Existing and under construction buildings in Leeds City Centre, (10 floors and above)

No. of...... Name and
storeys.....purpose

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/p1-300x900jpg.jpg?t=1181853672
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/p2-300x900jpg.jpg?t=1181858177
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/p3-300x900jpg.jpg?t=1182017286
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/p4-300x900jpg.jpg?t=1182070812
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/p5-300x900jpg.jpg?t=1182075344
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/p6-300x900jpg.jpg?t=1182080986
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/p7-300x900jpg.jpg?t=1182084701
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/p8-300x900jpg.jpg?t=1182087126

Major proposals in the city centre include :-


http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/proposed1-300x900jpg.jpg?t=1182547804
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/proposed2-300x1000jpg.jpg?t=1184966363

To Be updated ... work in progress

TOTAL

40+ storey = 0 complete + 0 under construction, 3 planned so far.
30-39 storey = 1 complete + 1 under construction, 4 more planned so far.
20-29 storey = 7 complete + 2 under construction, 6 more planned so far.
15-19 storey = 8 complete + 2 under construction, 2 more planned so far.
12-14 storey = 27 complete + 5 under construction, 5 more planned so far.
10-11 storey = 18 complete + 0 under construction, 2 more planned so far.

council residential tower blocks, with limited future (12 floors and above)

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa115/welcome-rob/p1-localauthority-300x900jpg.jpg?t=1182089471

I cant believe that there is so much going on in Leeds.
My favourate project has got to be Clarence House. Even though its not as tall as developments such as Criterion Place, it looks so quality. And the location is just fab.

I am a little confused over the official height of BWP - it has been mentioned here:

http://contractdataservices.co.uk/construction_news.html

and perhaps more tellingly here

http://www.aedas.com/news/pdfs/bridgewater.pdf

(from the architects themselves!)

that the scheme is in fact 32 storeys, which also looks about right if you count the stories from the pop-up picture on the official site:

http://www.bridgewaterplaceleeds.com

The "side" part half-let to Eversheds is 10 stories, so using the very scientific method of finger counting it looks like it might be 32!

If it is, I rather hope they put a restaurant at the top - have a meal and see for miles!

It's hard to tell, there are a lot saying 32 storeys (which would be excellant) including AEDAS themselves, but I seem to remember they only got full planning for 30.

Perhaps they are including the basement car park and a service hut on top, which are both kind of cheating. Floors are only counted from the adjacent ground level up, and must be 'habitable'.

perhaps and intrepid member or viewer of this forum has a contact at Aedas and can clarify?

whatever - but we definitely need some public access at the top of these tall towers going up. why should the fantastic view be reserved for the very rich? a decent restaurant and bar is what we want!

i remember having a beer on the 108th floor of the WTC and thinking 'kinell, it's high! but what a view!

Good summary of high rises in Leeds, this could be stickified as a project round up.
The diagram is brilliant, leeds skyline is going to be huge if everything goes ahead I wouldn't mind seeing some of the renders of these buildings as well.

great stuff rob.
we also need threads on every leeds development as and when it starts. its only when you get these up and running the post count will start to soar.
leeds does have a shit skyline right now, but looking at things im realising it wont do in a few years time. its definitely a happening place.

It's hard to tell, there are a lot saying 32 storeys (which would be excellant) including AEDAS themselves, but I seem to remember they only got full planning for 30.

Perhaps they are including the basement car park and a service hut on top, which are both kind of cheating. Floors are only counted from the adjacent ground level up, and must be 'habitable'.

I don't think it matters how high it is, as long as its high enough. 30/32 isnt that much difference. As long as its nice and tall, and with Criterion Place, Globe Road and the other towers proposed, the skyline will complement BWP greatly.

btw, haven't heard much about Criterion Place.Will Criterion Place 1 be the tallest tower in the north when its built, instead of BWP? Is approved a more advanced stage than proposed?

Bridgewater Place wont ever be the tallest tower in the North because Beetham in Manchester is rising ahead of BWP. Wether Criterion Place will be the tallest is an interesting point but remember that Liverpool have a 48-storey tower and a 50-storey tower planned. Then of course theres Greengate...

criterion place wont be either if youre including manchester and liverpool as the north.

Rob, when is City 1 due to start? That is a fantastic looking development and I cant wait to see it rise.

I'm not sure, but it was in the 'Consruction News' a couple of weeks ago under the 'early planning' section, for £154 million.

Great summary rob, thanks!!

Can we get this stickyfied? Anyone know how?

If it's stickified, I can work on it, adding pictures and heights etc to the list, and keeping it up to date.

Yep... I like this idea too...stick this at the top and add a map then it'll be really helpful.

Yep... I like this idea too...stick this at the top and add a map then it'll be really helpful.



And if you don't mind me suggesting it.. you should close this after starting another new thread called " Official Leeds Building List " which should be stuck

And re-post your information in 5 posts to make it easier to see the catagories and split split the list into shorter clumps...so...

1... Existing major commercial buildings in the City Centre, (8 floors and above).
(Excluding all council residential blocks: intention to remove in due course)


2...Major city centre schemes under construction:-


3...Major proposals in the city centre include :-

4....TOTAL

5... City map


... and then go back and add links to the relevant threads on this forum to make this like an index....that's if other folk agree.

Molly, you might wanna delete the link to aztec city from your sig. Its not running anymore.

Molly, you might wanna delete the link to aztec city from your sig. Its not running anymore.
I know... but I can't cos now we can only have a short sig so I can't change it.

I've updated the under construction bit with Wellington Plaza, we are now on 14 cranes up in the city.

When Gothic tells me he will stickify it, I will copy this lot into a new 'official buildings, construction and proposals' thread. I will keep adding new thumbnail pictures too, they are only 4kB each, so there shouldn't be any problem for people with slower internet connections viewing this.

This render (4) is for one of the smaller office blocks between ha goyh (3) and the river, not bridge house;

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid135/pe560ded561f54be2d2e2c5263cfee46b/f762458c.jpg

What I had done is put in two pics for no.3, but I've now also added an image for Bridge House at no.4

Rob

Kudos! Excellent thread and consolidated collection of the onwards and upwards direction Leeds is taking. What's your e mail address as I have the image of Criterion Place at night from City Square and don't seem to be able to post images myself. I've sent it to Gothic, but he hasn't used it yet. It looks great and would be a fantastic addition. Don't judge me on this, but instead of Superman I'd say that the development looks more like Mr Freeze's lair in Batman and Robin.

Disclaimer - I freely admit this is one of the most atrocious sequels to a decent comic book franchise. I think Batman Beyond with Christian Bale should make some amends.

WOW! You must have been really bored rob lol. Great thread, I also didnt knw threre was so much going on in Leeds, and I travel into the city center quite often. I love number 27 in the already completed, Ive never seen it b4 though. Man I hope CP gets built. Along with all the others but hat one is the key for more. So is BWP.

You are doing very well with that building list Rob. I was just wondering if it would be at all possible to put a link to larger Images. I have tried it below

Queens Hotel (http:////img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/davidlufc/leedsqueenshotel.jpg) : by W.Curtis Green and W.H.Hamlyn, 1937. Grade II

I've just been adding the photos a few at a time, with a few more to add yet, and any changes as they come along. (It has been a little tedious, but I thought once it's done, it's there to stay, just needs updating from time to time)

I thought it would make a good general reference, especially to newcomers to Leeds.

Amazing!! Leeds is kicking the collective arses of Manc, Brum and Scouse!

I'm surprised. They have to build Criterion Building like that. It'll put Leeds on the world map.

You are doing very well with that building list Rob. I was just wondering if it would be at all possible to put a link to larger Images. I have tried it below

Queens Hotel (http:////img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/davidlufc/leedsqueenshotel.jpg) : by W.Curtis Green and W.H.Hamlyn, 1937. Grade II
Yes links to larger pics and to the relevant threads would be a good idea... :) ...and maps! I asked for maps! ...and there are still no maps! ..well I don't know... you just can't get the staff these days. :ohno:

Went to have a close up look at Aspect 14 last weekend, for the first time. Quite a smart building, and I discovered it is 14 storeys, just as the brochures said, so I've updated the list, also added the new 'Triangle' as under construction. Also added a few more pics.

Ive been wondering about this for a while. Is New York House the Plaza? They look so similar, in what seems a similar location. So if Im wrong where in that area exactly is New York House?

Ive been wondering about this for a while. Is New York House the Plaza? They look so similar, in what seems a similar location. So if Im wrong where in that area exactly is New York House?

Nope, they are miles from each other. New York house is (will be) on the site of the old ABC/MGM cinema at the top of Vicar Lane overlooking the ring road. The Plaza is part of the Venture building/Hepworth House at the top of Claypit Lane where that car full of booze and drugged up Giptonites vaulted the barriers and landed upside down on the Ring Road.

there are plenty of renderings scattered about the Leeds thread which show the difference. the designs are both Carey Jones, but the Plaza is 26 storeys and New York house is about 14.

Ive been wondering about this for a while. Is New York House the Plaza? They look so similar, in what seems a similar location. So if Im wrong where in that area exactly is New York House?

Isn't the Plaza like twice as tall as New York House?

Isn't the Plaza like twice as tall as New York House?

Yup, pretty much. They really are quite different. However neither yet u/c which is frankly rather disappointing.

Oh OK- btw I was hoping I was wrong coz then Id be disapointed that there was 1 less development....

Ive been wondering about this for a while. Is New York House the Plaza? They look so similar, in what seems a similar location. So if Im wrong where in that area exactly is New York House?

If you check the list at the beginning of this thread, 'The Plaza' is no. 5 and 'New York House' is no. 12 on the proposed list.

yeah I know but I thought they looked a bit similiar and in a similar location- I just wanted to see if they were 2 different renders done at different stages of progress and people thought they were different....

correct me if im wrong but can franklin house be put u/c

also Blue?

And Gothic, can it be stickified please??!!

It should be stickified, and it will be kept up to date.

Franklin House has now been moved to under construction, also added a pic of the neet little 10 storey Minerva House on King Street. Aparantley, although it looks new, I found out recently that it is an early re-clad of an old concrete 60s block, one of the earliest re-clads, and one of the better quality ones.

Updated it with the new tower cranes at Franklin House and Bridgewater Place. Current total is 15 cranes. :)

Where and what exactly is City Island phase 2? Is it just the other building (coz as you know there are 2 main buildings making up City Island)
Where and what is it? It looks so different to the City Island at the mo. and I can't find it on the City Island city, or anywhere as a matter of fact.

New tower cranes were being put up today, BWP and what looked like Cavendish House.

That brings the current total to 17. I think that is a record, certainly more than I've ever known since living in Leeds, and I doubt if there have ever been more up before, so I think it is an all time city record.

Thought we had got to nearer 20 last year, but may be mistaken. Anyway, there should be another 4 or 5 on the horizon in the next few months.

