^^ Liverpool can easily match the hideousness of the old Arndale with our one and only St Johns! MMM the smell of Sayers pasties the beige aesthetic. Wish someone would tear the fucker down.:bash:

^^ There's a need for places like St Johns or Leeds' very own Merrion Centre. A big segment of the market of any town or city wants discount stores, and they need to go somewhere!

^^ Liverpool can easily match the hideousness of the old Arndale with our one and only St Johns! MMM the smell of Sayers pasties the beige aesthetic. Wish someone would tear the fucker down.:bash:

Birmingham tops both Liverpool & Manchester .....



http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/13/89/1138985_b51b7d78.jpg

.... with this!!!!!! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

But thankfully it is being demolished shortly to make way for the 'New' New Street! :)

(Can you imagine the mess this part of town is going to look for a few years .... especially as the metro tram extension will involve digging up Corporation Street & Bull Street to connect with the new station and shopping centre!)

^^ There's a need for places like St Johns or Leeds' very own Merrion Centre. A big segment of the market of any town or city wants discount stores, and they need to go somewhere!

In the Birmingham region, people tend to go to Walsall for discount stores :)

^^ There's a need for places like St Johns or Leeds' very own Merrion Centre. A big segment of the market of any town or city wants discount stores, and they need to go somewhere!


Liverpool's retail core has changed dramatically in recent years. It looks much smarter but St Johns needs serious attention. There was a scheme for a revamp but it was dropped. This might be for the best in the long term as it may lead to demolition rather than a piecemeal update.
Markets are integral to any city centre, agreed but the one in St Johns is dour and dated. I would like to see a redevelopment of the area including Williamson Square in order to provide a new home for the market in a more attractive building. There is a place for discount stores but they dont have to be in such hideous 60's shopping centres.

Birmingham tops both Liverpool & Manchester .....



http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/13/89/1138985_b51b7d78.jpg

.... with this!!!!!! ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

But thankfully it is being demolished shortly to make way for the 'New' New Street! :)

(Can you imagine the mess this part of town is going to look for a few years .... especially as the metro tram extension will involve digging up Corporation Street & Bull Street to connect with the new station and shopping centre!)
If the streets were pedestrianised then even these inacity eyesores would look so much better. With our climate they should all be roofed to encourage cafe's.

It's like keeping the best of the building variety with the warmth and comfort of the out of town mega-mall.

Time for car exclusion zones...all over.

If the streets were pedestrianised then even these inacity eyesores would look so much better. With our climate they should all be roofed to encourage cafe's.

It's like keeping the best of the building variety with the warmth and comfort of the out of town mega-mall.

Time for car exclusion zones...all over.

The Pallasades is grot of the highest order .... only an 'A' bomb could sort that mess out ..... and this is ME talking!! :lol:

The Pallasades is grot of the highest order .... only an 'A' bomb could sort that mess out ..... and this is ME talking!! :lol:

Well, removing concrete panels and replacing with glass (opaque) always helps...Manchester Airport Terminal 1 underwent that operation and it lifts the place very cheaply?

We need to save money not destroy what is there?

Even our Arndale looks better for it's revamp....only the tower now needs some glued panels..perhaps a nice bright sandstone red this time?

Even our Arndale looks better for it's revamp....only the tower now needs some glued panels..perhaps a nice bright sandstone red this time?

Half the Arndale looks ok now, but what's with that godawful side along High Street (with the ancient H Samuel sign), where the modern facade runs out half way along and you're met with beige 1960s tiles? - surely such a well visited location generates enough income to facelift the whole exterior?

Well, removing concrete panels and replacing with glass (opaque) always helps...Manchester Airport Terminal 1 underwent that operation and it lifts the place very cheaply?

We need to save money not destroy what is there?

Even our Arndale looks better for it's revamp....only the tower now needs some glued panels..perhaps a nice bright sandstone red this time?

Terminal 1 looks really good now. The New Street Station area of Birmingham, including the Pallasades Shopping Centre is long overdue a make over, and a lot of it will be a cosmetic re-clad ... but at £650 million, it is going to be some re-clad ..... wouldn't have cost that much more to demolish the lot and start all over again!

Is the Arndale Tower going to be re-clad? Really like that building, it reminds me of buildings in some Canadian cities .... functional, but something smart about it that has stood the test of time well.

50 Story Inter-continental Hotel tower rumours keep coming...

103m Tower
72m Co-Op HQ building (surely the best city centre regional building of the modern age)

ADUG development.
BBC about to move in
£3bn Metrolink expansion rapidly approaching new tram time

Great stuff. Whatatown.

This place will be dynamite for us again soon. ;)

50 Story Inter-continental Hotel tower rumours keep coming...




"I heard from a good source that a large property firm are currently advising on this site for a 50 storey building...." (From the Manchester threads)

With Manchester's recent history .... "dynamite" probably not the best term of phrase!

..... lots of rumours down the pub though ..... fingers crossed! :)

"I heard from a good source that a large property firm are currently advising on this site for a 50 storey building...." (From the Manchester threads)

..... lots of rumours down the pub though ..... fingers crossed! :)

God, I hope so. It will make for a much more coherent skyline and proper bulk...then would just need No1 Spinningfields to be announced to have 3 150m+ all within 200 yds of each other..

Still just another one for now would be fine.

God, I hope so. It will make for a much more coherent skyline and proper bulk...then would just need No1 Spinningfields to be announced to have 3 150m+ all within 200 yds of each other..

Still just another one for now would be fine.

This would be top drawer stuff for Manchester ... hope all goes well :)

Tightening Birmingham Rents Hint At Tall Future
Skyscrapernews.com

Another indication that perhaps the British property market is starting to come out of recession is the improvement of grade A office rents outside London, with CB Richard Ellis showing that prices have stopped falling in Birmingham.
Since 2008 the rents have slid from £33 per square foot to £27.50 per square foot whilst take up has fallen from 959,317 square feet in 2008 to 657,280 square feet in 2009. So far in 2010 it has run at 546,000 square feet for the first ten months of the year, which if annualised is a slight decrease on 2009.

Despite this, what's driving rental levels to harden is that very little grade A space is being built in Birmingham now, a pattern repeated all over the country.

In London this has already translated into a shortage of suitable new buildings coming on to the market, and thus a competition between developers to build approved skyscrapers - a relatively easy way possible to provide a large amount of prestigious square feet in a central location if you already have planning permission.

Birmingham, like London, also sees some major rental deals in excess of 100,000 square feet, but is running out of constructed buildings that can accommodate them although there are schemes like Kenmore's 1 Snow Hill Plaza (118 metres) and British Land's 103 Colmore Row (160 metres) waiting in the wings.


Fingers crossed for these two too ^^!

Half the Arndale looks ok now, but what's with that godawful side along High Street (with the ancient H Samuel sign), where the modern facade runs out half way along and you're met with beige 1960s tiles? - surely such a well visited location generates enough income to facelift the whole exterior?

Apparently that section of the Arndale is owned by the Council.(not sure that is 100% accurate) It probably explains why that section of the Arndale was never reclad by the Arndale Owners. The back of the Boots section of the Arndale, not visible on Market Street, still has the yellow tiles on as well.

I'm ashamed, so ashamed, when I hear Manchester proclaimed as Britain's 2nd city. This is a great country, and you just don't deserve that title. You're not good enough. The "pretty little postcard" places you describe (I imagine you're referring to my listing of Oxford, Cambridge, Lincoln, Canterbury, Bath, etc) piss all over Manchester's architecture from a great height. You're not a hair on their arse. Lincoln or Canterbury cathedrals alone have infinitely more architecture and beauty than your entire city. What have you got to rival the gorgeous quadrangles of honey coloured gothic stone, and skyline of dreaming spires, to rival Oxford or Cambridge? What have you got to rival Bath's Circus, Crescent, or Roman Baths? They piss all over you too. Your architecture is shit. Manchester is simply a largeish concentration of ugly milltown mediocrity. You have no greatness and no beauty. That's why I'm insulted at the Manc presumption to be "Britain's second city".

like i said ,i have no connections with manchester at all, dont make assumptions just because i am defending it, just like visting thats all, there is certain vibe there. i am a lancastrian and live between wigan and st helens (merseyside). i am closer to liverpool as the crow flies which is also far superior to those dull, little english towns you mention:)

best of both worlds for me, london just two hours away,nice for a short visit but would hate to live there

ashamed of manchester being called the countries second city, manchester has the potential to be truley great,problem is this is the uk.

tell you what will be shaming ,the olympics, i am already embarrased over the stadium, jesus wet, its so naff and obviously done on the cheap. we must be a laughing stock, london dont fuck this up for us:ohno:

Spot the churches!!


Bridgewater Place 110*m
Sky Plaza 103*m
Opal Tower 82*m
West Riding House 80*m
Park Plaza Hotel 77*m
Tower North Central 77*m
K2 74*m
Cottingley Heights 72*m
Cottingley Towers 72*m
Broadcasting Place 69*m
Candle House 69*m
West Point 65*m
St. Bartholomew's Chur.. 57*m
Church of St. Augustin.. 57*m
St. Chad's Church 57*m
Blue 54*m
City House 52*m
St. Matthias Church 51*m

why are you even using these figures??? emporis is so out of date it is untrue

1 Leeds > Bridgewater Place 110.00 32 Office Residential 2007 Complete
2 Leeds > Sky Plaza 103.00 37 Residential Retail 2009 Complete
3 Leeds > Opal 3 82.00 * 27 Residential Retail 2008 Complete
4 Leeds > West Riding House 80.00 20 Office Retail 1973 Complete
5 Leeds > Park Plaza Hotel 77.00 20 Hotel Retail 1966 Complete
6 Leeds > Tower North Central 77.00 19 Office None 1967 Complete
7 Leeds > Candle House 75.00 * 23 Residential Retail 2009 Complete
8 Leeds > Cottingley Towers 72.00 25 Residential None 1972 Complete
9 Leeds > Cottingley Heights 72.00 25 Residential None 1972 Complete
10 Leeds > Broadcasting Place 69.50 23 University Residential 2009 Complete
11 Leeds > Leeds Town Hall 68.60 – Government Clock Tower 1858 Complete
12 Leeds > West Point 65.00 17 Residential Retail 2005 Complete
13 Leeds > Leeds Civic Hall 65.00 * 6 Government None 1933 Complete
14 Leeds > K2 65.00 20 Residential Office 1972 Complete
15 Leeds > Clarence House 61.50 20 Residential Retail 2008 Complete
16 Leeds > City Island - Phase 2 61.00 * 20 Residential Office 2007 Complete
17 Leeds > Parkinson Building 57.00 5 University Clock Tower 1951 Complete
18 Leeds > Castle House 56.00 * 14 Office None – Complete
19 Leeds > Blue 54.00 16 Residential Retail 2004 Complete
20 Leeds > 1 City Square 54.00 * 12 Office None 1997 Complete
21 Leeds > Bond Court 52.00 * 13 Office None – Complete
22 Leeds > City House 52.00 15 Office Retail 1962 Complete
23 Leeds > LMU Block F 52.00 * 13 University None – Complete
24 Leeds > Whitehall Waterfront 50.00 * 16 Residential None 2004 Complete
25 Leeds > Nuffield Private Hospital 50.00 * 12 Hospitals None 2003 Complete

why are you even using these figures??? emporis is so out of date it is untrue

They were all I had to hand. Wiggley thinks Leeds is more dense. It is difficult to obtain a list of Manchester's buildings because there are just so many.

I know Wiggles did a spread-sheet about 1-2 years ago of new builds since 2000 and he showed Manchester with more 50m+ constructed than Brum & Leeds combined.....adding to our already beloved stock (CIS, City,North, Arndale etc).

There are a couple of high-rises near City Tower which never get a mention at all on the Manchester forum, not a dicky bird..they would be in Leeds Top 10.

They were all I had to hand. Wiggley thinks Leeds is more dense. It is difficult to obtain a list of Manchester's buildings because there are just so many.

I know Wiggles did a spread-sheet about 1-2 years ago of new builds since 2000 and he showed Manchester with more 50m+ constructed than Brum & Leeds combined.....adding to our already beloved stock (CIS, City,North, Arndale etc).

There are a couple of high-rises near City Tower which never get a mention at all on the Manchester forum, not a dicky bird..they would be in Leeds Top 10.

