Hello! I'm a planning student at Sheffield Hallam University and a have an interest in large developments, esp. skyscrapers.

Just wondered what local views were on tall buildings being built Sheffield?
For example its likely several apartments blocks will be built between the devonshire quarter and the moor, including sometime in the future when rent prices pick up, the construction of Chesham House (opposite the bt tower) which should be a bit taller than the Arts tower.

I'm new here so sorry if this topic already exists!

I suppose it would make the city look modern but claustrophobic. I like the idea but can understand anyone who would have to live near them being annoyed at tall buildings dominating the skyline.

I also think that planners should take into consideration that although tall buildings take up less land and hold many more people, they are are a target for terroism.

Sorry, but I thought that we (including architechts) had learnt from the past. AndrewC, why do you have this fixation with large developments? People don't want to live in them. Trust me I know(been there). Unless you can bung a small private army adjacent to the lifts, these places become the stuff of nightmares.

I thought good architecture strived to find what people want not what students want foist upon 'the people'.

The problems with high-rise are really ones of social policy and occupancy rather than architecture.

Put simply - fill them with scrotes and you get high-rise hell. High-rise works perfectly well if you keep Local Authority Housing Dep'ts away from them.

Erm, if people don't want to live in large developments, why are they being built (west one for example). Because people want to live in them. In the case of west one, i believe all the apartments had been sold months before it was completed. There are currently several large developments being built in sheffield, purely because there is high demand. I personally don't like a lot of modern developments beause there's no real design put into them. i think they'll look dated in ten years time. If large buildings are to become more common (which it looks like they will in sheffield), I think they should be made to last the test of time, and still look good in 50 or 100 years.

As far as the threat of terrorism, i wouldn't worry too much. If you think how many massive buildings there are in this country or the world even. An office or appartment block in sheffield is not really going to be high on the list considering how many other, higher profile buildings there are. I'd imagine the chances of a building in sheff being a target are infinitesimal

I think that too little attention is paid to developing a sense of communty in some of these developments. People don't just want a dwelling - they want a good environment, security, placers to go to/eat/shop/socialise/worship and about a million other things. Park Hill and Kelvin failed - there must be some research into the reasons why.

Originally posted by Smiler
I think that too little attention is paid to developing a sense of communty in some of these developments. People don't just want a dwelling - they want a good environment, security, placers to go to/eat/shop/socialise/worship and about a million other things. Park Hill and Kelvin failed - there must be some research into the reasons why.

I agree with you on this but would have to argue about Kelvin. I lived on there for 8 years and was one of the last tenants to move out during the clearance. Yes, it had a bad reputation, but mostly by people who never lived on there. I would still say that the majority of decent people on there loved it because of it's strong sense of community. There were lots of community activities, for example, the Kelvin Carnival every summer, the cheap day trips to the seaside, and one year Santa drove a sleigh round the landings delivering presents to the kids!

When we were given the vote as to whether it should stay or be demolished, most people voted for demolition ....... who wouldn't given the choice of a house were ever you wanted and £2500 in your pocket for the pleasure? No-one is going to turn that down!!

Occasionally, I bump into people wo lived on there and they all say they miss it. It really was the sense of community that made it. All the reports of TV's being thrown off etc etc were much exaggerated and in 8 years I never had any problems at all.

Kelvin had 947 flats. On an estate of 947 houses, you're not telling me that there would never be any trouble!!

I for one loved living on Kelvin.

I now live in a house with my children which I think benefits them, but growing up in a fifth floor flat myself (not kelvin) it did me no harm.

hi-rise living has not worked. full stop.

we have had wholesale demolition of many of the high rise developments in sheffield, so why do we need more inflicted on us?

There were the Norfolk park flats, of which only one remains standing, and occupied.

The claywood, above the railway station, the three blocks at lowedges , 2/3 of the Jordanthorpe flats, and 1/3 of the herdings flats.

The four blocks which stood magnificently on the top of the hill at Pitsmoor, echoing the other side of the valley.

There were three demolished at chapeltown, and the largest block on the Hyde Park development, as well as the entire Kelvin.

If hi-rise is to be reintroduced, it needs decent construction, not he sloipshod cr*p that was thrown up in hte '50s and'60's. decent properties, with decent heating systems , and adequate soundproofing between the individual dwelling units. (noise is the biggest cause of nusaince of all)

I agree with an earlier poster on here, who mentioned that the problem is with social housing chiefs not vetting prospective tenants properly, and not enforcing decent standards of behaviour from them (ie, noise, anti-social behaviour, crime, etc) and enforcing the conditions in the tenancy agreement that the tenant signs.

