Jump to content


St Paul's tower cladding? Have read the council aren't happy -and neither am I!

Recommended Posts

I passed the tower last week and couldn't help but notice the cladding. bloody awful. Looks like recycled caravan panels. I really liked the look of the original cladding. Looks like someone in the new Lib Dem administration has taken their eye off the ball!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well what did you all expect. Have you never heard the expression; 'if you dance with the devil you should expect to get burnt'?

The devil in this case being the property developers that, credit crunch or no credit crunch, would have made sure that there were severe cutbacks somewhere along the line turning the blandest, most inappropriately located tower block in the UK into one of the ugliest and blandest, inappropriately located tower block in the UK.

Unfortunately some people on this forum never seem to learn.:shakes:

 

Why is it inappropriately located?

 

It can be seen from almost all parts of the city now. The tallest buildings should be bang in the middle of a city centre, isn't that the whole point?

 

Where else would you expect to see tall buildings in this city, dare i ask?

 

Personally i wish there was more of a cluster of them. I suppose we'll have a mini-cluster once SPP3 is built, next to the nearly completed SPP2.

 

It also think the tower will make for a great feature for people coming from the train station - excluding the dreadful cladding of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that they were going to respect the city and its historic achitecture. so how could anyone get away with slapping a huge tower in the middle of it ?

 

the whole point is that there was never any plans under the centers development to include huge towers.

 

sticking a monster along side dinosaurs just does not work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that they were going to respect the city and its historic achitecture. so how could anyone get away with slapping a huge tower in the middle of it ?

 

the whole point is that there was never any plans under the centers development to include huge towers.

 

sticking a monster along side dinosaurs just does not work

 

I don't think thats true. There have been several plans for towers above 50m for several years and at least three 'masterplans' endorsed by the Council include/have included such towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it inappropriately located?

 

How many reasons do you want? :loopy:

1/Overshadowing of the Winter Garden at the time of year when the gardens need maximum light, ie winter, hence the name.

2/Dominating the view and environment of the city's finest Grade 1 listed building and from some of the most strategic points blocking the view of the Town Hall altogether.

3/Turning a section of Arundel Gate into a shady wind tunnel for a large part of the day.

4/Is in a part of the city that has no tall buildings other than the clock tower of the Town Hall and the spire of St. Marie's church so it basically sticks out like a sore thumb and therefore like a sore thumb is painful to look at and totally inappropriate.

 

I could go on about the lack of ornamentation, decoration and craftsmanship on the building that would help beautify it and at least try to blend it in with it's surroundings but I'm not in the mood for going on a rant although I can, in the future, see me doing a 9/11 on the monstrosity.

 

It can be seen from almost all parts of the city now.

 

And you think that's a good thing?!!!!:gag:

 

The tallest buildings should be bang in the middle of a city centre, isn't that the whole point?

 

Absolutely not! Why must they be in the centre of the civic centre? The civic centre should be about creating and preserving the historical environment and supporting the establishments and events that go to make the civic centre (as opposed to a commercial centre) the place that it is. The civic centre is the place for politics, leisure, entertainment, retail and religion. NOT for banking, big business and industry/manufacturing or housing.

To me this building looks as ridiculous and out of place as if you'd picked up the Forgemasters factory and put it on the same site.

 

Where else would you expect to see tall buildings in this city, dare i ask?

 

The place for tall buildings (which are usually either offices or flats) is close to the ring road or other main arterial routes that already have the increased density that you don't find in the civic centre. Even then the height should be strictly limited.

 

Personally i wish there was more of a cluster of them. I suppose we'll have a mini-cluster once SPP3 is built, next to the nearly completed SPP2.

 

I think the credit crunch will have a lot to say on that.:P

 

It also think the tower will make for a great feature for people coming from the train station - excluding the dreadful cladding of course.

 

What a stupid, weak argument. I've heard it before. It goes something like this; 'Er......It's difficult for people who are coming to the city for the first time to find their way from the railway station up the hill into the city centre so we need a big tall building to act as a 'marker' so that people can find their way around easier.'

What a load of rhetorical tosh. Two things really.

1/ Can't people read signs? Do they speak a different language from us in the rest of the country? Or worse still these outsiders may have to ask a (shock, horror)local for directions. We can't be having that now can we after all we want to be more like London where people on the streets don't talk to strangers because it's a scaaaaarrrrreeeeey thing to do.

G*d :help: us.