BIRMINGHAM

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss206/unauthorisedentry/DSC_6332-1.jpg



Wiggley can dream on ....... ^^

If you were to turn round and face the other way you would see Edgbaston Five Ways .... which is as impressive as the Leeds skyline!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v173/Robdann/Tower%20Blocks%207/Birmingham5thDec200752.jpg

EDGBASTON ^^

They were all I had to hand. Wiggley thinks Leeds is more dense.

Have you considered getting a map of Leeds and Manchester City Centres then plotting the taller buildings on? Seems better than several thousand posts of bullshit.

Have you considered getting a map of Leeds and Manchester City Centres then plotting the taller buildings on? Seems better than several thousand posts of bullshit.

Well, I like posting Boards, and have neither the skills or time to do so.

Wiggley has shown numerous maps and diagrams and I would have thought he would quickly have drawn one up for Leeds.

It has not been posted because the 10mins to plot Leeds 10 buildings above 50m is fine.
Asking to plot Manchester's 50m+ birds is taking several days. As I mentioned within 100yrds of City Tower are at least 2 large office towers that never get mentioned, never photographed and have unknown (here) names. Both built in the sixties.

The scale of buildings in Manchester is getting too large for Wiggles to graph, spreadsheet or list!

Another 103m and 72m buildings going up now. The 72m build (Co-op) being easily the best UK regional office building for scale and wow factor.

Sorry to bore you Boards but this is the bashing thread and Wiggles has his pants down on this one. All ends up. Sheep baying.

Lol funny stuff.

It was you and several other forrumers going on about how the skyline high rise density in Manchester wipes the floor of Leeds' high rise density. I've already conclusively shown this is untrue and that actually the high rise density of the Leeds skyline is infact more than double the density of that of Manchesters.

A picture by Leeds Troll did appear to be the most impressive of the many skyline shots posted. Just my humble op.

This one,

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot826.png

A picture by Leeds Troll did appear to be the most impressive of the many skyline shots posted. Just my humble op.

This one,

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot826.png

"Skyline"

Density is not that though is it. No one who has been to Manchester can say it lacks density on UK terms.

Well no one sane.

for a wider shot here's one by jrb

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/MANCHESTER6.jpg?t=1289592069

Taken this morning. I am looking forward to snow on the hills and it getting dark earlier. Much opportunity for photos from here.

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/1012/dsc03263f.jpg

Difficult to get Manchester density shots in due to the topography.

I like the Leeds pano..you can see every significant building easily...Manchester hides them well due to the bulk and density!

[QUOTE=man med;37510884]http://www.insearchofunicorns.com/rooftop_ramada_hotel/2_DSC_0021-DSC_0030_1024x0307.jpg

The three talls hidden behind City Tower...in Leeds they would be prominent!
One a 25 storey office block whose name escapes me

Beetham in background

A picture by Leeds Troll did appear to be the most impressive of the many skyline shots posted. Just my humble op.

This one,

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot826.png

From that distance the Sky Plaza etc cluster looks really good.

for a wider shot here's one by jrb

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/MANCHESTER6.jpg?t=1289592069

Not by me that man. I just photomerged all the pictures. It's off Flickr. I still have to give credit. I Will find the photogrpher.

BTW, that picture of Leeds Boards commented on, is indeed a splendid skyline shot.

Taking nothing away form it, but it does show the true vlaue pf undulating land, compared to a flat plain.

Irlam O' Th Heights, Salford.

This is probably one of the best, or one of the very few places that you can get a proper shot of the Manchester City Centre skyline. Unfortunately the land around that area still isn't high enough to get over the trees, houses, etc, to get a proper shot.

However, there is a fire station close by with a tower. Perhaps a nice letter to the officer in charge of the station, plus a donation to his chosen charity, could secure an accompanied trip to the top of the tower.

You can see the possibilities in both of these shots.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1037/5181460337_e6feeedf78_z.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1022/5181461267_bf915c2061_z.jpg

Frankldw:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/3358066242_2a0d2254a9_b.jpg

Not too bad.
Buildings to right include an 80m, same height as the yellow Arndale. But because in the Irwell `valley' much lower on the horizon than the surrounding plain.

Frankldw:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/3358066242_2a0d2254a9_b.jpg

Not too bad.
Buildings to right include an 80m, same height as the yellow Arndale. But because in the Irwell `valley' much lower on the horizon than the surrounding plain.

But it still doesn't show a close up shot of the City centre, TBH. There's a semi decent picture floating about, taken from OT. Some of the city centre buildings are blocked out and obscured by the warehouse, to the left of OT.

Stick the 73 metre COOP HQ in front and slighty to the left of Urbis, and add the 103 metre Wakefield Street tower, just off picture, to the left.

The view from OT at White City to the city centre is pretty cool..a wall of Beetham, CJC just blocking out the terrain..mighty impressive.

Does anyone know how to stop all the traffic for a piccy?

The view from OT at White City to the city centre is pretty cool..a wall of Beetham, CJC just blocking out the terrain..mighty impressive.

Does anyone know how to stop all the traffic for a piccy?

If you could get on the roof of that warehouse next to OT, then you would have the money shot. Unfortunately I'm not prepared to risk death for the sake of it. :lol:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/3358066242_2a0d2254a9_b.jpg

Everyone is quick to shoot down Leeds skyline, but looking at this skyline pic I fail to see how this is any better.

Everyone is quick to shoot down Leeds skyline, but looking at this skyline pic I fail to see how this is any better.

Because Leeds is looking at the side of a hill. It has houses on it. That is not a `skyline'.

It has very few mid to high rise buildings.

It is just looking at a hillside?

I suppose scale, buildings in the 60m range are lost in Manchester, but would be fairly prominent in Leeds.

^^ except theyre not.

Many look small becaue they are so distant - due to the low density of the skyline with them being so far away.

Look at skyline central, its 63m and is the 6th tallest building in the photo, and is very prominant. Other 63m buildings are so far away, several miles away, they look tiny. This is the unfortunate nature of havin a very low desnity spaced out skyline.

No1 Deansgate at 63m looks tiny in the photo above. Not because its small and lost amongst taller buildings, but because it is so far away. Bring it right next to skyline central, and it would be the 6/7th most prominant building in that photo rather than the 25th.

Because Leeds is looking at the side of a hill. It has houses on it. That is not a `skyline'.

It has very few mid to high rise buildings.

It is just looking at a hillside?

There are 13 Buildings in Leeds that are around 70m+.

There are over 30 Buildings in Leeds that are 50m+

:bash:

There are 13 Buildings in Leeds that are around 70m+.

There are over 30 Buildings in Leeds that are 50m+

:bash:

That maybe the case, and if those figures are correct, then fair enough. What can't be dismissed is that the Leeds skyline is accentuated by the undulating land it is built on. That fact can't be argued or ignored.

Just think for one second. (I know it isn't) But just imagine what the Leeds skyline would look like if it were built on a flat plain like Manchester or on a River front like Liverpool. Just like Birmigham(to an extent) and Sheffield(more so), Leeds and the Leeds skyline benefits in no small part due to it's location, rather than a large number of tall buildings.

I think that is a very fair appraisal. And no, I'm not having a pop at Leeds and it's skyline.

The 72m build (Co-op) being easily the best UK regional office building for scale and wow factor.



Oh no it wont, this will be Snowhill office 2 in Birmingham which is just about to start construction again. :)

The 72m build (Co-op) being easily the best UK regional office building for scale and wow factor.



Oh no it wont, this will be Snowhill office 2 in Birmingham which is just about to start construction again. :)

Cladding will be glass, rigght?

So basically it will be reflecting concrete.

Oui?

Is the Arndale Tower going to be re-clad?

My personal theory: Yes

The reason is, the yellow tiles seem to be falling off. Inside the arndale, the rooflights in the areas surrounding the base of the tower have been covered up with netting and scaffolding for over a year. This is obviously to protect them against objects falling from the tower. Since the windows are sealed, the only objects that can fall off are the tiles themselves. The section of yellow tiles behind Boots has also been covered up with netting as well.

As yet there is nothing rumoured or official on when or if any removations will take place. But the arndale has been filling its empty units lately but this could be a blessing as well as a curse.

So??????????????????????????

Just like Beetham hilton in Manchester is reflecting concrete???????

The 72m build (Co-op) being easily the best UK regional office building for scale and wow factor.



Oh no it wont, this will be Snowhill office 2 in Birmingham which is just about to start construction again. :)

I love a straight one on one fight. :)

Narr.

http://www.urbanrealm.co.uk/images/news/news_2483.jpg

tB4jXIu5A8w&feature=player_embedded

Care to post a pic of phase 2.(not sure which building it is)

So??????????????????????????

Just like Beetham hilton in Manchester is reflecting concrete???????

There ain't no concrete reflecting on Beetham Manchester matey.(only Victorian red brick, glass and steel) Your mixing it up with Beetham Birmingham.

I do like the co-op hq building and i really do hope it turns out looking as good as the renders. Snowhill phase 2 is more of a high quality infill office block rather than an iconic building, both have there purpose and hopefully these will be rising at the same time so we have some good construction updates on here again.

There ain't no concrete reflecting on Beetham Manchester matey.(only Victorian red brick, glass and steel) Your mixing it up with Beetham Birmingham.

lol well said mate :lol:

Sorry m8, couldnt upload pics of 2 snowhill but here is a link, LOL

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/imagesall.php?self=nse&ref=5158&idi=Two+Snowhill&selfidi=5158TwoSnowhill_pic1.jpg&no=1

Naah sorry, Manchester's is better. Brum's buildings looks average, lacking in originality, pretty plain. The same can't be said for Co-op, interesting design and high quality cladding.

A new render for Wellington place, which will be one of Europe's largest office park. 2.7 Million square foot of office leisure etc.

New Render, planning application sent to council
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5IYC6S-YnQ4/TMAY5pTY7BI/AAAAAAAAADU/PLPaz-QF-M8/s1600/Number+10.JPG
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7051/wellington.jpg

Approved building (below) will sit at other side of above building
http://www.rudi.net/files/paper/illustrations/wellington01.jpg
Another New render, sorry about the quality. Wellington 3 planning application recently sent to council for approval.
http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot840.png

Current state of Wellington place
http://www.leedsarchitectureawards.co.uk/images/green.jpg
Gives idea of huge size of Wellington
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/wp-content/uploads/wellington-availability.jpg
http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/assets/_files/cached/img/310x207/feb_10/businessdesk__1266513880_Greening2.jpg?access=604T778T840

Whitehall Riverside. Most is completed.
1m Square-foot of mostly office and living.
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3631/whitehallriverside6ts.jpg
One of the three office blocks completed
http://www.propertyweek.com/pictures/458xAny/6/9/0/1660690_whitehall_riverside.jpg

Unfortunately the other two blocks have been waiting for construction for a a while now. Makes no sense when 100% Let and recentley this happened
London & Stamford has sold 1 Whitehall Riverside in Leeds to NFU Mutual Insurance Society for £51.3m, around nine months after buying it for £37.6m.
http://www.propertyweek.com/london-and-stamford-sells-leeds-office-for-£51m/3158576.article

So far total is 3.million square foot. Even more developments planned literally opposite over more wasteland.
Four Grade A office blocks planned, one already completed.
http://www.controlsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/Images/Latitude.jpg

So yeah, pretty much what to expect over this part of Leeds. When South Bank renders come through, which should come in the next year we will see more retail/offices etc. Southbank surrounds Clarence dock, where Tetley's brewery recently left leaving wasteland. And there is the under construction 1m+ Square foot trinity Leeds retail, and the 1m Square foot retail Eastgate as well which in the last few months been submitted to the council.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/23/1285278888823/Eastgate-Quarters-1-leeds-001.jpg

Looks like Telford ^^

Looks like Telford ^^

Same old shit with you isn't it :lol:

Cladding will be glass, rigght?

So basically it will be reflecting concrete.

Oui?

No ... it will be reflecting these ...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2587/3825302381_cd98fd237e_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3300/3475407217_bafa0fae46.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2759/4089555472_2275b7ab02_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3646/3679446622_47019bfc5a_b.jpg
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j129/van_heckler/1-20.gifhttp://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w314/concretelover/alke1.jpg

..... and not LEGO!!!!! :lol:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/23/1285278888823/Eastgate-Quarters-1-leeds-001.jpg

I dont like all of that postmodern shite.

A new render for Wellington place, which will be one of Europe's largest office park. 2.7 Million square foot of office leisure etc.