Some of these so-and so's could be housed in buckingham palace, and they would still turn it into a crack den.

Having had the neighbours from hell living next door in a previous house, I could write the book! it was purgatory having those particular neighbours!

then we had the b*tch troll from hell- neighbour who complained to teh council of excessive noise coming from us... noise which consisted of, at 2pm on a summers afternoon, my (then) 14month old granddaughter laying in her playpen on the patio, chuckling and gurgling ( :loopy: ) the old witch.

Currently, we have one neighbour, that the housing are trying to evict, due to exessive anti-social behaviour. (but he is just one person, that is trying to bring the district down, and we won't have it, it's lovely round here. If he won't wake his ideas up, the housing will have him evicted)

PT

It's sad that Local Authority housing has these problems, but they are non-existant in new-build private high rise. Luckily the LA's have nothing to do with the new hi-rise, and it will stay that way.

just to echo what tony said. All the recent housing developments around sheffield are aimed at young professionals (i hate that phrase). Hence why they are so expensive. These developments are unlikely to be affected with the same anti-social behaviour problems that the flats of the 50's and 60's did.
As I said, i'm still not convinced that enough effort goes into their design though.

Works well in New York, why not here and for some reason high buildings look good in a hilly location , for example stand behind the station and look over the City at night.

__________________________________________________
Non latinus bull****us

Some of you will hopefully be comforted by the fact that generally, the days of poorly designed, mass density tower blocks are gone.
Mainly, lower income families are kept out of hi-rise, like someone said above, the problems of low income high crime communities is a terrible thing to then squeeze into a tower block.
Nowadays they are richer people, city professionals, students etc. They are well designed and colourful, thankfully nobody has a fettish for concrete anymore :P

In britain more than any country, hi-rise (though in sheffield we are really only realistically looking at mid rise - around the height of the arts tower and lower) has to be well designed, fully integrated into the surroundings and must have the network around them strong enough to be able cope with extra demand.

High rise accomodation seems like a nightmare to me. Id be so scared of fired below me and me beingh trapped it may just be my strange phobia but if high rise accomodation is so popular why did they pull those at norfolk park down and whats up with modernising the claywood ones its just one big waste

The Claywood flats are in a poor place really, its a steep walk down to the station. Its a fairly quiet area and there aren't any shops right next to it.
Norfolk Parks? I don't know, maybe they had structural faults. Wouldn't suprise me knowing the history of those things.

Besides both are out of the very centre, thats where rich, young professionals want to be.

Don't forget - some here say poor people don't go well in these flats - well no developer let alone council in their right minds would house the poor in such hi-rise/density buildings again. The only reason park hill remains is because its listed and its too difficult to move everyone out.

Im a planning student AndrewC and although I agree with you about these "high-rise" flats being targeted at different groups then the previous flats produced though the modernisation era via the council I dont agree with your comments regarding the architectural and urban design styles (or lack of them).

They are an obvious improvement of those built in the 1960s and 1970s but the ones appearing around West St are bland. I think in 10 years time West One will look dated (I did a study into the urban design of west one and its effect on the devonshire quarter), I also think it a bit of a gamble buying one of these new high-density buildings, who knows how unpopular they could become!

I htink they're popularity will remain for decades to come - to the richer folk of course. I do have to admit that some modern european buildings like the many that are popping up along west street aren't all brilliant, but still a vast improvement on the blandness of their 60s/70s counterparts.

Originally posted by magicgem

They are an obvious improvement of those built in the 1960s and 1970s but the ones appearing around West St are bland. I think in 10 years time West One will look dated (I did a study into the urban design of west one and its effect on the devonshire quarter), I also think it a bit of a gamble buying one of these new high-density buildings, who knows how unpopular they could become!

Agreed! Modern buildings seem to be rushed these days. It seems like the developers don't want to splash out on design and end up with very dull looking buildings.

I htink a lot of them are quite good design. In fact i hear from my secret contacts :) that future sheffield developments are some of the most impressive seen in the country.

I think that they are very impressive, and well designed in the way that they are functional. The engineering side of the design is very well thought out, but I'm not sure aesthetically they will look as good in the future. If you look at classical architecture, designs still look impressive today, hundreds of years later. I don't believe as much effort goes into architecture these days.
Of course this is just an opinion. I do hope that the future developments are as impressive as you say.
All in all I think it is good that the city is expanding, and looking to the future. This does seem to be happening in most major cities.