Leeds keeps reaching for the skies!!

What about the tower crane at Jimmy's!

There's a good tread developing outside the Leeds forum names " Best UK skyline" which is showing off some great city skylines including Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool.

Now I know a number of posters have taken great pictures of the Leeds skyline and think we should be showing off our great city.

If any one can post some Leeds pictures, I think it would be good for this thread, otherwise I will have to buy a digical camera and have ago myself!!

I think other than from the A61 Harrogate approach, nearly everywhere a picture with a good skyline on has a bad foreground, e.g from the M621 you can get a great skyline but theres all those industrial warehouses and wasteland in the foreground. Hopefully this will change.

Just updated this with the new Woodhouse Lane apartments proposal.

Just updated this with the new Woodhouse Lane apartments proposal.

Am I being a donut....... do we have a bigger rendering of that Woodhouse Lane student apartment or is it just the thumbnail thing? From what I can see it doesn't look too special, but then again it is a tad small.

damn, that are pretty impressive lists!

where does the "kremlin" stand in the list of leeds buildings cause it's a huge one (tho might not be tall enough to make the list)

I think its 10 or 11 storeys. I like that building, its a good focal point for Quarry Hill and The Headrow/Eastgate

Just looking back through the first page it makes me realise how much is going on. If you add in the rumoured Beetham and International Pool site then its even more impressive.

Actually, count the potential buildings over 20 storeys....... I make it at least 10+. Next time I'm back I'll try and get out for a few hours with the camera and get some shots of the current buildings that are missing images.

Did we have any renders of Wellington Place phase 2, New York Street or City Square House? Actually, here's one of them:

City Square House (http://www.awg.com/developments/main.php?contentid=108&sectionid=89&parentid=88)

This one too.
http://www.dla-architecture.co.uk/projects_corpo_citysqaure.htm

This is a render of the urban edge flats on New York St.

http://www.estatesreview.com/images/junjul04/3-9.jpg

And some more of City Square House.

http://www.leeds-cityscape.co.uk/City_Square_House.html

I quite like both of these developments based on the renders.

[QUOTE=daveylad2]This is a render of the urban edge flats on New York St.

http://www.estatesreview.com/images/junjul04/3-9.jpg[QUOTE]

http://img54.exs.cx/img54/6700/NewYorkStreet.jpg

Hmmm, it appears that the New York Street rendering is of the derelict site opposite the site currently under construction. I wonder perhaps if theya re sort of mirror images of each other and will be the same design. Might look a bit strange if so.

found a link to Wellington Place phase 2, currently under construction next to the multi storey car park just round the corner from the YEP.

Wellington Place and Whitehall Road (http://www.idenby.co.uk/photo2.htm)

If anyone can capture it and post it on here, its another for Rob's list of u/c, approved or proposed.

I was in that website the other week but I didn't know what this render was for.

http://www.idenby.co.uk/images/photo-2.jpg

Edit: Does anyone know what photo six is for on the idenby website??

That is what they are building now at Wellington Place. I recognise the curved shape in front of the M.S. car park.

It's not big enough for my list though, not 8 floors or over.

There is an image of the Student Village at the old BBC site on the Civic Trust Website.

www.leedscivictrust.org.uk

Look in planning issues, then current applications section.

Just added the Leeds Met University proposal to the list, there are now 17 buildings of 20 storeys or more in the city centre (complete, under construction and serious propositions), including five at 30 storeys or more.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=158622 Rob?

already asked rob, but i guess he isnt interested. oh well.

already asked rob, but i guess he isnt interested. oh well.
...be patient. I think he is interested.

oooh good then :)

Young Rob has his finger on the pulse. Not wanting to nominate here, but I think you've found your man Goth.

yes, hes agreed to do it which is great :)
hopefully we should have the uk pretty much sown up soon enough. some cities like manchester and birmingham are almost complete already. yay

Passed through Leeds the other day on the train. Very unimpressed with some of the apartments going up.

Why is there so many cheap looking apartments going up with that horrible grey and orange/red type cladding?

Some nice projects judging by this thread, but far too many cheapy apartment blocks and David McClean style pap

which buldings in particular offended you i was recently in leeds and i agree that some buildings are of a tacky nature, but the vast majority of the new flats in leeds are high quality. much nicer than your beetham tower in liverpool. :bash:

Not sure on names, but noticed a few grey/red cladded ones whilst leaving the station (South/West bound).

Have to admit, I'm not a fan of Beetham tower. If viewed from anywhere other than across the river, or during the day, its pretty unimpressive. Beetham 2 should be a bigger and better tower however.

Any chance this looks familiar steve? I like the gull-wing roofs the fully glazed penthouse but agree with you on the terracotta cladding

Whitehall Quays - could do better hey
http://www.corusconstruction.com/newuploads/whitehallfront.jpg

http://rcjackson.co.uk/sp/CIMG1100.JPG

The circular building next to the Uni seems to be finally taking shape with cladding now visible. Anyone got any pictures of how this is going to look? Also any pictures of the buidling at the top of Albion street?

The building on the end of Quebec street is now starting to come down.

The circular building next to the Uni seems to be finally taking shape with cladding now visible.

Had high hopes for this one, thought the curved shape was exciting and expected to see and innovative high quality design.

Went past today - bit disappointing to see more terracotta tiles!

Are the two boarded up houses at the front going to be demolished?


:poke:

heavymetalmayhem, they look like the ones. Suppose the good thing with cladding is that it can be changed fairly easily, but can't believe developers are using the terracotta colour cladding from the start! Wonder if it was on special offer somewhere if developers bought shed loads of it!?

Makes a nice building look cheap and hugely unoriginal.

I don't think Whitehall's that bad, and the tiles at Clarence Dock are very stylish.

http://www.leeds-cityscape.co.uk/photos/20-12-2004/Waterfront%20Leeds.jpg

http://www.leeds-cityscape.co.uk/photos/20-12-2004/West%20Point.jpg

There even using red brick again at West Point

There even using red brick again at West Point


The red brick is not a problem I really quite like it used below:

http://www.zeetec.net/xhost/u/mpeacock//CIMG0968.JPG

http://www.zeetec.net/xhost/u/mpeacock//CIMG0963.JPG

The tiles when over used look a bit cheap (I think they're ok on The Light maybe cos they were combined with stone cladding)

http://www.zeetec.net/xhost/u/mpeacock//CIMG0993.JPG

I dont think they're that bad- I think enough has been put in now, and to stop the city becoming too red we should change- I think a bit of bright colours like on the Ibis hotel could be used. I think alot of lighting is needed as well to improve the skyline- blue, red...etc.
I saw in planning applications in December, The Light was to have some big screen put up on the outside- anone know anything?
I think some Glass is needed around- but that will definetley come. Leeds should get a bit of sandstone colour maybe. Its traditional colour is red though- Briggate, Victoria Quarter...etc is all red- isn't it made from the local clay or something so maybe architects want to keep that aspect, in the same way Criterion wants to create a glass arcade effect instead of a static plaza.

Defiantly agree with you on the need to improve lighting, you can make almost any building look great at night with the correct lighting (even the yep) and lets face it we ave a lot of night in this country!

Yes Leeds Victorian era was red but we know all to well what happens when we try to replicate that too much. The use of red brick is appropriate in some developments to reflect the history and character of the area and thats all well and good but the tiles some of us don't like are not brick! I prefer the original stone to the red and think that cladding like Bewley's reflects this nicely. Glass of course is great and works everywhere.

I dont think too much glass should be used because of Criterions possible future arrival, but a bit of glass could be used. Definetley nightlighting- in Harrogate at Night along the Strayfront some buildings have coloured lights projected up the side of them with the colourled lights on the trees to finish it off. Light projection on buildings is relitavely cheap and easy and should be done in the appropriate places.

Did I actually write 'there' as opposed to 'they're'?
Back to primary school, I think.

http://www.*******************/steel_glass_and_shopping_0803/image/img_2372.jpg

I'm still not sure about the tiled section of K2.
I saw a haughty female student smirking at the facade once, and that destroyed its credibility forever.

The tiles are a little over used, but do create some element of consistency. It may well be that they are cheap and that is why they are so frequently used. The majority of proposed developments appear to be steering clear of this type of cladding so it will be diluted somewhat.

Latest list of skyscrapers being built or proposed:

Criterion Place 1 47 storeys
Venture Tower 40 storeys
City One ( Sweet St.) 40 storeys
Monkbridge Forge 38 storeys
Globe Road 31 storeys
Bridgewater Place 30 storeys
Whitehall Tower 30 storeys
Criterion Place 2 29 storeys
Mayfair 28 storeys
The Plaza 26 storeys
Clarence House 25 storeys
Little Londoner Tower 23 storeys


Who would have thought a year ago that Leeds would have so many skyscrapers under construction or proposed. It seems that new towers are being announced almost monthly- just brilliant news for a city which is destined to be one of the highrise hotspots in years to come.

I'll continue to have doubts about the quality of these schemes until I see more renderings.

I'll continue to have doubts about the quality of these schemes until I see more renderings.


Forget the doubts, and understand what this site is all about, a passion by all us posters for our cities to build "skyscrapers"

Quality and imagination in design will happen, but the most important change which has taken place in Leeds in the past 2 years is the desire to embrace a new vision to reach for the skies.

Some early developments may not be the most striking designs. Often there has to be a balance between the cost for highly imaginative designs and the reality of budgets, but look at any city which has began a vision to build skyscrapers, and you will see this is true, in time new developments becoming more imaginative.

Leeds deserves commending for its vision to embrace these fantastic new buildings.

I'll continue to have doubts about the quality of these schemes until I see more renderings.

I don't want to be critical, but I find all this negativity about the quality of finishes rather picky.

The better finishes usually involving glass are more expensive and more limited budgets will dictate whether this can or cannot be produced. At the end of the day, whether we like the finishes or not is quite subjective and down to individual taste. Overall form, shape and height are far more important than what the shade of tiles or the form of balconies is like, because whatever is produced will look neat and clean staying reasonably nice long term.

If that was in anyway directed at me I’m sorry- it wasn’t intended to sound like I was putting Leeds down. All these new developments are exciting and eagerly anticipated. They all contribute to the success of the city making it feel a modern and positive place to be.

Any comments I made were just on how things could be better still. To this forum height and form is all important but I hope everybody still cares about quality. The way I see it is that we have to live with these buildings for a very long time what’s wrong with discussing the materials used- nobody complains when the comments are all positive. Yes what was said about the terracotta tiles was just opinion but I thought that’s what a discussion was all about.

Anyway great stuff in the pipeline- role on Leeds!

Well. At least nothing in Leeds is as bad as Greengate.

Well. At least nothing in Leeds is as bad as Greengate.

You never relent. Greengate is redesigned. The 14 storey terracotta/blue facade apartments on Kirkstall Road are much worse, I think you'll find.