New Render, planning application sent to council
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5IYC6S-YnQ4/TMAY5pTY7BI/AAAAAAAAADU/PLPaz-QF-M8/s1600/Number+10.JPG
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7051/wellington.jpg

Approved building (below) will sit at other side of above building
http://www.rudi.net/files/paper/illustrations/wellington01.jpg
Another New render, sorry about the quality. Wellington 3 planning application recently sent to council for approval.
http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot840.png

Current state of Wellington place
http://www.leedsarchitectureawards.co.uk/images/green.jpg
Gives idea of huge size of Wellington
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/wp-content/uploads/wellington-availability.jpg
http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/assets/_files/cached/img/310x207/feb_10/businessdesk__1266513880_Greening2.jpg?access=604T778T840

Whitehall Riverside. Most is completed.
1m Square-foot of mostly office and living.
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3631/whitehallriverside6ts.jpg
One of the three office blocks completed
http://www.propertyweek.com/pictures/458xAny/6/9/0/1660690_whitehall_riverside.jpg

Unfortunately the other two blocks have been waiting for construction for a a while now. Makes no sense when 100% Let and recentley this happened
London & Stamford has sold 1 Whitehall Riverside in Leeds to NFU Mutual Insurance Society for £51.3m, around nine months after buying it for £37.6m.
http://www.propertyweek.com/london-and-stamford-sells-leeds-office-for-£51m/3158576.article

So far total is 3.million square foot. Even more developments planned literally opposite over more wasteland.
Four Grade A office blocks planned, one already completed.
http://www.controlsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/Images/Latitude.jpg

So yeah, pretty much what to expect over this part of Leeds. When South Bank renders come through, which should come in the next year we will see more retail/offices etc. Southbank surrounds Clarence dock, where Tetley's brewery recently left leaving wasteland. And there is the under construction 1m+ Square foot trinity Leeds retail, and the 1m Square foot retail Eastgate as well which in the last few months been submitted to the council.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/23/1285278888823/Eastgate-Quarters-1-leeds-001.jpg

Don't forget bankside too!!
http://i32.tinypic.com/9r3scx.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/10zrame.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4146/bankside1resizejr6.jpg

Don't forget bankside too!!
http://i32.tinypic.com/9r3scx.jpg
http://i31.tinypic.com/10zrame.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/4146/bankside1resizejr6.jpg

Can't believe you think these are that good you had to post them again!!!! ^^

They look like a collection of out of town office park buildings ... cheap and nasty!!!! :lol:

Looks like Telford ^^

yes, its hideous..

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2707WellingtonPlaceBlock14_pic1.jpg

http://www.fcbstudios.com/websiteImages.aspx?projNo=1339&rank=3&type=3

yes, its hideous..

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2707WellingtonPlaceBlock14_pic1.jpg

http://www.fcbstudios.com/websiteImages.aspx?projNo=1339&rank=3&type=3

Glad you agree ... appalling ^^ :ohno:

Can't believe you think these are that good you had to post them again!!!! ^^

They look like a collection of out of town office park buildings ... cheap and nasty!!!! :lol:

post them again? hmm i've only ever posted that once :nuts: i think your brain is tripping again, did you forget to take your medication tonight Sandblast :lol:

This is what a modern city centre should look like .... not a collection of plastic student towers, and a gun metal grey awkward looking, shoddily clad office building known as Bridgwater Place...... and the Colmore Circus / Snow Hill district is just a tiny portion of Downtown Birmingham! :)
No ... it will be reflecting these ...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2587/3825302381_cd98fd237e_b.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3300/3475407217_bafa0fae46.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2759/4089555472_2275b7ab02_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3646/3679446622_47019bfc5a_b.jpg
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j129/van_heckler/1-20.gifhttp://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w314/concretelover/alke1.jpg

..... and not LEGO!!!!! :lol:

^^
Funny that sandblast, why is it when ever we see a skyline picture of Brum all you see is horrific concrete horrors dominating the skyline of Birmingham..?

I don't dislike Birmingham but I hearby decree that actually, for all the stupidity of this thread, for all the silliness of many Leeds forumers and for all the crap and good stuff in both Leeds and Birmingham, Sandblast should in fact shut up because he's a bit of a tool.

I don't dislike Birmingham but I hearby decree that actually, for all the stupidity of this thread, for all the silliness of many Leeds forumers and for all the crap and good stuff in both Leeds and Birmingham, Sandblast should in fact shut up because he's a bit of a tool.

This. He's a bit of a one-trick pony...

I don't dislike Birmingham but I hearby decree that actually, for all the stupidity of this thread, for all the silliness of many Leeds forumers and for all the crap and good stuff in both Leeds and Birmingham, Sandblast should in fact shut up because he's a bit of a tool.

My city vs Your city (official city bashing thread) ..... it's obviously going to get a bit silly .... the day a couple of your Yorkshire cousins shut up will be the day I do :)

http://www.flameworx.co.uk/images/spanner-man-300xno%20border.png

My city vs Your city (official city bashing thread) ..... it's obviously going to get a bit silly .... the day a couple of your Yorkshire cousins shut up will be the day I do :)

http://www.flameworx.co.uk/images/spanner-man-300xno%20border.png

Indeed I sense a bit of Stephen Fryness about some people on here.

This is a bashing section.

It is about as dangerous as fencing.

Enjoy the sport.

If you are taking it seriously then hat's off to your alternative universe and do let me know when they unlock the cell door so I can stay indoors that day.

They were all I had to hand. Wiggley thinks Leeds is more dense. It is difficult to obtain a list of Manchester's buildings because there are just so many.

I know Wiggles did a spread-sheet about 1-2 years ago of new builds since 2000 and he showed Manchester with more 50m+ constructed than Brum & Leeds combined.....adding to our already beloved stock (CIS, City,North, Arndale etc).

There are a couple of high-rises near City Tower which never get a mention at all on the Manchester forum, not a dicky bird..they would be in Leeds Top 10.

leeds IS more dense than manchester... manchester is much larger. leeds has an incredibly compact city centre and you can walk from one end to the other in 15 minutes comfortably. here's a shot of the leeds skyline, it's impossible to find anything so dense in manchester. manchester's is of course much bigger but this is real density where things are so close together you have buildings hidden behind buildings.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/940LeedsCBD_pic1.jpg

leeds IS more dense than manchester... manchester is much larger. leeds has an incredibly compact city centre and you can walk from one end to the other in 15 minutes comfortably.

You can run it in just 3 minutes! :lol:

You can run it in just 3 minutes! :lol:

haha yeah basically! this is how dense it is... this is actually looking directly towards where the other picture was taken from (the green hill behind bridgewater place). if you measure it the distance from bridgewater place to sky plaza is almost the length of deansgate! that's how small and dense leeds is.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/941LeedsfromthetopofSkyPlaza_pic1.jpg

or how about this... leeds from the m621 approaching from the south west. you can see again how dense it is, bridgewater place aside which has the train station between it and the city centre.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/942LeedsfromtheM621_pic1.jpg

one day i'll publish our heat maps so people can see the actual highrise density. london, birmingham, leeds and glasgow all beat manchester when it comes to density... but manchester is wayyyyy larger than leeds and glasgow and birmingham in terms of the geographical distribution of high rise buildings.

meanwhile here's manchester... just a few random shots... but it shows you how spread out things are. like it or not the beetham tower pretty much stands alone.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/943ManchesterHiltonfromtheMacdonaldHotel_pic1.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/944ManchesterHiltonandGreatNorthernTower_pic1.jpg

haha yeah basically! this is how dense it is... this is actually looking directly towards where the other picture was taken from (the green hill behind bridgewater place). if you measure it the distance from bridgewater place to sky plaza is almost the length of deansgate! that's how small and dense leeds is.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/941LeedsfromthetopofSkyPlaza_pic1.jpg



Blimey .... Leeds looks incredibly small in that photo ^^ .... not much "concrete" in that image! :lol:

From my experience Bridgewater is surrounded by surface car parks, wide dual carriageways and has a train station between it and any sort of city centre feeling.

It feels much more Salford Quays walking in that area than city centre.

Blimey .... Leeds looks incredibly small in that photo ^^ .... not much "concrete" in that image! :lol:

That's because it is incredibly small.

Cladding will be glass, rigght?

So basically it will be reflecting concrete.

Oui?

VICTORIAN AND 'NO-CONCRETE' METROPOLIS OF LEEDS

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/941LeedsfromthetopofSkyPlaza_pic1.jpg

..... hmmmmmm, lovely ^^:ohno: ........ and looking like a very small place indeed ..... that is Leeds City Centre isn't it ..... aren't Opal and Sky Plaza in Legoland (pardon me) Little London or somewhere?!? :lol:


You've probably never heared the phrase "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" .... and if you have, you probably have no idea what it means! :lol:

Is it just my browser or have none of the recent photos appeared on here?

Is it just my browser or have none of the recent photos appeared on here?

:lol: ^^ changed his 'rose tinted' spectacles to completely blacked out ones!!! :lol:

I tell you what.

That picture re-posted by Sanblast does give a good clue as to why Leeds struggles to develop any sort of mass transit system.

Look how fast urbanity disappears and turns into very low density fields.

You need lots of people all along the route travelling in both directions to pay the bills. Looking at that after a couple of stations only the sheep would be interested in jumping on any trams.

^^Love it ... :lol:

Leeds is essentially a large town surrounded by smaller towns and villages.

Leeds is essentially a large town surrounded by smaller towns and villages.

Leeds is a large town surround by countryside which has a few villages and towns dotted throughout it which are all very much centred upon Leeds.

Be very careful with opening up links like the one above.... think it's how I got my trojan virus!!!

Moderators .... remove it please!

Leeds is a large town surround by countryside which has a few villages and towns dotted throughout it which are all very much centred upon Leeds.

In that case then Leeds must be one hell of a super town to Build a town centre like it has :nuts: all the cities must be doing terribly bad at the side of Leeds town... all the more reason to congratulate Little Leed's success :cheers:

In that case then Leeds must be one hell of a super town to Build a town centre like it has :nuts: all the cities must be doing terribly bad at the side of Leeds town... all the more reason to congratulate Little Leed's success :cheers:

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/941LeedsfromthetopofSkyPlaza_pic1.jpg

"In that case then Leeds must be one hell of a super town to Build a town centre like it has" ^^ :lol: Classic!!!

VICTORIAN AND 'NO-CONCRETE' METROPOLIS OF LEEDS

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/941LeedsfromthetopofSkyPlaza_pic1.jpg

..... hmmmmmm, lovely ^^:ohno: ........ and looking like a very small place indeed ..... that is Leeds City Centre isn't it ..... aren't Opal and Sky Plaza in Legoland (pardon me) Little London or somewhere?!? :lol:
:

Love the photo. If only Leeds did break out into rural rolling hills like that as that picture suggests, it would be much nicer.

To answer some of the comments however, that photo only shows a small portion of the city centre, taken from such a height and high zoom that it brings the background much closer in the picture. I think everyone is being a little disingenuous by pretending that thin slither of city centre build up is the entire city centre.

Also, the photo looks out southwards onto a park, and onto the only parts of Leeds where the urbanity is inturrepted unusually soon due to swirls of rural strips

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/urbanleeds.jpg

[QUOTE=wiggleyleeds;67423059]Love the photo. If only Leeds did break out into rural rolling hills like that as that picture suggests, it would be much nicer.

To answer some of the comments however, that photo only shows a small portion of the city centre, taken from such a height and high zoom that it brings the background much closer in the picture. I think everyone is being a little disingenuous by pretending that thin slither of city centre build up is the entire city centre.Also, the photo looks out southwards onto a park, and onto the only parts of Leeds where the urbanity is inturrepted unusually soon due to swirls of rural strips

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/941LeedsfromthetopofSkyPlaza_pic1.jpg

"I think everyone is being a little disingenuous by pretending that thin slither of city centre build up is the entire city centre."

But your only other buildings of any size ... i.e. Opal and Sky Plaza you keep telling me aren't in Leeds City centre, but actually in Little London.

Tell us .... apart from Broadcasting Place ... what building of any note, worth mentioning, isn't included in that image above....... we're waiting Wigsy! :)

http://www.naikidbydesign.co.uk/image/Birmingham%20Pan.jpg

What building is worth mentioning apart from rotunda sandblast?

Lets get straight to the point actually, there isnt fuck all is there?, Birmingham is home to horrific concrete turds which belong on a council estate in moscow russia!

Oh Lord! It's kicked off again. :cripes:

[IMG]What building is worth mentioning apart from rotunda sandblast?

You've even chosen an image of a Rotunda in it's 'old clothes' :lol:

Every building on there over 70 metres is in a different league to Legoland Leeds ....

