AndrewC

Ah! 'my alternative views are not welcome/I have a right to my opinion!' - the internet forum equivalent of taking your ball home because the other kids won't let you score. You have a right to your opinion. I have a right to call you out for basing your opinion on misconceptions and a lack of experienced information, and for being quite rude about it. You still have every right to stand by your view that you don't think architects are very good and that you think they can do better. I also have a right to put some context out there for other readers.

Haven't drawn up the plans? It's been approved, they're all there on the planning application: 23/03597/FUL | Demolition of existing premises and erection of a residential development of between 6 and 9 storeys comprising 158 apartments (use class C3) with associated landscaping and amenity space | William Rowland Ltd 9 - 13 Meadow Street Sheffield S3 7BL

This is a comment that would really annoy architects - I know a couple personally - for various reasons, and although you can be forgiven for perhaps not being aware of some aspects of the industry, I have to say parts of your comment are actually quite naïve and rude. First off - many architects working on schemes like this are not paid the vast sums of money that you imagine, far from it. Many qualified, experienced architects still aren't earning huge amounts above average salary. Secondly, there are huge numbers of external influences over what ultimately gets built and it will largely depend on cost - as Mr Johnson said above - as to how much of the original grand plans of architects get close to becoming reality. The profit margins of a basic residential scheme like this in a city like Sheffield are so low that if this gets built at all, it will only be profitably as it is, i.e. with the cheapest cladding, cheapest designs, and - as you put it - offering 'rabbit hutches' which will be what the developer is looking to do, not the architect. People don't seem to realise that what might seem like basic elements of interesting design - a bit of brick detailing there, an angled wall here, a setback or alcove etc. - all costs money. It costs in design, it costs in engineering solutions, it costs in materials. If you're in Manchester and profit margin is higher then you can afford to push the design limits (there is worth in making your building more attractive but the potential returns have to be there - they clearly aren't in Sheffield right now). And that's before we even get on to the limitations that architects face in terms of client demands, demands from stakeholders such as the local policing & fire authorities who will want them to design in crime-prevention measures, fire safety measures, etc., then environmental & council authorities who will demand aspects relating to right-to-light, noise reduction etc. and on, and on... all of which put limitations of what the architects can do with a particular scheme. I've seen some original designs for schemes and then their (d)evolution through the cost-cutting and planning processes and then what has ultimately been built being a shadow of those original architectural dreams. Cut them some slack.

I don't think figures will necessarily have been massaged but it is worth taking them with a pinch of salt. I'm all for this and I want it to succeed and I'm not saying there won't have been any positive impact even in this short a time, but is it likely just 1 month of public ownership has radically altered the trams fortunes, or done anything long lasting? Probably not - meaningful change will take much longer. Probably two types of thing are happening: 1) Quick wins and short-term, focussed action. You can walk in to an organisation and you immediately set some obvious, small things right, and also you can enact some short-term focus on certain things - that probably accounts for the fare evasion, if they've been hot on that, more etc. Downside is quick wins become harder to find and short-term actions can't always be maintained long-term. 2) Recent high profile. The tram has been in countless articles, posts, conversations etc because of the takeover, so it's had lots of free publicity which will have put it back in the minds of many potential passengers. That might account for a fair bit of the 17% increase in revenue - would be interesting to know if patronage is up. Also, if fare evasion is down then that alone might account for the 17% revenue increase! So it really needs someone with a good insight in to the system, the organisation, and what actual changes etc have been made in the last month to really understand how impactful it's been. That's not me, unfortunately! Has anyone in the media asked Oliver what changes have actually been made?

The great Sheffield Forum oxymoron; 'I never go to town anymore but it was dreadful when I popped in last week'.

It isn't in the slightest bit unusual for the admin of an X/twitter handle to not engage much - if at all - with questioning etc. That's the work of a statement from TSY, and/or articles from the local media. The tweet you quoted was there to simply inform users of the disruption. I'm not saying I disagree with your general sentiment, that having one of these buses stolen would be a major concern regarding how well they are secured at night, but you're being silly in expecting the answers and explanations to be coming from that particular source. You might as well get as upset about the infoboard screens at bus stops not giving you the full story.

I mean, that's a twitter feed for travel updates. It's literally there to inform people the service will be reduced, I'd never expect chapter and verse from it about why the bus is missing.

Yes - about a decade or so ago an idea dubbed the 'billiardrome' was put forward for I think actually the O2 Academy/Roxy Disco site. It would have been around 2-3k seats. Potentially still linked in to the Crucible either physically or in spirit, in the sense that earlier round matches could still be played in the Crucible with the bigger arena hosting other matches and the latter stages of the tournament.

In fairness to him, Barry Hearn has on more than one occasion made it clear that he's perfectly happy to keep Sheffield as the home of the championships if they make the effort to address those kinds of issues (see the old proposals for a new arena on the other side of Arundel Gate etc), but he's a pragmatic man, and if Sheffield can't keep up with what a venue elsewhere could potentially offer in terms of money, facilities, and profile, then it will move eventually. Expect another decent snooker tournament to become resident here though, potentially.

Let's assume the EVs are more environmentally friendly. That would mean it's still an improvement having 4 EVs out there 99% of the time than 4 diesels out there 99% of the time. Using 1 diesel tow-truck once, on the odd occasion the EV needs assistance doesn't offset the overall gain, does it?

Here's the problem; mentioning population increase & immigration as a factor, amongst others, and giving them their fair weighting as factors in the grand scheme of things is fine. However; persistently focussing on those issues, claiming they have more importance than they do, and overlooking & downplaying other, more influential factors is when it starts to look suspicious. Too many people on this thread can be easily accused of the latter. It needs addressing.