What is your problem Leeds No1? I know we've got our fair share of tits, but you do nothing but whinge about Manc, even when nobody brings anything up. What's wrong with you man?

hes a bell.

nice buildings list - impressive.

Overall form, shape and height are far more important than what the shade of tiles or the form of balconies is like


Better quality cladding and balconies- is this not what transformed K2??

YEP has interesting form and shape but most people don't like it cos its concrete.

Anybody know the name of the new building on left side of Burley Street (end of Burley Road) as you approach Westgate roundabout? Anyway that building is a very basic rectangle box shape but the quality cladding makes it special.

You mean the extension to the college? Personally I don't like it, the wooden panels are very dated looking. The strange black wall is nice, but wouldn't it have been so much nicer with some coloured lighting or such?

Anybody know the name of the new building on left side of Burley Street (end of Burley Road) as you approach Westgate roundabout? Anyway that building is a very basic rectangle box shape but the quality cladding makes it special.


Think this might be the recently completed block for Park Lane College. There's an image of it somewhere on here but you can read more about it on the architects' website; just do a search for Brewster Bye. Agree with you by the way about the quality of the building.

Well. At least nothing in Leeds is as bad as Greengate.

Don't know anything about Greengate but I assume from the pissed off replies from Manchester forumers that it's a Manc development. Based on the principle that what goes around comes around, I'm expecting a mega-awful proposal to hit the pages of the Evening Post any day now as a result of that snide comment.

Oh my god this has got to be the most comprehensive built/construction thread on SCC other than some idioticly sized but not as well put together Dubai tower thread. Its given me great impetus to create a Portsmouth version - there are only around 20 12+ storey buildings in Portsmouth so it won't be too hard :)

The better finishes usually involving glass are more expensive and more limited budgets will dictate whether this can or cannot be produced. At the end of the day, whether we like the finishes or not is quite subjective and down to individual taste. Overall form, shape and height are far more important

Skyscrapers demand the highest quality, they'll be visible for miles. They are expensive to build anyway so the budget ought be there. You shouldn't be afraid to turn down poor quality schemes, it'll only encourage other's to lower their game and soak up demand for better schemes.

If the public's hostility to all things high rise can be turned around by a Criterion Place it can be as quickly undone.

Remember once built these things will be around for evermore.

I don't think the terracota cladding is that bad. It's a bit boring and common recently but it's not offensive to look at, and blends in nicely. It would be better if they experiemnted a bit more, or used higher quality clad, but the terracota buildings aren't as tragic as some people suggest.

I don't think the terracota cladding is that bad. It's a bit boring and common recently but it's not offensive to look at, and blends in nicely. It would be better if they experiemnted a bit more, or used higher quality clad, but the terracota buildings aren't as tragic as some people suggest.


Let me be clear on this I don’t think the cladding is tragic- thats going too far

Just like u said- it could be better

It has worked better in some places than others- like I said before looks ok on K2, The light and also not bad on The Tannery.

Noticed today the brickwork around the base of City Central, the curving in and out looks good- smooth!

Would have liked to take some photos but it would seem I've lost/had stolen my second digital camera since November – sickening :cry:

Noticed today the brickwork around the base of City Central – the curving in and out looks good- smooth!

Would have liked to take some photos but It would seem I've lost/had stolen my second digital camera since November – sickening :cry:

What do you mean by 'City Central'?

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid135/p8f11f57a3313cc0931323a51e8e39142/f7624b2e.jpg

Centre West/City Central, Wellington St?

Is that not what its called- I dunno?

Better quality cladding and balconies- is this not what transformed K2??

YEP has interesting form and shape but most people don't like it cos its concrete.

Anybody know the name of the new building on left side of Burley Street (end of Burley Road) as you approach Westgate roundabout? Anyway that building is a very basic rectangle box shape but the quality cladding makes it special.

Well, yes, cladding does have to be better than dirty concrete, I was originally saying that as long as it is reasonably smart and will stay clean for some years, then I'm not so bothered if its metal panels on high-rises, and some terracotta, brick or coloured render on mid-rises, a variety is good. Also, balconies look good, but no balconies is acceptable in some cheaper residentials.

City Central is the old Wellesley Hotel which has the Nisa Metro and curry house on the ground floor;

City One is the Jan Fletcher proposal for Sweet Street out beyond Velocity and the new Bewley's Hotel; and

City Island is the curved one on Gotts Road with the stepped look.

It all a little confusing - looks like half these companies don't really have much of a scooby when it comes to naming things. Marvellous

There's also a West Central, Centre West, West One . . . who gets paid to think up these names.

Sorry- was confused by this:




Major city centre schemes under construction:-

[SIZE=1]1 http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid135/pb09ab0581e993c4587022037c8de5742/f762c4de.jpg 2 http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid135/p8f11f57a3313cc0931323a51e8e39142/f7624b2e.jpg 3 http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid135/pb34b06fda79c3fb3f042104b54a227bb/f762c4d9.jpg 4 http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid136/pf7b34508269582bdf4f947b761d2354d/f75b66d4.jpg

1 31 Bridgewater Place on Victoria Road apartments, offices 3
2 17 (12, 10 to follow) Centre West/City Central, Wellington St, apartments, office & hotel 2
3 16 Blue, Little Neville Street, apartments
4 14 Trinity 1, Neptune Street, apartments 1

[/IMG]

So is it Centre West?

Anyway nice curves!

Rob

I suppose the old Royal Mail site should be named West Central (the bit currently under construction) and the Venture Tower (although its not been officially announced, only mentioned on a few press releases).

I remember Carey Jones promising to clad the tower of West central in stone. Hmm, cut-backs i guess.

Rob - bit of a cheeky request but wonder if you could post Mike68s city image from the Monksbridge Forge thread on the 1st page of the building list as it gives a great impression of how everything will fit.

Update on West Central:

http://www.zeetec.net/xhost/u/mpeacock/whitehall/CIMG0292.JPG

http://www.zeetec.net/xhost/u/mpeacock/whitehall/CIMG0291.JPG

Skyscrapers demand the highest quality, they'll be visible for miles. They are expensive to build anyway so the budget ought be there. You shouldn't be afraid to turn down poor quality schemes, it'll only encourage other's to lower their game and soak up demand for better schemes.

If the public's hostility to all things high rise can be turned around by a Criterion Place it can be as quickly undone.

Remember once built these things will be around for evermore.
gleegieboy: having enjoyed your - many - contributions on the glasGOw forum, I have to say you are absolutely right here. The built environment tends to stick around for a very long time, and while economic pressures can dictate the quality of finishes on buildings, once we are talking about skyscrapers of 30+ floors, then their impact is much greater.

It's all very well getting excited about yet another 30+ proposal, but unless they can be demonstrated to be contributing something worthwhile to the building landscape then the planners ought not to be afraid to take a pause.

An argument can be put forward that simply states ANY replacement for the current Monksbridge Forge site will be an improvement, and it would be tempting for planners to see ANY economic investment as a good thing - yes and no I guess.

Or perhaps Leeds is not sufficiently confident in itself to insist proposals are of a very high quality?

Interestingly, the proposal for Warehouse Hill (see here for the Civic Trust's view http://www.leedscivictrust.org.uk/news0404WarehouseHillsp.htm ) has been rejected a number of times due to planners being unhappy with the design and particularly it's height and density. But as mentioned in the article, if the council sold the land to developers with known building parameters and yet did not make clear what the parameters were before the developers purchased the land, then it's no wonder the final scheme is at odds with it's surroundings - the developers are ALWAYS in the business of making a return on their investment (see Freedom Tower, NYC debate as the largest and most public example of money vs emotion).

The question is: how do we as a city ensure that the economic drivers and emotional aesthetics come together for an outcome that satifies both?

Noticed today the brickwork around the base of West Central, the curving in and out looks good- smooth!


Having now seen this in daylight it does create rather an inactive frontage and may be a bit bleak once scaffolding and hoardings are removed have to wait and see

Accross the road, yet another crane on its way!

http://www.zeetec.net/xhost/u/mpeacock/whitehall/CIMG0293.JPG

Or perhaps Leeds is not sufficiently confident in itself to insist proposals are of a very high quality?..............The question is: how do we as a city ensure that the economic drivers and emotional aesthetics come together for an outcome that satifies both?

That's a good question but I think there's an assumption we make that good quality design equals expensive build, and that assumption needs to be challenged. People often comment on here on the perceived ubiquity of terracotta, for example. The real issue, however, is the design behind the terracotta. Look at the Metropole Hotel or Quebec's Hotel to see what you can do when you use that material imaginatively. Then look at the old GRE building that stood near the station (it's now demolished, thank God). That was expensively clad in stone and it still looked bloody awful. Why? Because it was a crap design!

Nor are we necessarily talking about using the handful of nationally-known big name architects. There are plenty of practices out there which can produce interesting, original designs if they only get the chance. Cuthbert Brodrick was completely unknown when he designed the Town Hall, and look what a showstopper that building is. I think the real issue is the one you highlight, that the city planners need the confidence to insist on a high quality of design, and be prepared to hold out for what the city needs. If some development proposals go belly up, so what? Someone else will come along with another set of plans.

I remember the Norman Foster plans for the site off Sovereign Street. They were OK, I suppose, but nothing special and the plans fell through. What do we have for the same site now? Criterion Place! Enough said.

Rob - bit of a cheeky request but wonder if you could post Mike68s city image from the Monksbridge Forge thread on the 1st page of the building list as it gives a great impression of how everything will fit.

Done. ( assuming Mike68 doesn't mind :colgate: )

Accross the road, yet another crane on its way!

http://www.zeetec.net/xhost/u/mpeacock/whitehall/CIMG0293.JPG

Had a look at this site this morning, and the steel beams are visible, with more steel columns being installed. With it being at such an advanced stage now, I assume the crane will go up this weekend (weather permitting).

Whats this crane for?

For this - http://www.idenby.co.uk/images/photo-5.jpg

(Found a bigger picture)

The start of which is visible growing out the hole in the photo.

It's a nice building that, I wasn't sure what development that was either, so cheers.

I like to keep up to date with all the UK cities, just rarely post.

Re: the quality issue. It's a tough call, there's always going to be that temptation for developers to maximise profit but, equally, call their bluff and you could be left with wasteground.

I know its difficult to quantify "good architecture" and that the best architecture tends to split opinion but quality materials and finish are more likely found dressing good architecture

I think the key is consistency, if developments making use of stone and glass, developments which were defiantly "modern", "contemporary" NOT pastiche, could be "fast tracked" or even just looked at in a more favourable light, the incentive would be there to raise standards. I know it sounds absurd but at present planning applications seem determined primarily by height and/or the level of nimbyism. How many top class schemes have you seen cancelled because they're "too tall" or toned down because they "don't fit in"? How many banal schemes have slipped through the net because they were so dull noone could be bothered to complain?