..... even Centre City Tower

http://www.yses.co.uk/blogimagesallsites/centre-city002edit




:lol: :cheers:

What building is worth mentioning apart from rotunda sandblast?

Lets get straight to the point actually, there isnt fuck all is there?, Birmingham is home to horrific concrete turds which belong on a council estate in moscow russia!

:lol:

It is true tho. in that whole panorama skyline posted above of Birmingham (Concretia) there is not one building of note


*cue sandblast posting 100 pictures of different buildings in birmingham fromt very select angles, highighting how rattled he is* :)

You've even chosen an image of a Rotunda in it's 'old clothes' :lol:

Every building on there over 70 metres is in a different league to Legoland Leeds:lol: :cheers:

oh please sandblast, why don't you open your eyes for once, Brum is just a 1960s/1970s concrete paradise shithole, there isn't one Building in Birmingham which is even one league ahead of anything built in Leeds including The horrific student tower called Opal tower!!, i really do find it funny how you can even comment on architecture in Leeds when Brum would easily win the award for being the ugliest city in the UK if there was such an award!!

http://www.yses.co.uk/blogimagesallsites/centre-city002edit




:lol: :cheers:


That is beautiful i can just see where your coming from now :nuts:


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/jamespdavey/DSC_0972.jpg


Utter Fail!!, Prime location :lol: i hope not lol :shifty:





Why do you never Mention Granary wharf?

City Inn Hotelhttp://farm5.static.flickr.com/4023/4710062502_facb43fc12.jpg

Watermans Place

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4710062492_49de5390d2.jpg


Candle House
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4710062506_3d62bcd758_z.jpg

leeds IS more dense than manchester... manchester is much larger. here's a shot of the leeds skyline, it's impossible to find anything so dense in manchester.

london, birmingham, leeds and glasgow all beat manchester when it comes to density...

Exactly. For +50m density, Leeds is more than double the density of Manchester.

Leeds has 24 +50m buildings in its city centre. Manchester has 35 +50m buildings within the inner ring road. Leeds city centre is less than half the size of the area that pertains to the inner ring road.

For manchester to even match Leeds' highrise density, it would have to have more than 48 +50m buildings within the inner ring road. And thats assuming the inner ring road area is twice as large as leeds city centre.. its larger!

Manchester Buildings +50m within the inner ring road.
zenith building 50m ats site block1 57m pall mall tower 67m
ats site block2 51m minshull st courts 57m jefferson place 70m
82 king street 52m st james building 60m great north tower 72m
no1 marsden street 53m chancery place 60m 3 hardman street 75m
unite tower 55m maths & scnce blng 60m portland tower 80m
bank chambers 55m 1 deansgate 62m CJC 80m
st james house 55m albert bridge 64m north tower 80m
royal exchange 55m skyline central 65m town hall 87m
3 picadilly place 55m tempus tower 64m arndale 90m
leftbank aptmnts 56m 111 picadilly 64m city tower 107m
ramada hotel 56m le meridien hotel 66m cis 118m
beetham 157m


Leeds City Centre +50m
lmu block c 50m clarence house 62m sky plaza 105m
whiitehall wtr 50m civic hall 65m BWP 110m
nuffield 50m west point 65m
city house 52m k2 65m
lmu block f 52m town hall 69m
bond court 52m broadcasting place 70m
1 city square 54m candle house 75m
blue 54m tower north 77m
castle house 56m park plaza 77m
parkinson building 57m west riding house 80m
city island 2 61m opal 82m

oh please sandblast, why don't you open your eyes for once, Brum is just a 1960s/1970s concrete paradise shithole, there isn't one Building in Birmingham which is even one league ahead of anything built in Leeds including The horrific student tower called Opal tower!!, i really do find it funny how you can even comment on architecure in Leeds when Brum would easily win the award for being the ugliest city in the UK if there was such an award!!

Actually, I really like Hyatt Tower, and about 2 others. The trouble is they make up just a tiny fraction of all the buildings +50m. The overwhelming majority are indeed horrific monsters.

Actually, I really like Hyatt Tower, and about 2 others. The trouble is they make up just a tiny fraction of all the buildings +50m. The overwhelming majority are indeed horrific monsters.

Well you got a point, i could agree with Hyatt tower i must admit, but i think Birmingham is ruined by so much ugly concrete 1960/1970s monstrosities, and because of that you don't notice anything but that type of trap.

Indeed I sense a bit of Stephen Fryness about some people on here.

This is a bashing section.

It is about as dangerous as fencing.

Enjoy the sport.

If you are taking it seriously then hat's off to your alternative universe and do let me know when they unlock the cell door so I can stay indoors that day.

I'm not sure what Stephen Fryness is I'm afraid. I am a big fan of the sport, this thread is always a laugh!! Trouble is, some jokes get tired when they get repeated over and over again, particularly if they didn't have much in them to begin with.

Sadly, Sandblast's attempts at fun city bashing are about as entertaining as fencing*.


*I never thought much of fencing.

This subforum used to be interesting, and after what happened to me on tuesday (I fence twice a week) I can clarify that Fencing is actually quite dangerous.

Exactly. For +50m density, Leeds is more than double the density of Manchester.

Leeds has 24 +50m buildings in its city centre. Manchester has 35 +50m buildings within the inner ring road. Leeds city centre is less than half the size of the area that pertains to the inner ring road.

For manchester to even match Leeds' highrise density, it would have to have more than 48 +50m buildings within the inner ring road. And thats assuming the inner ring road area is twice as large as leeds city centre.. its larger!

Manchester Buildings +50m within the inner ring road.
zenith building 50m ats site block1 57m pall mall tower 67m
ats site block2 51m minshull st courts 57m jefferson place 70m
82 king street 52m st james building 60m great north tower 72m
no1 marsden street 53m chancery place 60m 3 hardman street 75m
unite tower 55m maths & scnce blng 60m portland tower 80m
bank chambers 55m 1 deansgate 62m CJC 80m
st james house 55m albert bridge 64m north tower 80m
royal exchange 55m skyline central 65m town hall 87m
3 picadilly place 55m tempus tower 64m arndale 90m
leftbank aptmnts 56m 111 picadilly 64m city tower 107m
ramada hotel 56m le meridien hotel 66m cis 118m
beetham 157m


Leeds City Centre +50m
lmu block c 50m clarence house 62m sky plaza 105m
whiitehall wtr 50m civic hall 65m BWP 110m
nuffield 50m west point 65m
city house 52m k2 65m
lmu block f 52m town hall 69m
bond court 52m broadcasting place 70m
1 city square 54m candle house 75m
blue 54m tower north 77m
castle house 56m park plaza 77m
parkinson building 57m west riding house 80m
city island 2 61m opal 82m

So you agree. Manchester has more taller buildings than Leeds. :) Thank you. :bowtie: (TBH we already knew that) Add another tall 2 talls under construction and the smiles gets even bigger. Now all we need is the same undulating land that gives Leeds, and the Leeds skyline, it's false perspective.

Well you got a point, i could agree with Hyatt tower i must admit, but i think Birmingham is ruined by so much ugly concrete 1960/1970s monstrosities, and because of that you don't notice anything but that type of trap.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/941LeedsfromthetopofSkyPlaza_pic1.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/5156223880_a4fcaa701e_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1410/4608902452_e699727813_b.jpg

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt118/awaren8/DSCF5675-1.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3591172103_6dceb7d2f1_b.jpg

The completion of Candle House must have improved this view ENORMOUSLY! ^^



Comments by Leeds forumers on the Leeds threads .....

"The Crown House image makes Leeds modern architecture look hideous. West Point is a disaster and City Island stinks" ... di Livio

"Oh di Livio, why did you have to post those pics? It makes you weep to think of what we have swept away in the name of progress." aviator

"Tragic seeing the demolition of old Victorian stuff for the Leeds Shopping Plaza and Magistrates Court. Surely Leeds would have been a lot better architecturally if there was a lot more old stuff retained." Val Verde

"To be fair though, only Broadcasting Place and Candle House are ones that are worth bragging about, in my opinion at least. Leeds desperately needs some more quality talls, preferably on the south bank of the river." Yorkshire Boy

"The 1974 pic looks better btw with a more impressive lookin skyline." ..... guess who ... Wiggleyleeds

So you agree. Manchester has more taller buildings than Leeds. :) Thank you. :bowtie: (TBH we already knew that) Add another tall 2 talls under construction and the smiles gets even bigger. Now all we need is the same undulating land that gives Leeds, and the Leeds skyline, it's false perspective.

I think you and The Fly have yet to understand the point in question.

"The Crown House image makes Leeds modern architecture look hideous. West Point is a disaster and City Island stinks" ... di Livio

"Oh di Livio, why did you have to post those pics? It makes you weep to think of what we have swept away in the name of progress." aviator

"Tragic seeing the demolition of old Victorian stuff for the Leeds Shopping Plaza and Magistrates Court. Surely Leeds would have been a lot better architecturally if there was a lot more old stuff retained." Val Verde

"To be fair though, only Broadcasting Place and Candle House are ones that are worth bragging about, in my opinion at least. Leeds desperately needs some more quality talls, preferably on the south bank of the river." Yorkshire Boy

"The 1974 pic looks better btw with a more impressive lookin skyline." ..... guess who ... Wiggleyleeds

What are you trying to say Sandblast? If it's what I think it is (:ohno:) then there's no hope for you....

I think you know what I am trying to say, 10123 :)

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/941LeedsfromthetopofSkyPlaza_pic1.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4131/5156223880_a4fcaa701e_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1410/4608902452_e699727813_b.jpg

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt118/awaren8/DSCF5675-1.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3591172103_6dceb7d2f1_b.jpg

The completion of Candle House must have improved this view ENORMOUSLY! ^^



Comments by Leeds forumers on the Leeds threads .....

"The Crown House image makes Leeds modern architecture look hideous. West Point is a disaster and City Island stinks" ... di Livio

"Oh di Livio, why did you have to post those pics? It makes you weep to think of what we have swept away in the name of progress." aviator

"Tragic seeing the demolition of old Victorian stuff for the Leeds Shopping Plaza and Magistrates Court. Surely Leeds would have been a lot better architecturally if there was a lot more old stuff retained." Val Verde

"To be fair though, only Broadcasting Place and Candle House are ones that are worth bragging about, in my opinion at least. Leeds desperately needs some more quality talls, preferably on the south bank of the river." Yorkshire Boy

"The 1974 pic looks better btw with a more impressive lookin skyline." ..... guess who ... Wiggleyleeds

This chestnut taken by Wiggleyleeds sums Leeds up totally .... note the lack of concrete and glory at all the shimmering glass and marble!

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/Picturescan011b.jpg

Consider yourself well and truly bashed Leeds!!! :cheers:

Nite, nite .... Celeb on shortly :)

Imagine that on Henman Hill. Sorry, Leeds mound.(note: no Beetham Tower, City Tower, CIS Tower, Wakefield Street, etc, etc)


http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/33019-1/cb18310.jpg

Thankfully for Leeds(and mainly Wiggs) Manchester's more taller buildings, and it's denser and more midrises, are built on a flat plain.

Wiggs, you can have your limited density, enhanced by your mound. We''ll keep our taller buildings and much wider skyline, on our flat plain. :)

Sounds fair to me.

PS. Mediacity is over there. That way.

Thanks for that last image of Leeds, I like how the brick from Granary wharfe and the other buildings contrast with the silver clad buildigns, excellent find! :)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3591172103_6dceb7d2f1_b.jpg
...

So to conclude; Leeds is significantly more dense than Manchester.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/940LeedsCBD_pic1.jpg

But of course, Leeds is built on the side of a mountain so all the buildings are in view. WRONG!
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/88089115.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=6C4008C0FD9EB5A57BCDCDBB03F5168415462912C896915A0694B6EEEE9E0532
http://i.pbase.com/o6/58/436158/1/71657973.aISWhyzb.IMGP3918.JPG
http://k41.pbase.com/o5/96/198496/1/67837816.4THpWlct.ParkRowLeeds.jpg
Interesting to see the 50-60m buildings not even showing on the skyline shot.

I think you and The Fly have yet to understand the point in question.

I think your missing the point completely. Then again. having Wiggs as your pied piper, explains everything. Ouch!

Before I log off jrb ... what's that building, to the left about half way down ... looks brown in colour but don't remember it as being brown when I was in Manchester a couple of weeks ago? It's not all that tall, but has a certain class about it ... something like this Leeds could do with.