I lived in one of the Brightmore Drive tower blocks a couple of years ago while they were being modernised. They are were a very nice place to live once the builders had put in the new heating system and windows etc, and in my opinion they look nice from the outside too! The sad thing about the block i was in... once they finished making them nice, the council started "clearing" the block for "special need" cases. Soon after that, arson in the basement and down rubbish shutes became quite frequent!

ooer, which ones are those patchy?

The ones north of the arts tower are nice.

the ones just across from the arts tower... off Brook Hill (University) roundabout

Hopefully you are well through your planning degree now, whether in sheffield or not. I was born and lived on the 9th floor of the Hyde Park Flats (My parents are fromhighfields), a building that excited me into a life long lovewith architecure and modernism. The streets in the sky concept in my opinion is flawed now but then I feel that may be the big "scapegoat" of crime and ronan point. I hope you are doing well in your studies and wish you well. PS for sheffielders ... I have nothing to do with that TV that killed someone - fantastic homes may be populated by **** - look at what the city has done with certain Kelvin, Hyde and Norfolk residents ... People make slums, buildings don't!

For those that say there is no call for high rise living, check this:

http://www.espc.com/EspcPublic/UniversalPages/PropertyDetails.aspx?rid=208910

Strictly speaking, it is not a high-rise as it is under 6 storeys tall but there again it is not a semi-detached suburban either and has been standing for the best part of 300 years. The selling price is also likely to be 30-50% above the "offers over" price.

Building up the way is the answer in this country as it id the most efficient use of land.

Hopefully you are well through your planning degree now, whether in sheffield or not. I was born and lived on the 9th floor of the Hyde Park Flats (My parents are fromhighfields), a building that excited me into a life long lovewith architecure and modernism. The streets in the sky concept in my opinion is flawed now but then I feel that may be the big "scapegoat" of crime and ronan point. I hope you are doing well in your studies and wish you well. PS for sheffielders ... I have nothing to do with that TV that killed someone - fantastic homes may be populated by **** - look at what the city has done with certain Kelvin, Hyde and Norfolk residents ... People make slums, buildings don't!

how did you calculate the ninth?

There were seven levels, on the highest of the four blocks, if you count High pavenment where the shops were:-
Bevis, Chancel, Dacre, Lord, Rowland and St John's.

or are you counting the three levels that made up each individual row? (which would work out as Dacre Row. or Derwent Row if you lived on the long low block)

PT

When we were given the vote as to whether it should stay or be demolished, most people voted for demolition ....... who wouldn't given the choice of a house were ever you wanted and £2500 in your pocket for the pleasure? No-one is going to turn that down!!

Occasionally, I bump into people wo lived on there and they all say they miss it. It really was the sense of community that made it. All the reports of TV's being thrown off etc etc were much exaggerated and in 8 years I never had any problems at all.

Didn’t miss it enough not to vote for its demolition though! And all, apparently, accepted the bribe of £2,500 and a house! Had that money and property not been available, I wonder what the vote might have been then?

....I was born and lived on the 9th floor of the Hyde Park Flats (My parents are fromhighfields), a building that excited me into a life long lovewith architecure and modernism..... ... People make slums, buildings don't!

i agree

hyde park had the "wow" factor; most housing estates don't..

:|

the skyscraper era has really passed in my opinion.

i live in warrington, and can see the huge big tower they are almost finished building in manchester from my window, and in the opposite direction, can see the 20 or so massive cranes in liverpool where they are starting to build the scouse version...

luckily i cant see any in sheffield though. and lol have u seen how the council's howden house in sheff totally dwarfs the roebuck tavern if u are looking from hallam uni/arundel gate. its unsightly.

For all things happening in Sheffield, go to .......

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=647

Just an outlandish thought, but do students of architecture ever think of building down rather than up? It would be a bit dicey considering the global situation that could eventually wipe out half of Yorkshire but looking on the “Brightside”, high-depth housing would leave the land above free for cultivation and make us — apart from oil and the like — almost self-sufficient.

Another thought in the way of questions. What will AndrewC be thinking of in the way of building materials, and how will his architectural designs differ from he rest?

I’m also interested in his opinions on which is the best of Sheffield’s more modern buildings, and which is the worst? And would he be kind enough to give his reasons for those choices?