I know that's what happens in Glasgow. Elphinstone Place despite being an irrefutably quality building was subjected to years of in depth criticism and delay and in principle that might even be fine, until you see dross like "Mizu" (which I'm too embarassed to even show you) creeping through the back door. Equally the RFACFS (our local heritage body), seem to draw great delight savaging everything and anything by gm+ad (our foremost architectural practice). The Sentinel office block at 10 floors was deemed too tall for Glasgow's CBD. It was recommended for refusal despite utilising the latest LED technology to allow it to "glow" and alter colour chameleon like AND it was built using the finest quality glass and stone! Then on the other side of the coin we have disasters like Jury's Inn, which I understand is as bad as your own, squatting like some terracotta turd on the Clyde waterfront, nobody seemed capable of stopping it.

It would be nice to see Carey Jones or some other local practice on here though, for most practices I'm guessing their sole experience of the public is restricted to obstinate, intransigent old fools. Though from personal experience I note most architects don't take too kindly to criticism! I know none of us are architecturally qualified but I'd like to think we don't need seven years study to recognise a stinker!

I completely echo you concerns gleegie, and the problem is overly apparent in newcastle (I have sent letters raising the issue with local planers and councillors). Buildings must be considered on their individual merit, not on arbitrary rules governing height. Thank god that philosophy hasn't been applied in the past, lest we wouldn't have st.pauls, the eifil tower, or even the tyne bridge,

Leeds is enjoying the benefits of not having a beautiful natural setting and having plenty of areas ripe for development that aren't close to historic old buildings. The NIMBYs just don't get a look-in in leeds and the city is booming as a result.

...Then on the other side of the coin we have disasters like Jury's Inn, which I understand is as bad as your own, squatting like some terracotta turd on the Clyde waterfront, nobody seemed capable of stopping it.
Class gleegie man, class.

Unfortunately, this is what it looks like:

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid101/pad69c2bac189557d72d3ed2d2e11992d/f9d1ae2e.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid101/pc9eac0e5314bf44b40fbb739128b4f89/f9d1ae31.jpg

Terracotta, mustard brick and banana-milkshake-yellow render - Jury's yet again adopts the mantra: every expense spared.

AS some of us have said, it's all a matter of taste ... I quiet like the Jury's Hotel.

Aw, c'mon Rob, surely you can't be serious? This hotel has no architectural merit whatsoever - they didn't even have the wit to make something of the podium roof. I mentioned this to the manager and he said, oh yeah, maybe we'll make into an outdoor cafe terrace at some point! A wasted opportunity for "Brewery Place".

I'm all for "booming Leeds" but I don't think we should just welcome any new development - we (Leeds) must demand buildings of better quality than the current crop - which is why I started the Leeds Architects thread cos I want some real Leeds people who are shaping our city to join in this debate.

The 4x4 seminars are coming round again:

http://www.leedstoday.net/viewarticle2.aspx?ArticleID=928276&SectionID=40&Search=4x4&Searchtype=any&SearchSection=40&DateFrom=011995&DateTo=012005&Page=1&ReturnPage=Results.aspx

Perhaps we could stimulate a bit of interest in SSC there! Also, shouldn't Kevin Grady of Leeds Civic Trust be in here airing his views?

Hard to know which Jury's Inn is the worst. Here's the Glasgow one:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/xapbpoh/photos/glas-jury.JPG


And Newcastle:

http://media.expedia.com/hotels/1000000/920000/911500/911448/911448_3_b.jpg

That one is especially bad given the extemely prominant position of the building.

I'm all for "booming Leeds" but I don't think we should just welcome any new development - we (Leeds) must demand buildings of better quality than the current crop - which is why I started the Leeds Architects thread cos I want some real Leeds people who are shaping our city to join in this debate.


I completely agree, quality rather than quantity. A small number of real high quality developments would benefit Leeds far more than a multitude of lowest common denominator, speculative builds that are likely to remain unlet and age very quickly.

leeds is the worst, a big ugly pile of wank

I hope your talking about the Jury's Inn and not Leeds in general

None of them are that bad. Not everything in a city can be amazing because then there would be nothing to compare with, and its not asif its an ugly building. If everything was exciting it would look a bit mismatch but a few normal things makes it look OK. I dont think its too bad, same with Brewery Wharf. I do think Whitehall could have been better though but its not bad.
I hope to see in the new developments that publica space is taken into considertion. I hope Millennium Square and Quarry Hill become civic quarters with good culture and attractive streets and housing.

leeds is the worst, a big ugly pile of wank

Your last 2 posts really have been eloquence personified, are you the reincarnation of Oscar Wilde? ;)

"Aw, c'mon Rob, surely you can't be serious? This hotel has no architectural merit whatsoever "

It was never meant to be some super smart architectural masterpiece, it never had the budget to be, it's just a box standard hotel building, so in that respect, it's a perfectly decent building. Most buildings can't possibly be anything other than a fairly cheap design as the commercial sums just wouldn't add up.

if yuo get a talented and creative architect a good design and build quality doesnt cost money, just look at what ian simpson provides for a meagre budget.

But the Jury's Inn is fine, a little plain but what's wrong with it ?

Until the planning authorities start encouraging interesting architecture, these bland, inoffensive (although I would argue that Jurys is so bland that it IS offensive) are going to be the norm. After all, what business wants the expense of trying to get planning permission for an interesting piece of architecture when they know that this type of building will probably sail through and be cheap to build due to a complete lack of any detailing and the poor quality materials used. Surely it must be down to the push from the client for the cheapest possible design that they can get away with, no architect would purposely design a building so bland, would they?

If you want a good example of a budget building with class and flair in Leeds, you only have to look as far as the new Ibis hotel. I LOVE that building and its leagues better than the equivalent Ibis hotels in Manchester. An irony made all the more painful given it was designed by a Mancunian architect. (Provan and Makin). :(

If you want a good example of a budget building with class and flair in Leeds, you only have to look as far as the new Ibis hotel. I LOVE that building and its leagues better than the equivalent Ibis hotels in Manchester. An irony made all the more painful given it was designed by a Mancunian architect. (Provan and Makin). :(

Completely agree, the Ibis is proof that a low budget need not mean low standards!

But the Jury's Inn is fine, a little plain but what's wrong with it ?
Rob, you're right - it's OK. It's not some horrendous 60s concrete monstrosity, and is certainly not vieing for the title of "ugliest building in central Leeds" - however...

It's just plain annoying on two counts: one, that a prominent central waterside location has not been utilised to much better effect by buildings of a more striking and attractive nature. And two, that Jurys (and Barratt too for the residential element of Brewery Wharf) are delivering architecture-and-building-by-numbers. The similarities between nearly all Jurys is not because it's a so-called budget hotel, but rather because of Jurys management team complete lack of imagination and ambition. It's like they're not trying - the why-bother-attitude.

How do these things get through planning so unmolested? Sweeteners perhaps...ah yes, a few road and landscaping improvements will benefit the whole community mr councillor sir...

BTW anyone here a planning officer?

I do not think that it is that bad a building and it is excellent on the inside. This factor has to be considered. The point of the hotel is to offer quality rooms and facilities to business travellers at a reasonable price. Jury's does this and then some. You try and get a room in this hotel and you struggle as it is so popular. The knock on effect of budget hotels increasing their offering is that other city hotels who have been complacent in the past have to invest to compete. If you have not been to Jury's go and have a meal or beer and you will be surprised.

Typhoo - yes I have been inside - in fact I asked for a tour from the manager after it opened :) (views from top floor rather good) - and you're right, it's fine inside - although how long a new Jurys stay this way is another question.

That's the point I'm making: Jurys are concerned only about the inside bit. The outer skin is wholly irrelevant to them. So long as their yield management team ensured enough rooms/sqm the design itself was not a consideration. Hotels at airports, business parks etc can - and usually do - look like the proverbial gleegieboy turd which is fair enuff as we're not around to be bothered, but centrally located new build hotels esp on prime site waterside real estate really ought to be better.

I blame the planning committee.

Okay, so Jury's ain't the best. Lets think about the Park Plaza (elephant leg of grey dull cladding) and the Hilton (60's concrete monolith). i don't think it's the nicest, but its okay. Leeds does seem to have an attack of the mustard yellow bricks which are getting a touch samey. But add that to the red terracotta tiles which are also proliferating around the city and you have two rather overexposured building materials. We're lacking glass, but nothing Mayfair and Criterion won't solve.

By the way, am also a big fan of the timber cladding on Trinity 1. Roberts Wharf just along from Trinity 1 is due to be converted and is already being marketed by Morgan's Estate Agents.

By the way, am also a big fan of the timber cladding on Trinity 1. Roberts Wharf just along from Trinity 1 is due to be converted and is already being marketed by Morgan's Estate Agents.

Excellent! I'll pop into Morgans and get some details on Roberts Wharf. Neptune Street will be very impressive once that and Trinity One are complete.

Revised image to include Kite Tower
http://img178.exs.cx/img178/5870/leedsssc2zd.jpg

Revised image to include Kite Tower
http://img178.exs.cx/img178/5870/leedsssc2zd.jpg



What a city Leeds will be with these monsters on the skyline.

Alongside BWP which has started construction, we should see Mayfair starting very soon, and then my money would go on Venture Tower starting sometime after Mayfair.


The others will probably not start until late 2005 or early 2006.

Can't wait!!!

Here's the latest update on proposed skyscrapers in Leeds.

Criterion Place 1 - 47 storeys
Venture Tower- 40 storeys
Kite Tower - 40 storeys
City 1 - 40 storeys
Whitehall - 38 storeys
Globe Road-31 storeys
BWP - 30 storeys - U/C - 130 m to spire
Whitehall Riverside - 30 storeys
Criterion Place 2 - 29 storeys
Mayfair - 28 storeys
The Plaza-26 storeys
Clarence Dock-25 storeys

How many do you think will be off the ground by this time next year?

Here's the latest update on proposed skyscrapers in Leeds.

Criterion Place 1 - 47 storeys
Venture Tower- 40 storeys
Kite Tower - 40 storeys
City 1 - 40 storeys
Whitehall - 38 storeys
Globe Road-31 storeys
BWP - 30 storeys - U/C - 130 m to spire
Whitehall Riverside - 30 storeys
Criterion Place 2 - 29 storeys
Mayfair - 28 storeys
The Plaza-26 storeys
Clarence Dock-25 storeys

How many do you think will be off the ground by this time next year?

8 buildings of 30 storeys or more, can't be bad. I reckon at least six of these projects shown will be up and running inside 12 months.

Only BWP, the plaza and mayfair. Seriously, I'd be deligted if anything else starts before 2007.

Revised image to include Kite Tower
http://img178.exs.cx/img178/5870/leedsssc2zd.jpg

WOW! The view of the city as you come into Leeds from the south of a train should like amazing, it already looks impressive.