"Thanks for that last image of Leeds, I like how the brick from Granary wharfe and the other buildings contrast with the silver clad buildigns, excellent find!" (10123)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3591172103_6dceb7d2f1_b.jpg

My pleasure 10123 .... there, I've posted it for you again..... now go to bed before the men with white coats come and get you! :lol:

(It's "Granary Wharf", btw .... and "buildings" I know you're getting over excited, just take a deep breath)

Thanks for that last image of Leeds, I like how the brick from Granary wharfe and the other buildings contrast with the silver clad buildigns, excellent find! :)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3591172103_6dceb7d2f1_b.jpg
...

So to conclude; Leeds is significantly more dense than Manchester.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/940LeedsCBD_pic1.jpg

But of course, Leeds is built on the side of a mountain so all the buildings are in view. WRONG!
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/88089115.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=6C4008C0FD9EB5A57BCDCDBB03F5168415462912C896915A0694B6EEEE9E0532
http://i.pbase.com/o6/58/436158/1/71657973.aISWhyzb.IMGP3918.JPG
Interesting to see the 50-60m buildings not even showing on the skyline shot.

I mean. How can Manchester compete with that square metre of density and those wonderful buildings? :lol:

Keep your mound, your square metre of density and your blandness.

Give me more taller towers and buildings, a denser midrise(obscured by the plain and the surrounding buildings they are built next to), give me a city centre with talls spread far and wide, and thankfully, give me a city centre with interesting buildings.

You win again. :nuts:

Yes I win again :)
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ELPRggA32uw/RsjNVW5wYSI/AAAAAAAAAJk/xoUAotMw2x0/SNC10568.JPG
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/5263/678378164thpwlctparkrow.jpg

Lost in the density. Sandblast you can only dream of having a street with such varied architecture, from old and new, the prefect mix.

BIRMINGHAM

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss206/unauthorisedentry/DSC_6332-1.jpg

MANCHESTER

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/6599/dsc02194arw.jpg

EDGBASTON ... suburb of Birmingham

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2682/4175779275_ee7428ea34_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2069/1919503530_112a6ca25d.jpghttp://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w314/concretelover/URBAN4.jpg


All of the above have a more impressive skyline then Leeds ... including Edgbaston ^^

Yes I agree how terrible is Leeds skyline
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4433/holbeckskyline.jpg

LOL ^^

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/MartianG/NatWestTower2sA.jpg

We can all stretch our images to make buildings appear taller than they really are!!!!

OMG this forum is like a broken record...

Wow! Those street scenes are amamzing. :nuts:

Wrong. We're talking about your skyline buildings. Just to recap. The Leeds claim to fame, courtesy of Wiggs and yourself.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/940LeedsCBD_pic1.jpg

Thankfully Leeds and it's citizens won't have to suffer anymore blandness and...(fill in as appropriate) for years to come. Perhaps even decades.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/940LeedsCBD_pic1.jpg

As for Manchester. Even our Wakefield Street 'Student tower' and the new COP HQ put most, if not all that blandness to shame.

http://www.urbanrealm.co.uk/images/news/news_2483.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/30us7pg.jpg

BTW, Let's hope for your sake this doesn't materilaize. A Manchester forum member is of the opinion that a similar proposal in height is moving forward.

I heard from a good source that a large property firm are currently advising on this site for a 50 storey building....

Denser or not(does it even matter now?), that view would blow Leeds clean out of the water.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2294IntercontinentalAndBenmoreSetForSkyscraper_pic1.jpg

Leave it 118 118. I can hear Wiggs playing his flute. Off you go.

OMG this forum is like a broken record...

:lol:

LOL ^^

We can all stretch our images to make buildings appear taller than they really are!!!!

I know you may find this hard to believe but this is real not edited. A perfect example of how much Manchester needs hill. Skyplaza is sat on a 85M Hill, 105M Tower + 85M = 190M :)

manchester is a larger city than leeds so it's highrises are spread out over a larger area. am i missing something here?

and...?

I know you may find this hard to believe but this is real not edited. A perfect example of how much Manchester needs hill. Skyplaza is sat on a 85M Hill, 105M Tower + 85M = 190M :)

Wrong. Leeds 'needs' Hills. Think about it and then slap your forehead. :doh:

In that case then Leeds must be one hell of a super town to Build a town centre like it has :nuts: all the cities must be doing terribly bad at the side of Leeds town... all the more reason to congratulate Little Leed's success :cheers:

What are you talking about.

Leeds has a lot of office developments due to the other towns and villages that surround it being so centred on Leeds.

It ain't rocket science.

Take a look at US cities. As they are so far apart and all the regions villages and towns centre on the relatively small cities, even those cities end up with significant office developments in the city centres.

Doesn't mean anything, it is just how the country has developed.

Leeds is a relatively large town surrounded byu countryside and many other villages and towns that are very centred on Leeds.

Not much to disagee with there is there really?

manchester is a larger city than leeds so it's highrises are spread out over a larger area. am i missing something here?

and...?

No. It was just being pointed out that Leeds' higrise and midrise density is significantly higher than that of Manchester. More than double.

Most people knew this, altho it was funny to see wirlieG, theFly, and JRB attemp to assert the opposite earlier on in the thead lol.

Oi, don't bring me into your ridiculously pointless discussion.

I know what I see but I ain't joining in with it.

P.S. Swindon has by far the most dense skyline, two 50m + buildings right next to each other.

Shits all over the density of the Leeds skyline.

No. It was just being pointed out that Leeds' higrise and midrise density is significantly higher than that of Manchester. More than double.

Most people knew this, altho it was funny to see wirlieG, theFly, and JRB attemp to assert the opposite earlier on in the thead lol.

so what? salford quays and pendleton probably do also.. ?

who came up with that idea anyway, was it you? higher highrise density? why is it that loiners are always trying to do one over on manchester specifically, if it's not having a higher density of highrise buildings (which ultimately reduces into leeds is a denser city than manchester) then it's leeds is "more desriable than manchester".

you live in/represent a less impressive/less significant/less important city than manchester. just fucking live with it, it really isn't then end of the world.

the list of manchester's buildings misses out several, not that it matters

Not my discussion. I dont come on here to discuss.. i dont see the point like TheFly et all posting pages after pages of how amaaazing they think manchester is (or any other city). The only time leeds forumers, or liverpool forums ever pipe up in here is to point out the inaccuracies and false claims in many of the manchester forumer's assertions, which sadly is quite a lot. It was you WirlieG (metrolink) who incorrectly asserted manchester wipes the floor of Leeds when it comes to highrise density.

P.S. Swindon has by far the most dense skyline, two 50m + buildings right next to each other.

Shits all over the density of the Leeds skyline.

You seem upset.

no, just amused by wiggles logic.

Tis amusing. Very amusing.

Not my discussion. I dont come on here to discuss.. i dont see the point like TheFly et all posting pages after pages of how amaaazing they think manchester is (or any other city). The only time leeds forumers, or liverpool forums ever pipe up in here is to point out the inaccuracies and false claims in many of the manchester forumer's assertions, which sadly is quite a lot. It was you WirlieG (metrolink) who incorrectly asserted manchester wipes the floor of Leeds when it comes to highrise density.

you're just the gift that keeps giving arent you. right after you posted a doctored picture of manchester -

lets hope it increases its high-rise density then.. it has a long way to go to match leeds :)

fucking loser

pretty sure this is the first post on the matter in this thread -

Much of that leeds skyline above is made up of mid-rise in the 60-90m bracket. Leeds' density of midrise/highrise is more than DOUBLE that of manchester, hence the impacting bulk.

you're just the gift that keeps giving arent you. right after you posted a doctored picture of manchester -



fucking loser


then denied any knowledge of it being compressed

^^

go further back. I have no need to bring up high rise density, but I will point out where people make false statements amidst their constant crowing about manchester.

^^

go further back. I have no need to bring up high rise density, but I will point out where people make false statements amidst their constant crowing about manchester.


when I accused you of being deceptive and a liar, would you class that as a false statement?

No. It was just being pointed out that Leeds' higrise and midrise density is significantly higher than that of Manchester. More than double.

Most people knew this, altho it was funny to see wirlieG, theFly, and JRB attemp to assert the opposite earlier on in the thead lol.

No it is not Wiggs. Our CBD pisses all over anything Leeds has. Remember that picture I posted from Webbaviation a while back?

Let me explain once again. Leeds/city centre is built on undulating land, so all you midrises and towers look much taller than they really are. An illusion if you will. Not only that, they also look layered, one if front of each other. The buildings at the front are built on lower land, and the buildings in the middle and back are built on higher land.(it's not rocket science)

Put your talls and midrises, both less in height and quantity than Manchester's, on a flat plain like the one Manchester is built on, and I dread to think what the Leeds skyline would look like. Would it have one? I doubt it to be honest.

Come on Wiggs, I know your not thick, so stop acting like it.

Wiggs. Let's break down this famous skyline picture of Leeds.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/940LeedsCBD_pic1.jpg

The first sandstone building in the foreground. How many stories and how high Wiggs?

The sun burnt orange building behind it. Again tell us how many stories and how high.

If they are a true indication of the height and size of the Leeds skyline, then.........(what do I put to describe the Leeds skyline?)

Wiggs look.

A true skyline, built on a flat plain. Not enhanced by undualting land, or by buildings built behind one another on land increasing in height.

Come on Wiggs, admit it. It's there infront of your very eyes. :pet:

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/6599/dsc02194arw.jpg

Pendleton>Swindon>Leeds.

Simple.

Wiggles says so.

No it is not Wiggs. Our CBD pisses all over anything Leeds has. Remember that picture I posted from Webbaviation a while back?

Again, let me explain once again. Leeds/city centre is built on undulating land, so all you midrises and towers look much taller than they really are. An illusion if you will. Not only that, they also look layered, one if front of each other. The buildings at the front are built on lower land, and the buildings in the middle and back are built on higher land.(it's not rocket science)

Put your talls and midrises, both less in height and quantity, on a flat plain like the one Manchester is built on, and I dread to think what the Leeds skyline would look like. Would it have one? I doubt it to be honest.

Come on Wiggs, I know your not thick, so stop acting like it.

Wiggs. Let's break down this famous skyline picture of Leeds.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/940LeedsCBD_pic1.jpg

The first sandstone building in the foreground. How many stories and how high Wiggs?

The sun burnt orange building behind it. Again tell us how many stories and how high.

If they are a true indication of the height and size of the Leeds skyline, then.........(what do I put to describe the Leeds skyline?)

There are a fair few mid-rise buildings not present in that skyline shot, they are hid by other buildings, why is that?

manchester's not built on a flat plain, the city centre is slightly hilly and city tower is right at the top of that hill

^^

and yet, in both photos, the 4th tallest building on both is about 80m. CJC and Opal (85m)

:)

Tramp>retard>wirlie G

the 4th tallest building in the manchester photo is the arndale which is 90 metres

What's got your goat ?

o agree with wiggles?

He says that the density of 50m + buildings is important!

Which order would you put Pendelton, Swindon and Leeds for density (given they have varying sizes of city centre).

Or is wiggles' criteria usual wiggles crap?

the 4th tallest building in the manchester photo is the arndale which is 90 metres

Leeds 4th tallest building is 80M

well done

the 4th tallest building in the manchester photo is the arndale which is 90 metres

The 4th tallest/highest building appearing on the photo is CJC. Arndale is taller on paper, but on that skyline photo it appears as shorter due to it being so far away compared to some of the other buildings.. an unfortunate side effect of having a skyline of very low density

It also plays against Leeds when comparing to swindon doesn't it?

Far too spread out.

There are a fair few mid-rise buildings not present in that skyline shot, they are hid by other buildings, why is that?

Fuck me! They'd have to be small to be hid behind that first sandstone building. How many stories is it? 6?, 7? or 8? Can't be any higher.

So even with undulating land, and the height of the land rising backwards, those midrises you mention still aren't visible above those mediocre midrises that are visible in the picture, and look much taller than they really are, due to the undulating and rising land that they are built on.

Dear God, talk about clutching at straws! Will somebody please explain it to him.

PS. I will be dreaming about undualting land tonight. :lol:

I walked from Leeds station to Bridgewater the other day.

Someone from Leeds is going to tell me about all those surface car parks and wide open roads being high density urban city now aren't they?

Having.A.Laugh.

Did you know Manchester has had one building built over 80M since 1979, if Arndale house wasn't built we would have to go back to 1965!

Not counting Salford Quays or CJC?

