Jump to content

Bilge

Members
  • Content Count

    2,421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Bilge

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Makes sense. Whatever happens with it will take a while. We really need a quality landmark building on this site. There might be a case for setting it back a bit to enhance the square. But a park over the whole site would be a ludicrous waste of an opportunity. With a mix of uses there has to be money in it.
  2. Yes generally Barnardo's are pretty good actually. We've also bought a fair bit of stuff in their stores so it does get re-used/recycled.
  3. I find them a bit sniffy about stuff that you take in. It's humiliating for donors to have to go up to the desk and have the woman say no we won't accept this or that item. I've had to take items home again. No wonder people would rather drop off bin bags in the doorway when they are shut. There must be child care settings that would welcome this stuff? We are snowed under with brightly-coloured plastic and would love to pass it on to organisations that can make use of it. I've passed on a few bits via Freegle and the welcoming charity shops but we could do with a place to drop off bags of the stuff that the kids have outgown.
  4. Very sad and unnecessary. Could have kept the pub and built a few houses on the site too. The planning system continues to fail to protect our heritage nationwide.
  5. A park would be a waste of space. There's already a shabby bit of green space on Barker's Pool that few people use (because it's horrible).
  6. What are Corker Bottoms allotments like these days?
  7. 1873-1937 the site was the Albert Hall: https://www.sheffieldhistory.co.uk/forums/topic/679-the-albert-hall/ Burnt down in 1937, then presumably an empty space until Cole's/JL arrived in 1962.
  8. It only looks like a reasonable building on the front facing the City Hall. The other 3 sides don't offer anything. Overall I think we need to get rid and build something exciting for the city which complements the surrounding streets. Personally JL was mostly a waste of space for me. It was no use at all to anyone at night when it was shut, and now it's permanently shut. Many years after the 7-Stone weakling nonsense and all that embarrassing kowtowing to John Lewis, we now find ourselves in a great position to provide something fabulous on a big key site in the city. A big indoor event space complemented by smaller units offering art/heritage/culture/retail/food etc. I'd personally love to see it also capable of hosting standing-only concerts that are bigger than the Leadmill capacity but smaller than the City Hall (say 1500+). We can take inspiration from other places such as Norwich: https://theforumnorwich.co.uk/about-us But it could also be a taller building that offers much more than that and helps pay for the community stuff.
  9. Demolish and build something for a variety of uses like the example in Norwich maybe: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/heart-of-the-city-ii-proposed-phases.2134370/page-49
  10. It's a fairly solid block of a building that would be better upgraded and re-purposed rather than demolished. The hideous red frame thing next door is getting remodelled rather than knocked down. That's the way to go I would think. It's a period building that we ought to keep anyway. The 1960s wasn't a great period for architecture in Sheff but this was OK. Unless there is some grand plan for the plot which is far better than anything that could be done with the old building I'd retain it.
  11. How about Chapeltown (and Ecclesfield)? Short train journey to Barnsley and Sheff (and beyond of course). A small town with a train station, suprermarkets, pubs, other shops and amenities and cheap housing.
  12. Well that was all a waste of money, time and effort. This is just the latest example of the Tories 'levelling up' that the gullible voted for. You lot in Sheff and elsewhere can make do and mend.
  13. Some people say they live in Sheffield even if they live across the border in one of the neighbouring local authorities. For them 'Sheffield' means the general area, or travel-to-work area, or the area they mainly identify with. It's the same elsewhere. 'Manchester' is a far bigger place than the authority which carries that historic name. Defining 'Nottingham' is even more complex with all those little boroughs clustered around which are basically part of the city but in local authority terms are not. When people talk about 'London' they usually mean the huge 10million plus population conurbation (however you want to draw the boundary lines). They don't mean the 'City of London' or its neighbour the 'City of Westminster'. So London isn't a city at all if you insist it has to be treated the same as the councils of Sheffield, Manchester, Bristol etc. I could go on. Using local authority boundaries as the sole definition of cities is problematic. There are often other things to consider.
×
×
  • 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.