Skyfitsboy,

The arial picture shown is looking westwards, so the view coming into Leeds either on the train, or the M621 from the west will be amazing!!

now that The Plaza has just started to rise (YAY) can it officially be classed as 'under construction'? Do you think it will beat BWP to be the tallest in the city? So exciting!

now that The Plaza has just started to rise (YAY) can it officially be classed as 'under construction'? Do you think it will beat BWP to be the tallest in the city? So exciting!


With a number of buildings on The Plaza site and the tower not the first building to start, I think BWP will be first, but not by many months, as The Plaza is due for completion in 2006.

I don't think it can be under construction yet as we don't know if the tower has started.

However the list desperately needs updating with all the new proposals (when time is available).

Well even if the tower hasn't started, things like this are surely 'advanced groundwork' ready for the tower, and at this stage its almost certainly going to go up. We'll have to keep a close eye on this site.

I don't think it can be under construction yet as we don't know if the tower has started.

However the list desperately needs updating with all the new proposals (when time is available).

Doing a good job Rob. When time is avail, I think we can say Blue is completed as well.

I was watching a programme about the building of the channel tunnel on five the other week, and at one point, the workers were working at a rate of building a 20 storey building every 55 minutes. While I realise this is incredibly fast, it still says to me that construction rates are slow. I realise that a 20 storey building probably would never go up in 55 minutes, but if workers were working well and full hours, couldn't a tower be raised in 4 weeks? I know it sounds extraodinary, but if you think about it, its quite possible. Bridgewater Place hasn't risen for ages. I know it would mean lots of hard work but at the end they could have loads of time off....

You'd struggle to build many houses in 4 weeks.

Yeah I know, but the point of saying that was really to say get a move on with building these things because I saw a thing today that says the Plaza won't be finished until 2007!? Thats almost 2 years away, how long does it take?!

Two years obviously ;)

I'm sure the developers are building as fast as they can, as it doesn't make sense from a profit perspective to take time on these buildings.

yeah but the actual workers aren't bothered because all they do is build it and go, so they probably dont care about that, all they want to do really (Im guessing) is get home, despite the fact they're not getting paid for that.

Tunnels are generally constructed at very, very fast speeds compared to vertical construction.

With vertical construction you have to wait days for concrete to reach it's full strength before you can build any more floors on top, or else it will collapse. And that '20 storey in 55 minutes' is probably in terms of volume of concrete or material used. With a highrise building you've got the cladding, plumbing, electrics etc etc

well techincally, it was 3 tunnels, and concrete did have to set to full strength actually, and plumbing and electrics were needed. Vertical construction is generally slower yes, but in this case they are arguably the same, seeing as it was not just underground, but under the seabed, and needed 3 tunnels with link tunnels and all the rest of it...

^^^^^^^
wot

i think the explanation has been given-you are a legend!

As a rule of thumb, it takes about 2 whole years for any building around 15-30 stories, from start on site to handover and the customers moving in.

The main list at the beginning of this thread is long overdue updateing, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to edit in it's current format. I may have to either remove the pictures or give each building its own line, which will sprawl the list out.

As a rule of thumb, it takes about 2 whole years for any building around 15-30 stories, from start on site to handover and the customers moving in.

The main list at the beginning of this thread is long overdue updateing, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to edit in it's current format. I may have to either remove the pictures or give each building its own line, which will sprawl the list out.

Rob I think that the pictures are important. They give a better indication of what is proposed. How about two buildings per line? Perhaps we have also got to the stage where the list should be everything over 10 (or 11, 12) stories until it fits better. Or the thread could be split into two so that we have a 25 floor and above thread and a less than 25 floor one?

I've updated it now with one building per line, keeping the images. It will now be easy to keep up to date as they can be moved around easily. Construction now has 20 tower cranes, a record for Leeds.

I've updated it now with one building per line, keeping the images. It will now be easy to keep up to date as they can be moved around easily. Construction now has 20 tower cranes, a record for Leeds.


Great update Rob. Can you imagine what Leeds City Centre will look like if all those proposed developments are built?

First time I have seen the rendering for the 23 storey Wade Lane flats-looks good. Where did you get that picture from?

It was recently added to the Leeds Civic Trust application list. Sometimes they update older applications, add pictures etc, without a formal update, worth checking back there from time to time.

Great work again Rob.

My only question is - whereabouts on Wade Lane are the proposed apartments?

http://www.leodis.net/images/200231_60281009.jpg

Ta. It's not far to the right of Tower House, at the corner of Merrion Street and Wade Lane. It is to be approximately the same height of Tower House.

Aye, I think I measured it at 75m - it has a spire as well I think which takes the height to over 80m. It's not great but the skyline effect will be improved with this and the plaza adding to tower house.

Thanks, I get ya.

http://www.leedscivictrust.org.uk/images/littlelondonsm.jpg

The Civic Trust have suggested the top of the building could be more dramatic.

Ta. It's not far to the right of Tower House, at the corner of Merrion Street and Wade Lane. It is to be approximately the same height of Tower House.

Does that mean the very salubrious looking Londoner pubs days are numbered? Say it ain't so! ;)

Don't mean to be spoil proceedings but does this mean that even more car parking will be lost? I know people who work in the nearby Halifax HQ and there is absolutely zilcho parking available for the employees their. Where do the council expect these people to park thats nearby? Little London?

I'm not so sure if this will replace much of the parking space in that area though. It's a bulky building, but it still covers a small area on the ground considering the number of flats. It's really close to tower house remember.

Yeah but its only a matter of time before Brunswick is sold (within the nxt 2yrs) and then both the Brunswick site and the council owned car park will be developed

I know this will prob be an unpopular opinion with most of you but I hate getting a buss into town if I’m just popping in to say drop work in at uni, going to just one or two shops or if I’ve got a short meeting - its just far too much effort and takes too long especially around rush hour where you normally end up squashed nxt to some stinking tramp. Sorry but busses suck. At the moment I usually park either in the Woodhouse multi-storey or the surface car park behind Civic Hall. When I start full time working in the city centre busses will make more sense as they will be cheaper than parking all day and can jump the traffic using the bus lanes.

Having said that I know I’m wrong and people like me need to be persuaded out of cars which is why I think Leeds should introduce a £3 congestion charge and invest the profits in a nice smooth tram that hopefully wont get stuck in too much traffic. Or at the very least a decent park and ride service like York's which is fantastic!

well firstly, the study which covers the outer ring road and imrpvoed transport links at a high investment includes park and ride sites at most main gateways- thats the A657, A65, A61 Alwoodley Gates, A58, A64 Crossgates.
I doubt we would see this for a long time.
Well I would agree with a £3 congestion charge but is the transport good enough to sustain it- it would have to be within the city centre loop probably.

Heavymetalmayhem, you said that you thought "people like me need to be persuaded out of cars". You hit the nail on the head......persuaded, is the word not forced. Any congestion charge will force many people like shoppers who visit Leeds from the suburbs for the day will just use out of town retailers instead. My nearest station is at Guiseley, the trains are frequent and clean, but the station carpark is always full. Usually then I end up just driving to Leeds! Suburban stations like Guiseley need mini multistorey carparks with CCTV.

I don't agree with either of you, on both issues.

Buses - I use the bus every work day from Horsforth to Leeds, and it is a perfectly good and civilised mode of transport for shortish journeys. At peak times, there are certainly no undiserable types, it is full of comuters in suits. You need to get rid of some of your sterio-type ideas and try it out for a while.

Congestion charges - A hefty congestion charge would absolutely destroy the city centre retail economy and some of the business economy. Cities smaller than London will just not cope with a congestion charge, because most people will go elsewhere/out of town, competition is just too high for the northern cities.

Ok maybe I was a bit hasty supporting a congestion charge – it seemed a good way to raise the cash for better public transport whist cutting traffic but I didn't really think it through and your probably right. So myself and others will continue to drive until we are either priced out of our cars, have nowhere to park or public transport becomes a very much more pleasant and more convenient option.

As for busses my comments where based on experience – the last time I used one I was squashed between a very smelly and scruffy man (the origins of my tramp comment) and an overweight guy eating a Greg’s pasty or something. The time before that a woman with obvious mental problems talked to me almost the entire journey about how her boyfriend was sleeping with her mum, how she had won the lottery and her brother was trying to steal it.

Also there is the fear of crime which doesn't really put me off but i don't like it when my girlfriend takes the bus after dark- a friend of mine was mugged and punched in the face on a bus a few months back.

Durham has a congestion charge- and thats tiny....

after dark, get a taxi if you don't go by car. Buses are fine- I find public transport way better than the car- its faster, cheaper, cleaner, easier and funner. Sometimes it can get busy and sometimes a bit crowded particularly at around 1700-1800 but meh. 50p one way Harrogate-Leeds City. Now why on Earth would I take the £2.20 36 or the ridiculously priced car (in terms of petrol/car parking). I dont agree with convenience- its convenient for times yes, but you have to be back for a certain time because of the time limit, but in terms of location its much easier to get on a train. Its so easy to walk round the centre then have a short walk from the core to the station- like really short and just jump on a train.

I don't agree with either of you, on both issues.


Quite Rob, couldn't agree more. Having a congestion charge in Leeds is like punishing people for just living there. A congestion charge is about punishment for choosing the less-desirable option. But in Leeds, there's no tube, no elevated rail system, not even a bloody tram system for goodness' sake. Buses are OK if that's an option for you - for many it isn't.

It makes complete sense in London where there are loads of good options for getting into town from an extensive surface rail system (particularly in the south) and a bitched about but effective tube system (particularly in the north). I used to live in Leeds and for a while worked in across the North as a whole. If I had an important meeting I took the car every time because I couldn't trust public transport to get me there.

Basically, a congestion charge works when there's a viable alternative. When one of the biggest cities in Britain hasn't even got a tram system, a congestion charge just seems to me to be unnecessarily provocative.

Rant over. Supposed to be booking tickets for me and the missus and here I am gabbing on about trains! Jesus. Now.... where was that life .....

Leeds No1, you sound like you speak as a person who doesn't own a car anyway!

Just because another town or city has congestion charges doesn't make it the right thing to do. Even if Leeds had the supertram, many people would still not have supertram as an option. With an increased variety of public modes of transport options should in theory, remove traffic from the roads and in turn, remove the need to levy the public.

Thoughts????

well I don't have a car, and I have no intention to get one because I hate the things. I'd chose public transport over a car any day.

And wouldn't you have to wait a couple of years to be old enough to drive one in the first place?

And wouldn't you have to wait a couple of years to be old enough to drive one in the first place?

:down:

firstly caw that was a pointless comment and everybody is sick of you and others trying to antagonise Leeds No1!

and secondly this conversation has now moved to transport issues.

well I don't have a car, and I have no intention to get one because I hate the things. I'd chose public transport over a car any day.