Wiggs. How tall is that first sandstone building please? Then compare it to the sunburnt building behind it, etc. Then we can compare them to the tall buildings at the back of the picture, as there doesn't seem be too bigger gap in height. You know what I'm getting at don't you Wiggs?

Height or stories of the first building please Wiggs.

Speking o which, on wiggles criteria has SQ not got more dense tall builings that Leeds?

Wiggs. How tall is that first sandstone building please? Then compare it to the sunburnt building behind it, etc. Then we can compare them to the tall buildings at the back of the picture, as there doesn't seem be too bigger gap in height. You know what I'm getting at don't you Wiggs?

Height or stories of the first building please Wiggs.

Go f around the city centre.

You'll be amazed by the amount of surface car parks and 2/3/4 storey building.

PS.

Don't forget Wiggs, you have to now factor in Wakefield Street (103 metres/33 stories) and the COOP HQ(57 metres) as they are now under construction.

Time to recalculate the maths matey. :)

There are a fair few mid-rise buildings not present in that skyline shot, they are hid by other buildings, why is that?

that's because that particular shot is an elongated South to North view of the city centre which goes right further back in the background.

Obviously.. taking the photo the other way makes more visible, but still a lot hidden

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot826.png

and even then, it's still far denser in terms of midrise/highrise density compared to the manchester shot which hides nothing

Did you know Manchester has had one building built over 80M since 1979, if Arndale house wasn't built we would have to go back to 1965!

Remind me the last time a building taller than 150m + was built in Leeds?

Cannot place it at present.

manchester is a larger city than leeds so it's highrises are spread out over a larger area. am i missing something here?

and...?

yes. that's what i'm puzzled about too. how can people be arguing over this very simple fact... leeds city centre is DENSER *because* it's smaller. that picture showing leeds skyline at its most stretched out has a distance between bridgewater place on the left and sky plaza on the right of about 0.8 miles... this distance is more or less the equivalent to the length of deansgate. even if you factor in the buildings they are building the city centre of manchester is still several times the size of leeds. it needs many more buildings to look as dense. if people want i can work out how many buildings each has per square km.

that's because that particular shot is an elongated South to North view of the city centre which goes right further back in the background.

Obviously.. taking the photo the other way makes more visible, but still a lot hidden

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot826.png

and even then, it's still far denser in terms of midrise/highrise density compared to the manchester shot which hides nothing

Is that really a farm in the foreground of that picture :lol:

Adding to the urban fabric :D

Remind me the last time a building taller than 150m + was built in Leeds?

Cannot place it at present.

Remind how many new builds have been built over 80M in Manchester city center?

yes. that's what i'm puzzled about too. how can people be arguing over this very simple fact... leeds city centre is DENSER *because* it's smaller.

Does the higher high rise density of say Pendelton or Salford Quays automatically mean they have a better skyline than Leeds?

Remind how many new builds have been built over 80M in Manchester city center?

Ever, or since an arbituary date?

Does the higher high rise density of say Pendelton or Salford Quays automatically mean they have a better skyline than Leeds?

no... of course not. high density is simply high density. it's a fact that anyone who says manchester is denser than leeds is wrong. whether you prefer one skyline to another is entirely up to you and too subjective to ever bother worrying about (although clearly many people do). i can tell you the figures for salford too if you want... in fact i can tell you the figures for density of 10 floor+ buildings for any borough in the uk. not only that but i can tell you how many floors they have in total so you can find out the number of floors per sq km if you want, or the height per sq km...

Ever, or since an arbituary date?

Since year 2000

no... of course not. high density is simply high density. it's a fact that anyone who says manchester is denser than leeds is wrong. whether you prefer one skyline to another is entirely up to you and too subjective to ever bother worrying about (although clearly many people do). i can tell you the figures for salford too if you want... in fact i can tell you the figures for density of 10 floor+ buildings for any borough in the uk. not only that but i can tell you how many floors they have in total so you can find out the number of floors per sq km if you want, or the height per sq km...

No, it's fine.

I appreciate people are arguing about something totally pointless.

I'm guessing outside the relative cities 99% of the population would not recognise or be impressed by either city. That's the honest truth and we all know it.

Since year 2000

Only SQ and CJC I expect.

My turn.



150m +, ever?

Thinking about it.

How tall are the spires in Oxford?

I'm trying to think of which town or city (other than London) which has the highest density of 50m + buildings.

Probably somewhere unexpected.

I'm going Oxford or Cambridge.

gothicforum, show them how many buildings each city has per square km, to settle this bullshit for once and for all.

Thinking about it.

How tall are the spires in Oxford?

I'm trying to think of which town or city (other than London) which has the highest density of 50m + buildings.

Probably somewhere unexpected.

I'm going Oxford or Cambridge.

glasgow.

glasgow.

Very good point.

I'm still having Oxford and Cambridge being quite a way up their (if you count the spires).

yes. that's what i'm puzzled about too. how can people be arguing over this very simple fact... leeds city centre is DENSER *because* it's smaller.

Leeds city centre looks denser because it is built on undulating land. The impression that gives is of a city centre with buildings built much closer together than they really are. It's a very familiar picture postcard scene in the South West of England and across the Mediterranean.(white washed cottages on top of each other, etc)

When in reality, if you went to Leeds city centre, it would be no denser than Manchester, Birmingham, London, etc

A prime example that I know, being Manchester's CBD.(+ the City of London)

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/41492-1/eb15643.jpg

Most of those densely packed midrises are not visible on the Manchester skyline, due to being built on a flat plain. Transfer them to the undulating land supporting the myth that Leeds has a dense city centre, and that myth would be even bigger. (sprinkle on a few talls for good measure)

I may be wrong, but I doubt very much if Leeds has a city centre much denser then that. If it has, fair enough.

Overall, if you count the whole of Manchester city centre the density of 50m + buildings will be lower.

HOWEVER, from experience of walking around the places, the gaps between those 50m+ building is much more densely populated with nearly as tall building in Manc than Leeds.

Likewise. If you do not consider the whole city centre, just smaller parts of it, be it the CBD or Spinningfields, both are much more densley built on than anywhere in Leeds.

Just my honest thoughts.

is it even possible to measure building density... maybe sq footage per sq km? lowrise buildings are taller in manchester than they are in leeds generally so manchester will probably be higher.

is it even possible to measure building density... maybe sq footage per sq km? lowrise buildings are taller in manchester than they are in leeds generally so manchester will probably be higher.

Indeed.

Every year at least twice as much office space is let in Manc compared to Leeds.

There is something like 3 times the city centre residential population and significantly higher retail space.

That's all going somewhere!

basically, cut the shit however you want, manchester is simply a bigger city than leeds and has the architecture to match.

Again, look at the CBD (black hole) cluster. And these aren't to be laughed at 7 or 8 storey midrises.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/41496-1/eb15649.jpg

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/41500-1/eb15655.jpg

Fuck me! Even light can't penetrate it. :lol:

Leeds city centre looks denser because it is built on undulating land. The impression that gives is of a city centre with buildings built much closer together than they really are. It's a very familiar picture postcard scene in the South West of England and across the Mediterranean.(white washed cottages on top of each other, etc)

When in reality, if you went to Leeds city centre, it would be no denser than Manchester, Birmingham, London, etc

A prime example that I know, being Manchester's CBD.(+ the City of London)

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/gallery/d/41492-1/eb15643.jpg

Most of those densely packed midrises are not visible on the Manchester skyline, due to being built on a flat plain. Transfer them to the undulating land supporting the myth that Leeds has a dense city centre, and that myth would be even bigger. (sprinkle on a few talls for good measure)

I may be wrong, but I doubt very much if Leeds has a city centre much denser then that. If it has, fair enough.

i own a skyscraper database. i know exactly what is what. it's not about what *looks* denser, it's about the number of buildings per square km and the number of floors those buildings have etc. manchester is bigger, it is NOT denser.

i own a skyscraper database. i know exactly what is what. it's not about what *looks* denser, it's about the number of buildings per square km and the number of floors those buildings have etc. manchester is bigger, it is NOT denser.

You will never convince them. Wiggly has been saying it but none of the Manchester posters admit it, or they attempt to prove otherwise.

You will never convince them. Wiggly has been saying it but none of the Manchester posters admit it, or they attempt to prove otherwise.

Where does 10669 differ from that?

edit - I mean 10669.

Where does 10669 differ from that?

? ?

Do you agree with post 10669?

You will never convince them. Wiggly has been saying it but none of the Manchester posters admit it, or they attempt to prove otherwise.

put another way manchester (plus salford, trafford etc) scores 13206.35 right now and leeds scores 6498.60.

The Academy of Urbanism Great Places 2011 award is announced tonight and Glasgow is up for European City of the Year. However, we're up againest Budapest and Helsinki, which is pretty stiff competition (especially Helsinki). Wish us luck!

put another way manchester (plus salford, trafford etc) scores 13206.35 right now and leeds scores 6498.60.

What's the numbers for (urban)...

London

Brum

Liverpool

Sheffield

Nottingham

Newcastle

Bristol?

put another way manchester (plus salford, trafford etc) scores 13206.35 right now and leeds scores 6498.60.

what does that mean?

I think, although gothic will correct me if necessary, it is the total number of meters in buildings in each area in buildings over 60m tall.

Probably wrong.

Why do you people fight each other?! I find UK as beautiful as the rest of Europe!
You should be fighting with Germans or French! :D

Cos we love it.

Tell you what.

I have only just noticed that the CIS is actually 8m taller than Bridgewater in Leeds.

CIS hardly sticks out as if it is totally out of place in Manchester - in fact far from it.

Bridgewater (smaller!!!) on the other hand....

I learn something new every day .

In fact, Wakefield St which is being built today is about the same height as Bridgewater. Amazing.

Wiggs. How tall is that first sandstone building please?.

The Mint? it's 38m tall.

http://3959612.2195541.test.prositehosting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-019.jpg

Is Liverpool dense? I've really never seen it as an important thing

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/23/1285278888823/Eastgate-Quarters-1-leeds-001.jpg I dont like all of that postmodern shite.

What postmodern shite? You mean the Blomfield buildings from the 1930s? Those that the bastards aren't trying to flatten anyway.

I tell you what.

That picture re-posted by Sanblast does give a good clue as to why Leeds struggles to develop any sort of mass transit system.

Look how fast urbanity disappears and turns into very low density fields.

You need lots of people all along the route travelling in both directions to pay the bills. Looking at that after a couple of stations only the sheep would be interested in jumping on any trams.

I tell you what.

You're exactly right.

Because the countryside comes fairly close to the city centre in small patches to the south east and south west of the city, that quaint little market town Leeds can never sustain a mass transit system (funny how you spend part of your time criticising Leeds for having 'small town' public transport as if its somehow insufficient yet most of it explaining why it has more than adequate transport already. Because it is possible to take a photo which has towers and fields in it).

Yet Nottingham, that huge, teeming metropolis where the countryside actually comes considerably closer to the city centre in similar directions, has rather less trouble getting and extending a mass transit system.

You've hit the jackpot once again.

Genius.

Why aren't you working for the DfT?

^^

wirlie G is a complete head banger, theres no getting through to him mate.

What postmodern shite? You mean the Blomfield buildings from the 1930s? Those that the bastards aren't trying to flatten anyway.



I tell you what.

You're exactly right.

Because the countryside comes fairly close to the city centre in small patches to the south east and south west of the city, that quaint little market town Leeds can never sustain a mass transit system (funny how you spend part of your time criticising Leeds for having 'small town' public transport as if its somehow insufficient yet most of it explaining why it has more than adequate transport already. Because it is possible to take a photo which has towers and fields in it).

Yet Nottingham, that huge, teeming metropolis where the countryside actually comes considerably closer to the city centre in similar directions, has rather less trouble getting and extending a mass transit system.

You've hit the jackpot once again.

Genius.

Why aren't you working for the DfT?

You miss explaining for critism.

Tad sensitive?

Never said Nottingham was a metropolis.

Take a read of the TBus thread.

I state over and over again, each proposal should be treated on it's own merits. Notts clearly came up trumps.

However, it does not follow that because a system works well in one place it will necessarily work in another - as most the Leeds posters seem to imagine on here.

Maybe you could remind us all of the proposals in Leeds that were of equal value and equal cost to the NET scheme in Nottingham that went ahead? Or as usual are you going to say no matter what the cost a light rail scheme should get built in Leeds because other cities have one?

Amazing.

Nottingham built a tram line parallel to a rail line- they could have been told to consider tram-train. Leeds proposes tram lines through some of the busiest corridors in the north of England, away from rail lines, and is told to rethink. Transport planning in the UK is a joke.

