about the rubbish that the Elizabethans threw up. Only the better stuff stays (usually) and we soon forget the disease ridden slums and open sewers that went before.

6. Finally, there is still amazing new and great architecture out there in every town and city… even Sheffield!

I don't think there's such a thing as an 'ugly' building. It depends on the setting. A beautiful building in the wrong place can clash wiht, or overshadow its surroundings and then appear ugly (or make another feature appear ugly).

And I fully agree with your points Tony!

(still don't think teachers are idle though:thumbsup: :blush: )

Cheers Markham :thumbsup:

Someone mentioned the Holiday Inn as being an ugly building earlier, so I had a quick check when I drove past yesterday. I was assuming that they meant the Hallam Towers HI, not the Royal Vic HI :P

It's again, quite a well designed building, and it was certainly an expensive one when it was first built. It's well proportioned and sits well against the street. There is bass relief artwork on the front elevation spandrel panels on each floor which would have cost a fortune. The rest of the building is high quality concrete with mosaic feance work. When seen from the other side of the valley it rises quite majestically from the trees that cloak the hillside, hiding everything else. This is a good building. That doesn't mean to say that you have to like it, but it is very high quality architecture.

i guess its architecture is ok.. - i was talking about the ranmoor one yeh?
I just don't like the way it sticks out on the skyline - thats also why i don't like sorby halls or the hallamshire, or the arts tower.

I think tall buildings are great, if they fit in, or are to scale, or compliment the surrounding area, but i think the ones above fail to do that :)

With apologies to everyone for what's going to be a long message, a few points in response Tony...

1. Art is about taste, not training. The length of training and the qualifications required to get onto an architecture course merely support my point that architecture is now about engineering and the quest for innovation, rather than art and the quest for beauty, which I believe it should be.

2. Agreed. This is the whole point. Modern buildings are made to be cheap and disposable. We use cheap materials, simple designs and little imagination in order to construct buildings which can be sold/let for maximum profit. We're building for a short term future, not the heritage of our grandchildren. We've got sucked into the Californian way of doing things. I believe that's wrong, certainly where public buildings are concerned. I don't think my taxes are well spent if I'm going to be asked to pay again in 30 years time. It also hurts when high quality old buildings are demolished to make way for low quality new buildings because of a lack of foresight among our architects and planners (I'm thinking of the Yorkshire Grey).

3. The technology we used in the past is still there. We use new technologies in order to minimise cost and maximise profit. This is the only reason why it isn't possible to build in the same way. Changes in vocabulary are irrelevant. The issue is whether we should be building disposable cities without character.

Thanks for your "suggestion" by the way - I have and I do! There will always be exceptions, and there are certainly some terrific new buildings in Sheffield and elsewhere. Unfortunately we have an ineffectual planning department which can only see one type of building - modern and preferably innovative. Take a look at the "Cathedral Quarter". The planning department should have protected this whole area by insisting on traditional designs to complement the existing buildings. Instead, we have Pennine House, Weston Tower, New Bank House and a host of other monstrosities looming over the traditional architecture of the area. It's destruction by construction.

4. I agree entirely!! But nostalgia has always been a driving force in the quest for beauty. I'm not advocating that we shouldn't develop new themes, I'm saying that the aim should be beauty, not innovation. I want to see symphonies set in stone, not ephemeral achievements in engineering! Maybe we can all find good things in buildings if we take time to look closely, but should people be expected to do that or should the benefits be immediately obvious?

I also believe our architects and planners should take the blinkers off and see that there is more than one way. The difficulty is that most architects and planners seem bound by the dogma they learn at university. Those in the service of public organistions should recognise that public amenity is a vital aspect of their role, and that most ordinary people want buildings which make the environment immediately more beautiful. I believe architects and planners need to stop talking and start listening.

5. Obviously true, but how many of our recent buildings will actually last? Cheap materials and the commercial requirement for disposable buildings mean that we are unlikely to leave many special buildings for future generations.

6. Agreed. But that isn't the point! I'm happy to support new ideas such as the Winter Garden, the NCPM, Castle House and so on, and if we were awash with Frank Gehrys and Norman Fosters, there probably wouldn't be much argument here. But good post-WWII buildings in Sheffield are, sadly, few and far between. Most modern buildings in Sheffield suffer from a lack of durability, a lack of imagination, a lack of beauty and inappropriate siting. This is not "rhetoric and mass hysteria", but genuine, considered concern that no one seems prepared to act on.

Anyway, that's my view and I get the feeling we probably won't ever agree. Rather than bore everyone else, PM me if you want to continue the debate!

Very comprehensive, and certainly a considered response. I will take up a couple of key issues to avoid boring the Forum masses.

Building technology is totally different nowadays, and the older technology has been largely lost. In fact, its difficult to find a bricklayer these days, never mind a stone mason who can cut, split and carve. Modern regulations enforce the use of new technologies for all sorts of reasons. We just cannot build like the Victorians, and never will be able to again... ever! This may be sad, but it is the way that it is and it is largely driven by public demand for low cost and high efficiency.

The other is grounded in the cost of buildings. It's too easy to accuse developers of being greedy when the plain truth is that (larger) property development is a very high risk business that demands adequate profit ratios that are usually around 10%. I know of few businesses that work for such small returns for such high risks - maybe ship builders. Those ratios are demanded by funders who also often take a large slice of profit, maybe 20%, in addition to the cost of lending. Once you have taken all these risks, you have to find buyers and tenants. In Sheffield this isn't easy. Property development is a very high risk business, but the incentive is that the actual cash return can look large… 10% of £1m is £100k, but the developer will have to find around £300k of cash to put into the deal in the first place.

I suggest that there are many business owners earning that without anything like the risk or skill required in property.

To avoid boredom, I'll just say:

1. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy that fulfilled itself. We'll learn new techniques rather than relearning the old ones eh?

2. You're talking purely about speculative construction. Risky anywhere - not many would take up the gauntlet in Sheffield.

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
1. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy that fulfilled itself. We'll learn new techniques rather than relearning the old ones eh?.
I totally disagree. Why say that current methods are inferior to previous techniques? It has always been that way since we started creating our shelters rather than living in natural caves. We constantly move on and make things better.

Originally posted by hounsfieldjr
2. You're talking purely about speculative construction. Risky anywhere - not many would take up the gauntlet in Sheffield.
Not at all. The figures that I outlined are typical commercial development numbers. You see, property developers aren’t the greedy raping pillaging monsters that people think are they? (usually)

It is true that some projects are better than others, and many developers have a target of 20%. Speculative development requires far more equity injection, often around 50% if you can find a bank to back it. Very few banks are interested in truly speculative projects. In fact I can think of none that will readily lend unless they have security of around 125% of their exposure.

There is talk in Sheffield of a 40+ storey building in the next few years. That will generate huge revenues, but there will be equally massive amounts of risk that will require isolating and nullifying. It will not be built in stone!

If you're going to quote me, at least refer to the quote, rather than to an argument I didn't make!

But as you mentioned it, hands up those who think concrete is an improvement on stone?

As for profit ratios, you quote a figure of 10%. That's a good return at the moment (ship builders are doing OK by the way!). You also overlook that I was mainly talking about public developments, not commercial.

That's an awful return considering that's before running a firm or any other expenses, or the level of risk involved.

And by all means change the parameters to public works, but I would appreciate knowing first. :)

Private companies don't have the luxury of public money. They have to do it all themselves.

I'll vote for the Winter Gardens, millenium architecture at its worst.