Good on you ! It is perfectly feasible in a big city like Leeds to rely on public transport for local travel and for travelling further afield (eg. to London, or the seaside etc) especially if you are only paying for one.

exactly. Who needs a car when you're living in a city which I will probably end up like in the future. Even if I don't its much easier by public transport- the 36, every 20 mins, £2.20 is much nicer than any car, and the train which needs alot of investment to be nice but it does its job, its cheap and fun. 50p, £2.20 or £10+? for a days parking- you know. It's easier to jump on and off a bus or train than mucking around finding a parking space- and the roads in Leeds are a death trap- particularly sheepscar interchange, Armley Roundabout- all those big junction type things they seem to be a fan of in Leeds.
It is much easier for me to use public transport because its cheaper, faster and easier in the way that its frequent and stations/stops are well located. I need to take a 30 second walk to the bus stop, then a 3 minute free bus ride to town, then either a 20min bus ride to Leeds OR a 40min train ride- train is much cheaper as I have a railcard, but its only 40mins because its quite a curvy line- has apparently the tightest corner in Britain, at Crimple Valley, then it has to go the long way round so it can come in at the right angle from the west instead of being able to go straight south.
For young people its 'cooler' to use public transport- dont ask me why- and I'd say from Harrogate more people use public transport to Leeds than car- but maybe not to other areas. Theres been a high investment in the 36 and now its much more attractive than the car, and the trains aren't exactly luxury but they do their job, and they're cheap (with a railcard), and then when you get off the train the station itself is a shopping centre and its right next to the shopping core and everywhere you want to be.
When we do go in the car which is almost never now, we park in Templar Street car park, which in comparison to the station is a little bit further from the shopping core.
You don't have to worry about anything on the train.

Maybe if more people used public transport, more money would be invested in it. I know public transport in Leeds isnt amazing, but it doesnt stop people getting places- if you're in a last minute rush, the maybe the car but if you're going for a day out or whatever- whats wrong with the perfectly good buses and when possible trains?

You could argue hydrogen fuel cell cars are the way forward BUT how about hydrogen fuel cell trains- hah. Even better. Or is electricity from a renewable source cleaner? aka electric trains.

You could argue hydrogen fuel cell cars are the way forward BUT how about hydrogen fuel cell trains- hah. Even better. Or is electricity from a renewable source cleaner? aka electric trains.

The only by-product from hydrogen power is water.

I commend you for your attitude but it’s down to preference, lifestyle and your priorities. Besides you’ll be one less car on the road which is better for those who enjoy driving :)

exactly. Who needs a car when you're living in a city

Possibly if you never leave the city but then it depends on the sort of places you like to visit of the kind of shopping you do. I explained on the transport thread why I thought you might need a car.

Even if I don't its much easier by public transport- the 36, every 20 mins, £2.20 is much nicer than any car

It might be easier for you but not for most

and fun
Public transport might be fun for kids if its an occasional out of the ordinary occurrence but there is nothing fun in my mind about standing around in the rain waiting for a bus, or being on a hot bus in summer, having to lug round heavy bags, being squashed and having to stand.

£10+? for a days parking- you know. It's easier to jump on and off a bus or train than mucking around finding a parking space
I would never pay that amount and its still easy to find parking in Leeds

the roads in Leeds are a death trap
Slight exaggeration I’d say

its cheaper, faster and easier in the way that its frequent and stations/stops are well located. I need to take a 30 second walk to the bus stop, then a 3 minute free bus ride to town, then either a 20min bus ride to Leeds OR a 40min train ride
For you it makes sense. For me to get to work it’s the choice between a 15min drive and a free parking space or an hour by bus if you include the walking at both ends.

For young people its 'cooler' to use public transport- dont ask me why
Well I wont ask you why because I don't believe you. Almost every young lad I've ever known has been interested in cars and can't wait to drive. All my mates me and went through the max power phase (thank God that’s over). Now we like going on track days, off roading, motor show, etc. Top Gear is the favourite TV programme of just about every bloke and boy I know and as for the ladies - well I think its obvious whether they prefer to be picked up in a flashy motor or told to meet ya at the bus stop!

I want to make it clear that I support increased investment in public transport and would use it more if it were the more convenient or considerably cheaper option. But for me it could never replace car ownership.

I've just realized that you can put a thumb image on here and link it to a larger image. *wink* *wink*
I love your building list Rob, but please can you give us some bigger pictures.:fiddle::)

click on thumb
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid135/p3786f2f24c871007e0638aa146ada062/f762c4d0.jpg (http://darkroom.paulholloway.com/leeds/07_west_riding_house.jpg)

Don't know about making the pics bigger, there only there as little 'visual aids' to identify each main building. I seem to have missed a 30 storey proposal off my list, so I've added that one on now (it is the newly proposed Whitehall Road tower by Wimpey and Bridgewater Properties).

That makes four proposals 40 stories or more, four 30 stories or more, and eight 20 stories or over in addition the four 20 stories complete and 31 storie tower under construction.

Featured in the news section of skyscrapernews.com website:





Proposal for vacant car park site, for a mixed use residential development in seven buildings, up to 30 storeys high. This proposal is virtually across the road from the 38 and 20 storey Monkbridge Forge towers proposal, and the 31 storey Globe Road developement proposal.


Companies
Developer Bridgewater Properties and George Wimpey Ltd
Reference Data
Reference No. 2307
Editorial Date 25/4/2005
Address Whitehall Road, Leeds,
Council Leeds City Council
County WEst Yorkshire
Region Yorkshire and Humber
Country United Kingdom
Building Specification
Status Pre Planning
Proposal date 2004

Height (roof) 93.00 *

Floors (O.G) 30
Market Data
Primary Use Residential
Secondary Use Mixed

Flats 836
Car Parking Spaces 711


Could we be getting closer to a planning application?

I take it that mean 93 meters for 30 stories?

Not too high in comparison to BWP. Still, every building over 80m will be great in my view, it would look silly having lots of 120m and above with no midrises to spaces them out.

Featured in the news section of skyscrapernews.com website:





Proposal for vacant car park site, for a mixed use residential development in seven buildings, up to 30 storeys high. This proposal is virtually across the road from the 38 and 20 storey Monkbridge Forge towers proposal, and the 31 storey Globe Road developement proposal.


Companies
Developer Bridgewater Properties and George Wimpey Ltd
Reference Data
Reference No. 2307
Editorial Date 25/4/2005
Address Whitehall Road, Leeds,
Council Leeds City Council
County WEst Yorkshire
Region Yorkshire and Humber
Country United Kingdom
Building Specification
Status Pre Planning
Proposal date 2004

Height (roof) 93.00 *

Floors (O.G) 30
Market Data
Primary Use Residential
Secondary Use Mixed

Flats 836
Car Parking Spaces 711


Could we be getting closer to a planning application?

Guys, sorry this is wrong. The development described here is Globe Road! It was submitted for planning permission in November. There isn't such a company as Bridgewater Properties. It was a typo on the the Economy bulletin. The description on skyscrapernews.com is that of Globe Road which I described before Xmas having ventured into the Development Agency building on Rossington Street and examined the application (see Globe Road thread).

The company is 'Bridgemere Properties' and the site is the old car park and derelict sheds on Globe Road/Whitehall Road junction. :bash:

The error has been corrected already. A full application is in for this development.

Have you seen the new city building lists for a number of UK and Irish cities.

This is from the site, showing Leeds buildings in height order ( proposed/under consrtruction/ built. Interesting to see some estimated heights for proposed buildings.

Look at the site and you will see Leeds fairs well against other cities in building stakes.


height m floors
Criterion Place residential tower 160.00 47 Residential Office - Pre Planning
2 City 1 124.00 * 40 Mixed Hotel - Proposed
3 West Central phase 2 124.00 * 40 Residential Hotel - Vision
4 Globe Road building A 120.00 31 Residential None - Proposed
5 Monkbridge Forge main tower 118.00 * 38 Residential Mixed - Pre Planning
6 Bridgewater Place 110.00 32 Office Residential 2006
Under Construction
7 Criterion Place hotel tower 105.00 29 Hotel Retail - Pre Planning
8 Whitehall Riverside residential 93.00 * 30 Residential None - Vision
9 Kite Tower 90.00 * 28 Residential Office - Pre Planning
10 Mayfair 85.00 28 Residential e 2007 Approved
11 The Plaza 83.00 26 Residential None 2007
Under Construction
12 West Riding House 80.00 20 Office Retail 1973 Complete
13 Park Plaza Hotel 77.00 20 Hotel None - Complete
14 Tower North Central 77.00 20 Office None 1967 Complete
15 Cottingley Towers 72.00 25 Residential None 1972 Complete
16 Cottingley Heights 72.00 25 Residential None 1972 Complete
17 Jacob Street Wade Lane tower 72.00 * 23 Residential Retail - Proposed
18 Leeds Town Hall

Have you seen the new city building lists for a number of UK and Irish cities.

This is from the site, showing Leeds buildings in height order ( proposed/under consrtruction/ built. Interesting to see some estimated heights for proposed buildings.

Look at the site and you will see Leeds fairs well against other cities in building stakes.


height m floors
Criterion Place residential tower 160.00 47 Residential Office - Pre Planning
2 City 1 124.00 * 40 Mixed Hotel - Proposed
3 West Central phase 2 124.00 * 40 Residential Hotel - Vision
4 Globe Road building A 120.00 31 Residential None - Proposed
5 Monkbridge Forge main tower 118.00 * 38 Residential Mixed - Pre Planning
6 Bridgewater Place 110.00 32 Office Residential 2006
Under Construction
7 Criterion Place hotel tower 105.00 29 Hotel Retail - Pre Planning
8 Whitehall Riverside residential 93.00 * 30 Residential None - Vision
9 Kite Tower 90.00 * 28 Residential Office - Pre Planning
10 Mayfair 85.00 28 Residential e 2007 Approved
11 The Plaza 83.00 26 Residential None 2007
Under Construction
12 West Riding House 80.00 20 Office Retail 1973 Complete
13 Park Plaza Hotel 77.00 20 Hotel None - Complete
14 Tower North Central 77.00 20 Office None 1967 Complete
15 Cottingley Towers 72.00 25 Residential None 1972 Complete
16 Cottingley Heights 72.00 25 Residential None 1972 Complete
17 Jacob Street Wade Lane tower 72.00 * 23 Residential Retail - Proposed
18 Leeds Town Hall



Sorry, forgot to mention website. Its skyscrapernews.com

By the way Rob is editor of the Leeds section of Skyscrapernews.com and hence the afforementioned list! Well done old bean - Mr Newman has a rather good website over there!

..........Here's one for you!


Tonights YEP Homes section, a new development I have never heard of was advertised.

20/20 House

It says: MPUK presents, 20/20 House, one of Leeds most dynamic, multipurpose development concepts, comprising 242 residential units plus 12,000 sq ft of modern contemporary commercial space.