Nottingham delivered a proposal that was entirely fundable and made good value for money.

It carries more passengers than were predicted - making it better value than was originally planned.

Timeline...

Late 80's

Manchester develops plans for 1st new light rail lines (heavy rail conversions) very cheap, developed and turn out to be great success. no subsidy required any more (actually returns a profit) and more than doubles passenger numbers.

Early 90's

Sheffield, Croydon, Brum AND LEEDS develop light rail plans.

All other than Leeds proceed.

http://www.lrta.org/leeds.html

In 1977 "WYTCONSULT" suggested after a transportation study that various corridors in Leeds would be suitable for light rail operation. (Trams operated in Leeds until November 1959). This suggestion, dormant until 1989, was partly taken up when West Yorkshire PTE (METRO) announced its METROLINE LRT scheme which basically was along York Road to various destinations on the east side of the city. This scheme did not have support from the Leeds City Council and was eventually abandoned.



Brum, Croydon, Sheff and Manc Phase 2 all delivered late 90's.

None anywhere near as successful as Manc Phase 1 (in terms of finances).

Late 90's

Notts develop plans.

Early 2000s Notts gets go ahead and starts build.

Private and public sector spooked by loses on Brum, Croydon, Sheff and Manc Phase 2 - risk massively increases - costs rocket.

Early 2000s (as prices are rocketing)

Leeds brings back plans to deliver light rail - would cost £1.1bn over 30 years to implement, largely due to high risks due to other problems in the late 90s/



Now. You lot all want to blame someone. But why the DfT? Funnily not one of you have said that Leeds should have got light rail, no matter what the cost because other places had it, yet that is exactly what you are incinuating.

I would suggest, that with hindsight, cancelling the scheme in the 90s, when risks, hence costs where MUCH lower was what eventually killed Supertram, and that was nothing to do with anyone in the DfT.

But hey, lets take the incredibly simplistic view of thinking that because city X has it, then no matter what the cost Leeds also should have it.

No. It was just being pointed out that Leeds' higrise and midrise density is significantly higher than that of Manchester. More than double.

Most people knew this, altho it was funny to see wirlieG, theFly, and JRB attemp to assert the opposite earlier on in the thead lol.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/81/20091026175749!Tower_blocks_in_Leeds.jpg

Cheap & shoddy Lego "densness" ^^ Leeds :ohno:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/garybaldy/sky-1.jpg

Quality "denseness" ^^ Manchester :)

There is one acceptable building in that Manchester picture, Beetham, and you call that 'quality'? It seems Birmingham standards are lower than the rest of the country.

There is one acceptable building in that Manchester picture, Beetham, and you call that 'quality'? It seems Birmingham standards are lower than the rest of the country.

No comments on the influence of the Leeds council decision to bin the light rail plans in the 90s?

Still going to persist with the simplistic crap about it all being Darlings fault?

You just said that Leeds didn't get light rail because in a couple of places fields come relatively near to the city centre, yet in Nottingham they come even closer.

Funnily enough as soon as this was pointed out you pretended this had never happened and returned to one of your more usual tactics (posting about ten identical messages in a row about cost).

Anything to say about that?

There is one acceptable building in that Manchester picture, Beetham, and you call that 'quality'? It seems Birmingham standards are lower than the rest of the country.

I think the listed and UK one time tallest building merits some praise does it not?

It would be taller than anything in Leeds and was built 50 years ago.

Not sure you can be so derogatory about a building or city that pisses all over Leeds on every level.

As JRB said in your `stunning' skyline shot..the buildings shown on low-rise blocks smeared over a hill-side. A skyline they are not.

Anway, been done to death and it seems the rest of the sane world identifies the short-comings in Leeds clearly.

Only Leeds' forumers are managing to continue a fight, in the manner of Audley Harrison, when the true champs keep swatting you down.

Liverpool, Birmingham & Manchester have buildings many stories higher than Leeds because they are Level 1 UK cities and I am afraid Leeds is just another city.

Bull-Ring, Arndale and Liverpool 1 are located because the cities are large and need the retail space. Leeds is a market town in comparison.

Football. Leeds is a market town, 1 club smallville.

Airport. Liverpool Brum and Manchester are just off the scale compared with you.

Arenas. ^^^

Metro system. ^^^

There is just nothing in Leeds that compares with the big boys so please give it a rest.

Lovely place but stop getting above your station. Which incidentally is less impressive than Stockport's!

Get real. Smell the coffee. Wake Up. Travel a bit. Brig Wiggles.

Anything but see sense!

You just said that Leeds didn't get light rail because in a couple of places fields come relatively near to the city centre, yet in Nottingham they come even closer.

Funnily enough as soon as this was pointed out you pretended this had never happened and returned to one of your more usual tactics (posting about ten identical messages in a row about cost).

Anything to say about that?

Yep.

Leeds missed out on the early light rail boom due to dithering in the 90s.

To get a line built in post 2004 light rail economic climate you need a seriously strong case (to justify £1.1bn spend in Leeds case).

A city the size of Leeds is no where near big enough to be able to justify such an enormous expense being spent on it!

Simple really.

As I've been saying for ages you can justify spening half that on nearly 4 times the population on Metrolink easily.

But not £1.1bn on just 700k people.

Blame Darling all you like.

He did not withdraw the bid in 1995. Not one of you have actually said that £1.1bn should have been spent on Supertram. So why critise him for doing what you'd have also done?

i own a skyscraper database. i know exactly what is what. it's not about what *looks* denser, it's about the number of buildings per square km and the number of floors those buildings have etc. manchester is bigger, it is NOT denser.

Just out of interest, does that database contain *every building*, regardless of height, use, etc, in each city centre? Or does it just contain specifci buildings which you have collated over the years since starting SSC?

TBH both councils would struggle to come up with a precise database of buildings per square km, and the number of floors per building, in their respective city centres. Yes, it can be done given time and some serious expense. (Perhaps you can save them a job and forward your database on to them. No doubt they would pay you handsomley for that kind of useful information)

If your telling me that you have a database that contains 'every building', per km, and including the number of combined floors, then fair enough. If you haven't got that, then I'm not buying it Gothic. (regardless of your database and access to information on specific buildings)

BTW I'm not having a pop at you, but that is a bold statement to make in favour of either city. If it is true, and you can prove it, then fair enough.

PS. One more important point. Are we talking specific buildings (per km + floors) or are we talking every building, regardless of it's size or function. If it's the latter, then..............

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/81/20091026175749!Tower_blocks_in_Leeds.jpg

Cheap & shoddy Lego "densness" ^^ Leeds :ohno:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/garybaldy/sky-1.jpg

Quality "denseness" ^^ Manchester :)

Exactly CIS is far higher quality than the leeds towers, 118m of shiny crystalline solar panels and gleaming glass, making it self sufficient,and able to pump back into the national grid

HCT and the rather nice hyatt in Brum also kick the butt of leeds towers.

Exactly CIS is far higher quality than the leeds towers, 118m of shiny crystalline solar panels and gleaming glass, making it self sufficient,and able to pump back into the national grid

HCT and the rather nice hyatt in Brum also kick the butt of leeds towers.

why do people think the only thing which were recently built in Leeds were two Student towers? Leeds must have built more than any other UK city outside of London since year 2000.. so why is it that the only thing people post on here is the two student towers>:?

why do people think the only thing which were recently built in Leeds were two Student towers? Leeds must have built more than any other UK city outside of London since year 2000.. so why is it that the only thing people post on here is the two student towers>:?

And they blame the Scousers, Brummies and Mancs.

Why don't you PM Gothic and ask him to check his database first, before coming out with another unfounded boast. :ohno: FFS! The wheels on the bus go f**ing round and round.

And they blame the Scousers, Brummies and Mancs.

Why don't you PM Gothic and ask him to check his database, before coming out with another unfunded boast. :ohno: FFS! The wheels on the bus going f**ing round and round.

oh come on you know it's true, why do we even after prove it???

oh come on you know it's true, why do we even after prove it???

If you mean bland, student, lego looking, midrises and apartment blocks, that litter Leeds city centre, your damned right.

If that's another claim to fame Leeds has, then I........(fill in as appropriate)

If you mean bland, student, lego looking, midrises and apartment blocks, that litter Leeds city centre, your damned right.

If that's another claim to fame Leeds has, then I........(fill in as appropriate)


What a gobshite you are, same old shit with you all isnt it,,,

Leeds claim to fame.(according to some of it's forum members)

The densest city centre. (which includes all types of buildings, without regard to use) Still to be clarified and proven.

The most new builds since 2000.(regardless of quality and impact on the city skyline, city centre and surrounding areas) Still to be proven.

:deadthrea: :lock:

(as we all know that the above is purely hypothetical(I could think of more appropriate words), we might as well keep this thread open :banana:)

Leedstroll.

Tell us your thoughts about the wisdom with hindsight of cancelling the plans to build a tram line in the 90s.

Your in depth analysis (arf) is always a treat to read.

No doubt it was Darlings fault eh?

What a gobshite you are, same old shit with you all isnt it,,,

Now, now Troll. Don't start losing it now brother. You were doing very well up to that point. Go and have a lie down, count to 5, take a deep breath and come back when you've gained some composure.

jrb - it's densest high rise so long as you ignore plenty of other places such as Salford Quays or Pendelton.

Logic doesn't come into it, this is wigglesworldlogic.

jrb - it's densest high rise so long as you ignore plenty of other places such as Salford Quays or Pendelton.

Logic doesn't come into it, this is wigglesworldlogic.

TBH it wouldn't bother me if Leeds did have the densest city centre. Good luck to em I say. Given a choice, I would rather have more taller buildings, an overall better, bigger and wider skyline, with a better mixture of old and modern buildings and architecture.

Density is a very small price to pay. Agreed? :)

Agreed.

I'm not overly sure why it became so important to wiggles and his kind.

Maybe they aspire for Leeds to have a skyline as impressive as Pendelton's???

Don't look Wiggs & Co. (TBH there's a bigger picture of the same shot, but I'm not going to post it just in case we get a mass suicide pact of Leeds forum members)

Originally posted by Chogs.


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1411/5100820114_82788ee398_b.jpg

What about tree density?(arf!) Beat that Lioners. :nocrook:

1 BWP 2007

2 Sky plaza 2009

3 opal tower 2008

4 candle house 2009

5 Broadcasting place 2009

6 west point 2005

7 clarence house 2008

8 City island phase (2) 2007

9 blue 2004

10 nuffield hospital 2003

11 whitehall warfront 2004

12 one saint peters square 2009

13 princes exchange 2000

14 whitehall (2) 2003

15 the plaza 2006

16 opal (1) 2006

17 watermans place 2009

18 the gateway North 2008

19 echo central (1) 2008

20 ibis hotel 2004

21 Northern ballet theatre 2007

22 city inn hotel 2009

23 trinity one 2005

24 liberty park 2004

25 aspect (14) 2003

26 Leeds college of music 2005

27 city island block (1) 2005

28 City Island Block (2) 2005

29 1 berwery wharf 2008

30 st james hospital 2007

31 the parklane triangle 2006

32 st geoges apartments 2006

33 the tannery 2004

34 crown point student accomodation 2004

35 magellan house 2004

36 the gateway east 2009

37 the gateway west 2009

38 franklin house 2005

39 concepty place 2007

40 la salle 2006

41 mackenzie house 2005

42 brewery wharf 2005

43 echo central (2) 2008

44 the quays 2003

45 riverside west 2004

46 holiday inn express 2007

47 opal (2) 2007

48 the iceworks 2006

49 manor mills 2008

50 woodhouse apartments 2006

This 'boast' that Leeds only got tall building during the unsustainable boom times and didn't build them during normal economic circumstances suggests we've seen the end of new tall buildings in Leeds now normal economic lending has resumed.

Oh well. You had fun for a decade.

Built shit but you had fun.

Trolly, remind us of the 3 tallest buildings under construction at present under what will be the normal lending conditions we'll see for decades.

Loving how having a long term, sustainable growth in the city is somehow being seen as a negative when a boom (and bust) development in Leeds is seen as good.

Weird.