2/ If, as you say, you want a cluster of tall buildings in the centre then your 'landmark' building as a marker for people to find their way around takes a complete nosedive off the 32nd floor doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think thats true. There have been several plans for towers above 50m for several years and at least three 'masterplans' endorsed by the Council include/have included such towers.

 

That's what i thought too.

 

I remember reading the quite complex reports (somewhere burried in the Skyscrapercity forums).

 

They included the heights, locations, views etc.

 

A very interesting read in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a pile of school mobiles piled on top of each other to me.

 

Cheap and tacky, it'll fit in nicely alongside No 1 St. Paul's (bland 1960s office block in the Heart of Sheffield).

 

It totally fornicates on the city's landscape. Take a butcher's from Leopold Street. Our splendid Victorian Town Hall now has this thing as its backdrop totally ruining the character of the aforementioned building.

 

At first I was quite up for a decent skyscraper in our city. But this proves to me that such buildings don't work with our (hilly) landscape. It looks precarious and simply 'wrong' from the train station. It smacks of our city trying to copy others and getting it wrong.

 

However, I must admit that I *love* the car-park next door with the metal cladding. I have a strange desire to rub my hands over the cladding.:love:

 

PS. I took a look at the skyscraper that's gone up in Le*ds some time ago whilst passing through on the train. I've noticed the skyscraper in Manchester too, again, when passing through (which in both cases is enough).

 

Both are incredibly ugly (no doubt the buzz word will be 'iconic') and look out of place and 'desperate'. They are blots on the landscape (yes, even Le*ds) and seem to say to me 'Aren't we crap at designing skyscrapers?'

 

Now the gherkin building in London, that's a case of getting it right. That looks magnificent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At first I was quite up for a decent skyscraper in our city. But this proves to me that such buildings don't work with our (hilly) landscape.

 

 

I disagree, the Arts Tower sits very well on high ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree, the Arts Tower sits very well on high ground.

 

No it doesn't. It looks awkward. It's built at an angle to the main road in the area (Winter Street) so it doesn't continue the street line in a flowing aesthetically pleasing way.

(This, BTW, was the argument given for putting the hotel in front of the Winter Gardens and building the other monotonous office blocks along Norfolk Street, because it would 'improve and recreate the street line in this area'. So, of course, when it suits the planners {developers puppets} then a certain planning principle is OK but at other times it's not.)

The building sits uncomfortably from virtually every angle you view it from. The best view is probably from Weston Park as it looks like its on the same level as the park and, from certain angles doesn't compete with or detract from other buildings around it. It's also to the north of the park so doesn't cast a shadow over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no pleasing you is there!

 

Go on then, let's hear your opinions on Velocity Tower then ...........

 

.... monstrous, funny colour, not quite perpendicular with the roundabout, ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no pleasing you is there!

 

Go on then, let's hear your opinions on Velocity Tower then ...........

 

.... monstrous, funny colour, not quite perpendicular with the roundabout, ......

 

Fits the criteria of what I've just said on my previous posts.

 

1/It's away from the civic centre.

 

2/It's close to the ring road thereby this high density building is not located down an inadequate street making it difficult to access.

 

3/It's in a mainly commercial and close to a residential area so the proposed usage of the building is appropriate for it's location.

 

4/I think that 22 storeys was about the right height, 36 would have been way too much, 30 I'm not too keen on.

 

5/It's in a relatively flat area of the city so doesn't look unbalanced like the arts tower and I haven't seen any cheap cladding (yet).

 

6/The green glass looks of good quality. We'll see if it remains so over time.

 

7/ At least part of it is curved which is, aesthetically speaking, usually preferable to a verticle rectangle.

 

So you see it's different from St Paul's tosser...er sorry tower in just about every way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WRT both St Pauls Tower and Velocity ( :gag: ) firstly, I can't imagine who in Sheffield would actually want to live at those heights! I mean, come on:- look at how many of the city's high rise have been demolished in the last 20 or so years, from the Andover Street flats to Kelvin and Hyde Park, and Norfolk Park. (as well as Herdings, Chapeltown and Jordanthorpe, as well as the plans to raze the Fosters to the ground, too, at High Green)

 

Secondly, far from being "iconic", I agree with pininsho, they are shoddy (the current window units being put into St Paul's are VILE, as well as in no way corresponding with the original design) and they are, IMO, the slums of the future.

 

(The one in l**ds that looks like a Dalek/ the cat-nun's hospital in Dr Who doesn't look too bad)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.