Anyone know any more? I've never heard of this one- does not say where this is situated, but says that 30% pre released to investors from 1 June

Are you sure it was in Leeds and not Manchester?

Are you sure it was in Leeds and not Manchester?


Got more details. This development is in the Northern Quarter:

Have a look at the developers website for info- quite qmazing this one has got through the net without us knowing about it: Looks very interesting and fits in well with the Cocord St development. I will start a new thread for it.


www.morrisprops.com

Updated the building list with the current correct cranes, and moved City Island into the completed section, and added a picture of the St Georges apartment block.

Drove past City Island yesterday to Inner Ring Road. I consider the develpoment to be quite ugly.
Anyone else agree ?

Any news of this development which was approved four years ago ?

700 flats and ancillary retail and leisure use in this historic Flax Mill, adjoining Mills and new building at Hunslet Mill; Goodman St, Atkinson St, LS10.

Drove past City Island yesterday to Inner Ring Road. I consider the develpoment to be quite ugly.
Anyone else agree ?

I'm not sure I'd use the word ugly. It's bland generic terracotta clad inoffensiveness IMO. At least it's fairly hidden away!

Any news of this development which was approved four years ago ?

700 flats and ancillary retail and leisure use in this historic Flax Mill, adjoining Mills and new building at Hunslet Mill; Goodman St, Atkinson St, LS10.

I was thinking along similar lines the other day! It would be good to see something happen with Hunslet Mill soon. It's a wonderful building and with Roberts Wharf having been 100% sold off plan long before development started, there's clearly the demand for characterful conversions. I just hope that it's a high quality development befitting such a building.

[QUOTE=Smoggie_Si]

I'm not sure I'd use the word ugly. It's bland generic terracotta clad inoffensiveness IMO. At least it's fairly hidden away!


I wasn't thinking of the terracotta which unfortunately is now so prevalent that it is not worth commenting on.
No I am thinking of the impact of its massing and odd shape.
I think, particularly from the view of it from the Wellington Bridge area, that it is
unattractive. Just my opinion - other may think it an architectural jewel !

Any news of this development which was approved four years ago ?

700 flats and ancillary retail and leisure use in this historic Flax Mill, adjoining Mills and new building at Hunslet Mill; Goodman St, Atkinson St, LS10.

I took my car to a garage down there recently to have some repairs done to it. There were developers' banners on the side of the mill but absolutely no sign of any work being undertaken.

Is it possible that the planning application was part of a more long-term strategy for the mill? Ie, that the developers recognised the building's potential but had no immediate plans for anything to be done to it? I remember thinking at the time the Civic Trust reported on the planning application that, while it would be wonderful to see the mill buildings brought back into use, the site was rather in the middle of nowhere.

Now, of course, with all the developments taking place in the East Bank, the mill is much more in the swing of things. Let's hope we see some movement here very soon.

I don't think it's ugly, the shape is odd, but it should be quite a ncie palce to live once it's been landscaped. It's quite boring and plain, but the more boring buildings tend to age better.

I don't think it's ugly, the shape is odd, but it should be quite a ncie palce to live once it's been landscaped. It's quite boring and plain, but the more boring buildings tend to age better.

That last statement could be debated. I wouldn't, for example, call Leeds Town Hall, Civic Hall or the Parkinson Building boring when they were built ! :)

However just my own opinion, as I said.

True, but it tends to apply with the more modern buildings.(They didn't build many ugly buildings pre 1950) . The cutting edge stuff tends to age badly, with some exceptions, such as the Lloyds building. Either way, I imagine if it's still there in 100 years, it won't be considered an amazing building but definately not ugly.

What I should of said is that simpler buildings are more likely to age well.

True, but it tends to apply with the more modern buildings.(They didn't build many ugly buildings pre 1950) . The cutting edge stuff tends to age badly, with some exceptions, such as the Lloyds building. Either way, I imagine if it's still there in 100 years, it won't be considered an amazing building but definately not ugly.

What I should of said is that simpler buildings are more likely to age well.

We are discussing here aesthetic values which are notoriously subjective. Beauty (or ugliness) is in the eye of the beholder !

Trouble is that with a painting or a piece of sculpture one can easily avoid what one dislikes - but not so with an ugly building which we have to live with for many decades if not centuries !

Of course fashions change. For example, the Town Hall auditorium must have been considered a wonderful architectural display piece when it opened in 1858. I still think it is. But the great piano virtuoso, Alfred Brendel, in an interview published last week end, described it as "hideous, visually and acoustically".

I quite like City Island, the penthouses at the top finish it niceley, and I'm sure it functions very well as a place for living, it looks like the place where people would want to live.

The town hall is quite shoddy as a music venue. I've been to a view jazz gigs there and I just don't think it works well at all. The acoustics were dreadful, far too many frequencies gaying up at the back to the point you couldn't hear the true sound of what was being played. And the seating arrangements are horrid. The auditorium is perfect for big meetings or a wee convention or something, but a music venue it doth not maketh.

The town hall is quite shoddy as a music venue. I've been to a view jazz gigs there and I just don't think it works well at all. The acoustics were dreadful, far too many frequencies gaying up at the back to the point you couldn't hear the true sound of what was being played. And the seating arrangements are horrid. The auditorium is perfect for big meetings or a wee convention or something, but a music venue it doth not maketh.


Correct - and that's why we need a proper concert hall in Leeds. I commented at the time of the opening of the Royal Armouries, nearly ten years ago, that I wished the £42 million it cost had been spent on a concert hall instead of a museum glorifying fighting and warfare !

I took my car to a garage down there recently to have some repairs done to it. There were developers' banners on the side of the mill but absolutely no sign of any work being undertaken.

Is it possible that the planning application was part of a more long-term strategy for the mill? Ie, that the developers recognised the building's potential but had no immediate plans for anything to be done to it? I remember thinking at the time the Civic Trust reported on the planning application that, while it would be wonderful to see the mill buildings brought back into use, the site was rather in the middle of nowhere.

Now, of course, with all the developments taking place in the East Bank, the mill is much more in the swing of things. Let's hope we see some movement here very soon.

According to Aire Valley Leeds, work should have started in spring 2004 on the Hunslet Mill development.

According to Aire Valley Leeds, work should have started in spring 2004 on the Hunslet Mill development.

Makes me wonder who actually owns the site. I recall that the Tower Works in Holbeck has had planning permission for yonks (though not for as long as Victoria Mills) for a mixed-use development, along with Carey Jones designs. However, it turned out that the family which owned the site was planning to hang on until land prices went up before selling to a developer. That was, of course, until Yorkshire Forward made them an offer they couldn't refuse. Now, YF are the owners and are looking again at the plans for the site. Wonder if they plan to move there themselves.

Mkaes me wonder who actually owns the site. I recall that the Tower Works in Holbeck has had planning permission for yonks (though not for as long as Victoria Mills) for a mixed-use development, along with Carey Jones designs. However, it turned out that the family which owned the site was planning to hang on until land prices went up before selling to a developer. That was, of course, until Yorkshire Forward made them an offer they couldn't refuse. Now, YF are the owners and are looking again at the plans for the site. Wonder if they plan to move there themselves.
YF need space now! I believe they are in negotiation for three sites, one of which is bang opposite the Energis building they currently occupy - the green glass box next to Bewley's hotel - which by any sensible stretch of the imagination, must be the favourite.

YF are a multi-faceted quango with a budget of over £300m. They have many fingers in many pies and are genuine champions of Leeds & Yorkshire, however, it seems they have taken a back seat on the Supertram scheme; whereas one would've thought the'd be at the front of the queue banging the drum...is it a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune?

YF need space now! I believe they are in negotiation for three sites, one of which is bang opposite the Energis building they currently occupy - the green glass box next to Bewley's hotel - which by any sensible stretch of the imagination, must be the favourite.

My contact tells me they're looking for some short-term accommodation for a number of their staff. In the long term, they're looking to build new offices for all their Leeds staff, and the favoured option is Tower Works.

The Bond Court Refurb off City square is cracking along nicely. The Cladding has started to go on, it is Grey/Silver and clear Glass. I think this may end up as Park Plaza take two.

It's amazing isn't it how Edwardian, Victorian and Georgian Leeds managed to build some truly wonderful buildings and yet post-war (2nd) the buildings have mostly been a disaster.

Did the modernists and post-modernists forget what actually it is that makes a building work? Or perhaps no-one gave a fuck. Gawd knows, but the people responsilble for things like the utterly reprehensible Bond Court need hunting down and placed in stocks in city square, where we can throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at them...occasionally turning on the fountains to clean 'em up!

What I always wondered is would it be possible for someone to build a Edwardian (whatever) style building today and make it look genuine? We have more technology, machinary and engineering marvels yet could we actually design and build something like they used to? I really doubt it...but would be nice to be proved wrong. Afterall, which City wouldn't love a mock-Edwardian tower? lol.. I know I would..even if it was false.

What I always wondered is would it be possible for someone to build a Edwardian (whatever) style building today and make it look genuine? We have more technology, machinary and engineering marvels yet could we actually design and build something like they used to? I really doubt it...but would be nice to be proved wrong. Afterall, which City wouldn't love a mock-Edwardian tower? lol.. I know I would..even if it was false.

The Globe Theatre was built recently using traditional building techniques and materials I seem to recall. I assume it's Elizabethan era.

Gawd knows, but the people responsilble for things like the utterly reprehensible Bond Court need hunting down and placed in stocks in city square, where we can throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at them...occasionally turning on the fountains to clean 'em up!

and then the stocks could be reused for all the people who have the crazy frog or whatever that chicken thing is called as their ringtones. Like it!

Criterion would be a modern icon. I was at the Herzog and de Meuron exhibition at Tate Modern last weekend. They are dying to build a 'tall' as they called it. Some of the concepts were way out, but would really put Leeds on the map. As would Kite, but that seems to have gone quiet as well...

What I always wondered is would it be possible for someone to build a Edwardian (whatever) style building today and make it look genuine? We have more technology, machinary and engineering marvels yet could we actually design and build something like they used to? I really doubt it...but would be nice to be proved wrong. Afterall, which City wouldn't love a mock-Edwardian tower? lol.. I know I would..even if it was false.

the redevelopment of Cavendish House is stripping off the 60s concrete and replacing it with a pseudo brick 1930s design, ala Reginald Bloomfield and the buildings that proliferate along Eastgate and the Headrow. Its like a sort of retrofitting which I'm not sure will work. The entire street from Quarry Hill to the old Leeds Perm (now the Light and Radisson hotel) is of a similar design, but to recreate it might prove slightly more difficult. To be fair, I think it'll look cack. Pudding, proof etc.

P.S. There's a proposal in NYC by the Woolworth Corporation to build a new tower close to the current (and grand) Woolworth building down near City Hall in the financial district. Looks like an attempt to replicate the neogothic style. Doesn't seem to work although it might just be a poor rendering. In other words, pants I'm afraid. Even though its 56 storeys and won't make a dent on the lower Manhatten skyline its looks like a pastiche.

