Sheffield Forum
Your message here

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

Home > Sheffield > Sheffield News & Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
02-10-2008, 21:57   #1
Santiago
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Total Posts: 224
I was initially excited about St Paul's Tower - the thought of a gleaming glass skyscraper (a bit like the Beetham Tower in Manchester) would be a great addition to the city centre, and a great landmark.

But the other day I walked past and noticed dark brown, cheap looking cladding and windows being added.

This along with that dreadful brown carpark spells disaster for the city. I don't see the point in knocking buildings like the Egg Box and other supposedly grim 60s & 70s style buildings, and then replacing them with more dull monstrosities.

I really hope the council takes action on this - as suggested on this thread:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...78951&page=156
  Reply With Quote
02-10-2008, 23:14   #2
Captain_Scarlet
Registered User
Captain_Scarlet's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Nether Edge and its speed bumps
Total Posts: 4,175
Send a message via ICQ to Captain_Scarlet
We know... Blame the Council for authorising the build and all of us for not objecting it.
_______
Don't chip your pets, shall I chip you?
  Reply With Quote
02-10-2008, 23:31   #3
TESTPASS
Registered User
TESTPASS's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Total Posts: 1,353
as if an objection would mean diddly.
  Reply With Quote
03-10-2008, 06:19   #4
Alex C.
Registered User
Alex C.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Portsmouth
Total Posts: 2,630
If you read the posts on there, one of the members have had a reply from planning saying
Quote:
Dear Neil

The cladding currently being erected on the Heart of the City Tower has not been approved and the developer has been told to stop installation work until satisfactory design has been submitted and agreed.

Regards

Head of City Development
It looks like the developers have tried to get away with cutting costs on the most visible part of the building, and with any luck, the council may be able to stop it.

However - with City Lofts down the pan, and the two banks funding this (Lehman and Hypo) having varying levels of financial problems, where the money to fix it could come from remains to be seen...
  Reply With Quote
03-10-2008, 06:27   #5
Unisol
Registered User
Unisol's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Total Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex C. View Post
If you read the posts on there, one of the members have had a reply from planning sayingIt looks like the developers have tried to get away with cutting costs on the most visible part of the building, and with any luck, the council may be able to stop it.

However - with City Lofts down the pan, and the two banks funding this (Lehman and Hypo) having varying levels of financial problems, where the money to fix it could come from remains to be seen...
But didn't the council agree to fund it's completion in the event of these problems?

If so, the costs will be covered once they are all sold.
_______
Rent this space
  Reply With Quote
03-10-2008, 08:55   #6
theripsaw
Registered User
theripsaw's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Come hither- i'll show you..
Total Posts: 3,322
I hope the council put their foot down-

This is what was approved-

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=3175

This is what its turning out like-
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=3118
  Reply With Quote
03-10-2008, 09:17   #7
cv65user
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: sheffield
Total Posts: 906
rolflmao prob credit crunch so gone for cheapo glass
  Reply With Quote
03-10-2008, 09:32   #8
nick2
Registered User
nick2's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Heeley
Total Posts: 17,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by theripsaw View Post
How very dull.
  Reply With Quote
03-10-2008, 09:37   #9
beansforyou
Warped
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: North Sheffield
Total Posts: 5,383
It looks like Hyde Park flats on its end.
  Reply With Quote
03-10-2008, 10:20   #10
theripsaw
Registered User
theripsaw's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Come hither- i'll show you..
Total Posts: 3,322
It wasnt exactly glamorous to start with, but when all the design amounts to is a tall rectangle, what you clad it in is essentially 99% of it's appearance. Conran designed? Con design i say
  Reply With Quote
03-10-2008, 12:46   #11
scottf
Registered User
scottf's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Crookes
Total Posts: 11,908
I hope they put there foot down on this- the original design looked really good!!! that just looks crap!
_______
Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough

www.allthingsbonsai.co.uk
  Reply With Quote
03-10-2008, 18:19   #12
pininsho
Registered User
pininsho's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Wherever I am right now
Total Posts: 1,564
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.
  Reply With Quote
04-10-2008, 10:31   #13
parff
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Total Posts: 3
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!
  Reply With Quote
04-10-2008, 10:37   #14
Unisol
Registered User
Unisol's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Total Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by pininsho View Post
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.
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.
_______
Rent this space
  Reply With Quote
04-10-2008, 12:27   #15
TESTPASS
Registered User
TESTPASS's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Total Posts: 1,353
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
  Reply With Quote
04-10-2008, 13:03   #16
AndrewC
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Sheffield
Total Posts: 1,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by TESTPASS View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
04-10-2008, 13:07   #17
pininsho
Registered User
pininsho's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Wherever I am right now
Total Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unisol View Post
Why is it inappropriately located?
How many reasons do you want?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unisol View Post
It can be seen from almost all parts of the city now.
And you think that's a good thing?!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unisol View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unisol View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unisol View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unisol View Post
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 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?

Last edited by pininsho; 04-10-2008 at 13:10.
  Reply With Quote
04-10-2008, 13:09   #18
Unisol
Registered User
Unisol's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Total Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewC View Post
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.
_______
Rent this space

Last edited by Unisol; 04-10-2008 at 13:15.
  Reply With Quote
04-10-2008, 13:16   #19
Ousetunes
Eboracum Glory!
Ousetunes's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Location: Ogleforth
Total Posts: 9,673
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.

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!
_______
‘That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European super-state was ever embarked on, will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain . . . should ever have become part of it will appear a political error of the first magnitude.’ Margaret Thatcher

Last edited by Ousetunes; 04-10-2008 at 13:22. Reason: Post Script
  Reply With Quote
04-10-2008, 13:20   #20
Unisol
Registered User
Unisol's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Total Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ousetunes View Post

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.
_______
Rent this space
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2014 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2014