Well, that's certainly what left us vulnerable by half-time. It should have been done and dusted, that is indeed the fault of the players.

As a Norwich man, had I been on this forum last night I would have reassured all Wednesday fans even at 2-0 up that a dodgy, Wagner-inspired screw-up was easily possible.

I'm sure it is the last thing you would want to do - it's also the last thing I would want to do too, but this is just your opinion/experience. The majority still drive. I'm struggling to find the exact source, but these figures are from another forum I use where a similar topic has been discussed: To put into context with other airports (using 2022 figures): Gatwick 28.8M PAX 44.1% use public transport Heathrow 45.6M PAX 33.9% use public transport Luton 12M PAX 35.3% use public transport Stansted 22M PAX 45.4% use public transport Birmingham 8.3M PAX 18.0% use public transport East Midlands 3M PAX 8.8% use public transport Manchester 21.2M PAX 15.5% use public transport The London airports come close, but still under half of passengers come by public transport. It's a huge, busy airport, and it accommodates huge numbers of arrivals on public transport. That still doesn't mean more people don't arrive by car. They also built a huge brand-new dedicated junction off the M25 to serve Terminal 5, and paved over half of west London for car parks.

'No bearing'? It hasn't had 'no' bearing on it. The important bit of context here is that it has little bearing on it, compared to many other issues and policy failures. The important thing to take away from this is that focussing too strongly on that issue in isolation as so many people on this thread are, means focussing too little on the real issues at hand - failed house building policies, budget limitations of healthcare authorities dealing with addiction, cost of living crisis, etc... A good test for this would be to stop all immigration (whilst deliberately resolving none of the other issues listed above), give it 10 years and see if the homelessness situation is any better. I guarantee you that if we still haven't been building houses, still underfund drug-addiction agencies, and still have extortionately high rents & utility bills, you can expect the homelessness situation to have remained largely the same. Only, we'll have now crashed the economy because of not adding to the workforce in a decade.

Greens & Lib Dems have had plenty of success in this city at various levels over the years. Rarely based on the issue of bus gates in town, mind.

Yes, it would say, 'it wasn't as polarising as some people on a local internet forum made it out to be'.

There isn't, you're not wrong, but again, you're acting like we've reached that limit already when the reality is we haven't really, it just seems that way because the processes, policies and spending from our politicians make it seem that way. We could have an economy and land-use efficiencies that could easily house 80 million people on our islands. Funnily enough, that's roughly what the ONS predicts the population to be around 2050.

I know that's what you meant. I was using a dash of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm to point out the real issues.

Mismanagement of the economy and public services by our politicians? Not enough housebuilding?

'And suddenly, there were fewer people on the streets of Sheffield, and A&E waits dropped down to 20 minutes'

I'm not denying that 'too many people chasing not enough resources/facilities' isn't ultimately the symptom that we see around us, but the point here is that simply blaming immigration for that issue completely overlooks the real problem, which is that our Government's don't deal with population increase properly. Despite what the usual suspects enjoy believing, we still take in a relatively manageable and modest amount of immigrants - economic and asylum - compared to many of our neighbouring peer countries, and study after study shows - on average - immigration has a positive net impact on the UK economy. Switching off the tap of outsiders coming in to this country would actually be detrimental to the UK economy (we've already seen some micro-impacts thanks to the influence Brexit has had on economic migrants turning away from this country). A functioning Government making the right policy choices should be able to manage the population increase this country has seen in the last two decades, but instead we've seen them concentrate on power-grabs, syphoning of wealth upwards away from society and in to the pockets of the already rich. We've seen laughable amounts of house-building in this country and unsustainable house-price increases. Meanwhile, they use their influence in the media to paint a picture to society that it's someone who was lucky enough not to drown whilst crossing the channel in a dingy that is the real evil, the real source of the issue, and you people lap it up. Good grief.

Have they though? 'Proposed' is doing some heavy lifting here. I'm not aware of any firm planning applications for anything and even if there is eventually, my understanding of the current owner is that they're only looking to sell on any way (existing planning consent can increase a property's value). So more likely this is just the owner talking again about what it 'could' be, instead of any firm plan which they are committed to making happen. Exactly - and this is just another 'proposal' to be added to that list. Hard to see it ever becoming anything any time soon, unless the whole thing is pulled down. A blank site along with the old Lion's Lair pub site alongside it would probably be quite attractive to developers. As above, you've probably got a bit of a wait yet to see that happen.

Astonishing that so many of you run to the 'too many immigrants' line. Or is it? I suppose it's a result of being told it's their fault for the last two decades by the media. You've been brainwashed; doing exactly what the Government (who have failed us in a myriad of ways) want you to do, so that you don't blame them instead. Chronic underfunding of local authorities and healthcare organisations, a culture of limited house building which is driving up housing demand and prices/rents, and an overreliance on overseas, unsustainable energy sources driving up energy bills are probably all the primary reason for this. But, 'stop the boats!'

I haven't said I don't believe you, have I? I'm saying there is usually something the motorists aren't spotting that is putting the cyclists off using it. Feel free to offer up the location of the lane, I'd be happy to look and let you know if I'd use it (I'm personally an infrequent cyclist due to lack of safe routes). The side road point; the point here is that it's often the case that cycle lanes stop and start at each side road to make way for the traffic coming off the side road, a situation which makes use of the cycle lane much slower progress than using the road where the cyclist has right of way over turning traffic. If there are very few side roads then it's unlikely that's a huge issue, I agree.