Never go back ladies and gentlemen, never go back.

Never go back ladies and gentlemen, never go back.

Quite right, Jimbo. I can't imagine anything more awful than to see something built in the 21st century parading itself as something from the 19th. And I don't see how you could build a tower in the styles around at that time; the only towers built then were for churches and civic buildings. Their purpose (practically) was to house a peal of bells or (symbolically) to proclaim civic pride or the Christian faith in brick and stone.

The purpose of towers these days is to accommodate offices or flats, an entirely different function and the look of the building would need to reflect that. The Woolworth Building that Jimbo mentions is a case in point. It isn't a Gothic building at all; it's entirely modern (at least by the standards of its time) with some Gothic decoration at the top, and it in no way copies earlier styles. The Globe Theatre is a reconstruction of the Elizabethan one and it seems to work (in my opinion) but that's because what goes on inside it is also a replica of how theatre was presented at the end of the 16th century.

Nothing wrong with that as an exercise in historicism but you can't build modern cities in that way. What concerns me is the assumption (expressed very forcefully by the likes of the Prince of Wales) that because some horrors have been perpetrated by modern architects, we need to flee to the past to build for the future. That, for me, is an unacceptable failure of nerve.

I wasn't suggesting we go back and rebuild a pastiche (because by definition, that is all it can be) of any "golden" era, but raising the question as to why the post war period - in Leeds anyway - was so utterly bereft of inspiration. No doubt the reasons are many - economic, political, social - but whatever the prevailing climate, architects still have to design working buildings. Maybe the 50s and 60s urban planners were so intent on getting as far away from WWII that they forgot to stop and think of the consequences.

Or maybe I'm way off the mark and Carey Jones are the new Cuthbert Broderick?

I wasn't suggesting we go back and rebuild a pastiche (because by definition, that is all it can be) of any "golden" era, but raising the question as to why the post war period - in Leeds anyway - was so utterly bereft of inspiration. No doubt the reasons are many - economic, political, social - but whatever the prevailing climate, architects still have to design working buildings. Maybe the 50s and 60s urban planners were so intent on getting as far away from WWII that they forgot to stop and think of the consequences.

Or maybe I'm way off the mark and Carey Jones are the new Cuthbert Broderick?

You make some interesting points there and I think you'd need to be an architectural historian to answer them adequately. I think, however, that a number of factors came together to create so many horrors in such a short time:

1) The reaction against traditional architectural styles, by which I mean the Classical/Gothic traditions which existed side by side throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. Charles Barry managed to design the Houses of Parliament in a Gothic style a few years before he produced the Foreign Office in a dramatic High Renaissance style, and nobody thought it strange that he could switch from one to another. Whatever the preferred style, there were certain common features about proportion and building material which meant that, however different the appearance of buildings, there was a certain basic understanding. However, the years after the First World War saw a movement in France and, more especially Germany, which saw a conscious rejection of earlier styles and the common understanding. Think of Le Corbusier and his idea of the house as a "machine for living".

2) Hand in hand with No 1, came the emergence of new materials which made the challenge to traditional styles easier. Best seen in the Modernist Movement, this didn't really take root in this country until after the Second World War (however, one of the earliest examples of a building in reinforced concrete is to be found in Goldthorpe Church of 1916 - an extraordinary building, well worth a visit). No 3 gave it a tremendous boost but one problem with the new materials was that architects and builders were not always aware of problems until it was too late. For example, the reinforcing bars in the concrete of Goldthorpe Church were set too near to the surface. The result was that water penetration and expansion caused by changes in the temperature meant that chunks of concrete peeled away, an expensive mistake to rectify 80 years later.

3) The Second World War. The need to rebuild quickly after bombing damage meant that planning and design issues often got sidelined, along with quality considerations. The result? Poorly designed, shoddily built products which were obviously increasingly expensive to maintain during a time when Britain's prosperity failed to keep up with that of the rest of the developed world. Sadly, the new availability of the new materials in No 2 meant that it was possible to put new buildings up in a very short time without proper consideration of their impact and suitability.

Right, it's time to stop before I get condemned as a pretentious wanker.

Right, it's time to stop before I get condemned as a pretentious wanker.
I hear what your saying my flying friend, but when has the fear of looking like a wanker ever stopped anyone on these forums...

It's good to raise the level of debate occasionally, even though my own knowledge of architecture is thinner than Ally McBeal on a diet.

Despite my - and I supect most other peoples here - flimsy grasp of architectural history in a socio-political context I think Gleegieboy - from the Glasgow forum - hit the nail on the head when he said: you don't need 7 years of study and training to know when a building is rank bad.

I can't imagine anything more awful than to see something built in the 21st century parading itself as something from the 19th.
So true... I hate it even when they do this with domestic housing... it is something that really, really bugs me.

Afterall, which City wouldn't love a mock-Edwardian tower? lol.. I know I would..even if it was false.
.....I really do think doing this type of thing is best left to Disney. :yes: ;)




"the Prince of Wales" :bash:

Anyone have any idea what this is ??

Application 20/245/05/OT
Received on 13/06/2005
Description
outline application to erect mixed use development with hotel residential a1/a2/a3/a4/ a5/b1/d1 uses and car parking
Location
GLOBE ROAD AND WATER LANE LEEDS 2947-3296 LS11 5QG MAJ
Library

An intresting concept building.

Shell-shape school plans approved

The ammonite-shaped spiral design includes 11 classrooms
Plans for a new shell-shaped primary school in Leeds have been approved by city councillors.
More than £5m will be spent on the single-storey spiral building for West Hunslet, which will be built on the site of Greenwood Primary School.

The school will replace Greenwood and Hillside primary schools as part of the council's review of primary education in the city to reduce surplus places.

Councillors said the building could also become a landmark in the area.

As well as 11 classrooms, the school will incorporate a specialist learning centre and children's centre.

Plans for the school were created by the council's in-house architects following government guidance.

see here for picture

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4108652.stm

Anyone have any idea what this is ??

Application 20/245/05/OT
Received on 13/06/2005
Description
outline application to erect mixed use development with hotel residential a1/a2/a3/a4/ a5/b1/d1 uses and car parking
Location
GLOBE ROAD AND WATER LANE LEEDS 2947-3296 LS11 5QG MAJ
Library

I read about this in the Construction News a few weeks back and I was wondering the same thing myself. It mentioned that 242 flats are proposed for this site so this is another biggie!!!

this has to be phase 2 of Marshall Mills (the Igloo regeneration plan). they said planning permission was imminent and the plan has been discussed on the Holbeck Village website. 242 apartments is very close to what they were suggesting with lots of mixed use workspace (must explain the A1, A2, B1, D1 uses).

this has to be phase 2 of Marshall Mills (the Igloo regeneration plan). they said planning permission was imminent and the plan has been discussed on the Holbeck Village website. 242 apartments is very close to what they were suggesting with lots of mixed use workspace (must explain the A1, A2, B1, D1 uses).



Maybe, but I don't think the ISIS development extends to Globe Road

Did someone say Holbeck Urban Village...??? I am sure that there is a thread for that somewhere...

I read about this in the Construction News a few weeks back and I was wondering the same thing myself. It mentioned that 242 flats are proposed for this site so this is another biggie!!!

Application 20/245/05/OT
Received on 13/06/2005
Description
outline application to erect mixed use development with hotel residential a1/a2/a3/a4/ a5/b1/d1 uses and car parking
Location
GLOBE ROAD AND WATER LANE LEEDS 2947-3296 LS11 5QG MAJ
Library

I was assuming/hoping this was Tower Works, which is on Globe Road and Water Lane. It would be a bit quick though so shortly after Yorkshire Forward aquired the site.

Maybe, but I don't think the ISIS development extends to Globe Road

Freddyboy, I reckon this is another Igloo development. The website Igloo (http://www.igloo.uk.net/) seems to suggest that they are involved in both Marshall mill phase 2 and Canal Basin. Good, they seems like a thoroughly respectable organisation with the backing of lots of cash from the Morley Fund Management and Aviva Pension funds.

So it is a Holbeck Urban Village issue then...

Yeh, I suppose.. I mean they did get away with it in the past, what with Tower bridge and/or Manchester's Town hall.. but then again they were built before the more modern techniques of architecture today, so probably explains how they managed to get away with it.. I do suppose it wouldn't work today..

Yeh, I suppose.. I mean they did get away with it in the past, what with Tower bridge and/or Manchester's Town hall.. but then again they were built before the more modern techniques of architecture today, so probably explains how they managed to get away with it.. I do suppose it wouldn't work today..

What's this doing on a Leeds thread ?

Sorry, went off on a tangent but it was related to the last post on page 11 on the comparisons of our cities pre and post-war architecture, it wasn't totally random..

..........Here's one for you!


Tonights YEP Homes section, a new development I have never heard of was advertised.

20/20 House

It says: MPUK presents, 20/20 House, one of Leeds most dynamic, multipurpose development concepts, comprising 242 residential units plus 12,000 sq ft of modern contemporary commercial space.

Anyone know any more? I've never heard of this one- does not say where this is situated, but says that 30% pre released to investors from 1 June

Big advert about this development in the Times 'Bricks and Mortar' supplement of last Friday. (This rarely carries adverts of provincial developments) It mentions that "remarkable sales were achieved in just one day". The advert also includes a good potted history of Leeds ! I know it is in the 'Northern Quarter (used to be called the Leylands) but have failed so far to elicit exactly where. Must be near Skinner Lane/Regent Street though. :)

Getting back to business -

Looks like City Square House is going ahead at last, there is a new board saying that they will be on site in August (presumably 2005).

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1042CitySquareHouse_pic1.jpg

Is it me or does City Square House sit right accross the road according to that picture??

Is it me or does City Square House sit right accross the road according to that picture??

eh? that is the new design for City Square House which is going to be built? So its not across the road from anything except the Queens and Majestyk. good news that its starting, the gap looks messy in city Square and this is quite a fine design. Bit more grade A office space as well.

Is it me or does City Square House sit right accross the road according to that picture??

I can see what you mean - but iy's only a computer rendering. :)

Getting back to business -

Looks like City Square House is going ahead at last, there is a new board saying that they will be on site in August (presumably 2005).

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1042CitySquareHouse_pic1.jpg

Well, the developers obviously thought this had been delayed for long enough! There's a team onsite now, along with a mobile crane and scaffolding going up over what was left of the old building.

eh? that is the new design for City Square House which is going to be built? So its not across the road from anything except the Queens and Majestyk. good news that its starting, the gap looks messy in city Square and this is quite a fine design. Bit more grade A office space as well.


i think he ment it looks as though its built on top of the road leading to the station.

Another surprise when arriving back yesterday after a week away in London, when I saw they've moved onto site. Not sure who the main contractors are, have to have a little nosy around over the next few days.