1 BWP 2007

2 Sky plaza 2009

3 opal tower 2008

4 candle house 2009

5 Broadcasting place 2009

6 west point 2005

7 clarence house 2008

8 City island phase (2) 2007

9 blue 2004

10 nuffield hospital 2003

11 whitehall warfront 2004

12 one saint peters square 2009

13 princes exchange 2000

14 whitehall (2) 2003

15 the plaza 2006

16 opal (1) 2006

17 watermans place 2009

18 the gateway North 2008

19 echo central (1) 2008

20 ibis hotel 2004

21 Northern ballet theatre 2007

22 city inn hotel 2009

23 trinity one 2005

24 liberty park 2004

25 aspect (14) 2003

26 Leeds college of music 2005

27 city island block (1) 2005

28 City Island Block (2) 2005

29 1 berwery wharf 2008

30 st james hospital 2007

31 the parklane triangle 2006

32 st geoges apartments 2006

33 the tannery 2004

34 crown point student accomodation 2004

35 magellan house 2004

36 the gateway east 2009

37 the gateway west 2009

38 franklin house 2005

39 concepty place 2007

40 la salle 2006

41 mackenzie house 2005

42 brewery wharf 2005

43 echo central (2) 2008

44 the quays 2003

45 riverside west 2004

46 holiday inn express 2007

47 opal (2) 2007

48 the iceworks 2006

49 manor mills 2008

50 woodhouse apartments 2006

:omg:

If your going to include, hotels, hospitals, etc, etc, and the like, I really wouldn't compare if I was you. There's only going to be one winner.

TBH I'm not going to spend 5 hours sifting through our new builds since 2000. I'm confident enough(Mediacity, Spinningfields, Manchester city centre, the Northern quarter/Ancoats/New Islington, Green Quarter, Greengate/Central Salford, Southern Gateway/Manchester University, St Georges Island, Piccadilly approach/Piccadilly Basin, etc, etc.

Would you like me to go on?

Leeds troll.

I admire you bravery and dedication, but one person and one moment in history comes to mind.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSS4GylGW1tjpTpwEmKX32TbMOHHUuoD2HSkZqO3HBCt4t1mVECIw

Either go out and have a few beers(like me), or go and get your homework done instead.

why do people think the only thing which were recently built in Leeds were two Student towers? Leeds must have built more than any other UK city outside of London since year 2000.. so why is it that the only thing people post on here is the two student towers>:?

Do you REALLY believe that? Honestly?

From previous threads it's very clear Trolley boy is not very well travelled.

Chances are he had not been to the other cities in 2000 to know what had been built in them during the past decade.

Do you REALLY believe that? Honestly?

I know even Wiggles does not think this. Blind.

From previous threads it's very clear Trolley boy is not very well travelled.

Chances are he had not been to the other cities in 2000 to know what had been built in them during the past decade.

well why don't you all try prove me wrong then :lol: is it because you can't, just what i thought :rofl:

what does that mean?

it's a development index. one neat thing skyscrapernews can do (if you pay) is track developments like a stock exchange index. companies pay large amounts of money for the data. glasgow was in second place after london, but has been overtaken by manchester, or rather it has undertaken manchester because they keep demolishing so many buildings, this has happened since the summer. nonetheless if you look at the city centres, again glasgow is much denser than manchester (and pretty much any other city in the UK outside london).

You're right Trolley boy

I don't know the names of all the dozens of buildings built, but unlike you I have travelled extensively around the UK since the early 1990s so I actually know what I'm talking about :lol:

Manchester has built more than Leeds.

Leeds has built more buildings than Manchester over 80M since the 90's but that is as far as you can go, 80M and below is where Manchester outperforms Leeds significantly.

If I can remember correctly Leeds has something like 20,000 apartments in the center, Manchester has more than double. In theory this should mean Manchester's overall architecture is worse than that of Leeds because Manchester has more new buildings.

Can new architecture not be good?

You prefer a surface car park or a development like Spinningfields?

Manchester has built more than Leeds.

Leeds has built more buildings than Manchester over 80M since the 90's but that is as far as you can go, 80M and below is where Manchester outperforms Leeds significantly.

If I can remember correctly Leeds has something like 20,000 apartments in the center, Manchester has more than double. In theory this should mean Manchester's overall architecture is worse than that of Leeds because Manchester has more new buildings.

you've missed my point haven't you, Leeds has built 50 new builds in a area half the size manchester city centre? that correct?

you've missed my point haven't you, Leeds has built 50 new builds in a area half the size manchester city centre? that correct?

Probably not.

But then we had more to start with anyway!

So what does it matter?

Webaviation tells me which UK city is dense or not.

I look with my eyes?

Can new architecture not be good?

You prefer a surface car park or a development like Spinningfields?

Off course it can be good. But you know as well I know alot of crap has gone up amongst most of our cities.

1.) Great Northern Tower (72M) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Great_Northern_Tower.jpg
A cheap unimaginative building, the only part that is of merit is the shape, similar to that of reclad. If this is a 'great' building then it really is grim up north.

2.) 3 Hardman Street (75M) http://www.propertyweek.com/pictures/458xAny/5/5/5/1655555_3_Hardman_Street_photo.jpg
Not bad, but not great either. Quite messy, the top part looks cheap and is the same as the reclad multi story car parks in Leeds.

3.) Jefferson Place (70M) http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1507JeffersonPlace_pic15.jpg
Bland, unattractive, not particularly offensive, building isn't consistent, base completely different to top.

4.) The Light House (67M) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2572/3691702948_7887546ffd.jpg
Interesting idea. But complete disregard to base makes this building unforgivable, cladding used is cheap (same as sky plaza).

5.) Cypress Place (65M) http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/4193/manchj.jpg
Bland beyond belief, lack of consistency amongst side windows makes matters worse. No better that Sky Plaza Leeds.

6.) Britton House (65M) http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/5149/manchd.jpg
Bland. Need I say more?

7.) Skyline Central (64M) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Skyline_Central,_Manchester.jpg/450px-Skyline_Central,_Manchester.jpg
Messy, UN-appealing colors don't help the situation either.

8.) Left Bank Apartments (56M) http://img.findaproperty.com/library/libp7052.jpg
Inconsistent design, colors don't match, poor mix of brick and plastic.

The list goes on. The point I'm trying to make is that the quality of architecture in Manchester is no better than Leeds. Because of the small size of Leeds center alot of the buildings are in view, unlike Manchester where they are spread out to the extent the impact is minimal and UN-noticable.

But compare them to what was there before.

For example, Spinningfields (Hardman) was horrendous in comparison to what it is today.

The offices around Barberello Sq (near the Bridgewater - Manc version) replaced surface level car parks.

Sure, they are not Rylands Libraries but certainly better than what was there before.

oh yes.

Did I not say yesterday that neither city has any great claim to fame as far as skylines are concerned?

I'm pretty sure outside of the relevant cities 99% of the population would not recognise either cities skyline.

Nice of him to list 3 buildings I hae never heard of or seen in Manchester...shows you how many there are.
So much open space, no density!

Correct me if I am wrong, but when people used to keep track of the number of cranes in each relative city, I seem to remember Manchester was well above 50 for a very long time, occassionally going above 60.

From memory no other city ever topped 30.

Sure someone could go through the threads to get the actual figures.

Nice of him to list 3 buildings I hae never heard of or seen in Manchester...shows you how many there are.
So much open space, no density!

think they're in the green quarter, just outside the ringroad, so not included in the list a few pages back of manchester's buildings, not good quality really, but as a whole 'cluster' it's an ok area

plenty of good stuff has gone up in manc since 2000, no1. deansgate, beetham, cjc, edge x2, chancery place etc.

I don't normally like getting involved in pretty pathetic arguments like this, but Manchester quite clearly is the larger, bigger, more popular and more well known city when it comes to Manc versus erm ... what's it called? Oh yeah, Leeds.

And plus, a good way of counter-arguing the argument that 'Manchester has a shit skyline because it only has 5 towers on its skyline' is by showing you all this (rather marvellous) photo: (desperately sorry about the size of it.)

http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/internal-comms/staffnet-news/ManchesterAerialPhoto.jpg

Count how many 80m+ buildings there are. Now, how many of those do you see on the average 'skyline' photo of Manchester? Look how many there are in the university quarter just south of Piccadilly Station! Christ sake! I've never seen any of those on skyline photos.

Plus, look at the sheer size of it. That photo basically covers the city centre minus Salford Quays. It's huge and dense. Heck, if that was Leeds the bottom of that photo would be countryside. Instead, what with it being Manchester, there's miles and miles of sprawling suburbs south of this photo. It's literally about 8 miles til' you hear a 'Bahh' or a 'Neigh' from anywhere. Marvellous.

Exactly CIS is far higher quality than the leeds towers, 118m of shiny crystalline solar panels and gleaming glass, making it self sufficient,and able to pump back into the national grid

HCT and the rather nice hyatt in Brum also kick the butt of leeds towers.

Quite, oscar .... both Birmingham & Manchester (in England & excluding London) are the two cities in the English Premier League in more than one sense ....

http://i576.photobucket.com/albums/ss206/unauthorisedentry/DSC_6332-1.jpg

There are 13 buildings over 70 metres in this picture of Birmingham above ^^ 6 of them over 90 metres tall ....

.... and add to these which will also be getting the goahead shortly ... and a couple of them already have...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3601/3551106459_ed231ba0d2.jpg?v=0http://s244306752.websitehome.co.uk/images/tower_night_image.jpg
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/h/x/t/103_Colmore_Row_View_23WEB.jpghttp://www.projectlandmark.co.uk/files/5512/6650/2119/CGI3small.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/3089BroadStreetTower_pic5.jpg

http://tinypic.com/2yuzsc6.jpg


.... ranging from 107 metres to 201 metres tall, Birmingham really will be kicking ass!!! :cheers:

All that birds eye view tells me is that Manchester has poor planning when it comes to location of buildings. Although I can't defend Leeds council for the crap that is put up at least they have a plan e.g. Park Plaza, Opal, Broadcasting Place are where they are for a reason, height jurisdictions put in place in Leeds shopping core etc.

Manchester center defined as a sprawl of buildings with a distinct lack of consistency, I mean what the hell is going on with Beetham it's practically in the suburbs!!

All that birds eye view tells me is that Manchester has poor planning when it comes to location of buildings. Although I can't defend Leeds council for the crap that is put up at least they have a plan e.g. Park Plaza, Opal, Broadcasting Place are where they are for a reason, height jurisdictions put in place in Leeds shopping core etc.

Manchester center defined as a sprawl of buildings with a distinct lack of consistency, I mean what the hell is going on with Beetham it's practically in the suburbs!!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zLSRRJiKbxg/S6_VVKs53VI/AAAAAAAADBk/9MrQwq5sgrU/s1600/Midland-Metro3.jpg

Leeds also needs a decent rapid tram system like Birmingham ^^ ... and Manchester :)

http://www.wearerich.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/centro1.jpg

Birmingham's new generation of trams already on order ^^ :)

Manchester center defined as a sprawl of buildings with a distinct lack of consistency, I mean what the hell is going on with Beetham it's practically in the suburbs!!

Whilst Leeds city centre surrounds it self with the set of Emmerdale.

Okay thanks for that Sandblast. You know as well as I do that everyone from Leeds would like a supertram system but as is always the case Leeds council do FA at getting any funding from the government.

I'm not bothered anyway as I live 10 minutes walk from train station, 16 minute train to Leeds, considering I'm 7 miles away thats decent times. That even if we did have a supertram wouldn't be as fast as the train.

Train is the way forwards, as your previous profile picture showed. :banana:

Whilst Leeds city centre surrounds it self with the set of Emmerdale.

Obviously you agree with my sentiments?

The center of Leeds is small, this reflects the proximity to the country side and suburbs, Manchester has yet to realize that suburbs aren't meant for 100m+ buildings.

What would you prefer.

- Endless suburbs

- Sprawled out suburbs separated by lush countryside, forests and lakes.

I know what I would prefer.

All that birds eye view tells me is that Manchester has poor planning when it comes to location of buildings. Although I can't defend Leeds council for the crap that is put up at least they have a plan e.g. Park Plaza, Opal, Broadcasting Place are where they are for a reason, height jurisdictions put in place in Leeds shopping core etc.

Manchester center defined as a sprawl of buildings with a distinct lack of consistency, I mean what the hell is going on with Beetham it's practically in the suburbs!!

Manchester has a big city centre, simple as. Relatively, many of Leeds talls are not exactly at the heart of the city. And what has highrise positioning got to so with bad planning? Believe it or not, most cities do not plan their skylines, they just form naturally. If Leeds City Council's idea of a well planned skyline is a few cheapo student towers clustered on a hill, then I'd say cast your vote wisely at the next election.

Obviously you agree with my sentiments?

The center of Leeds is small, this reflects the proximity to the country side and suburbs, Manchester has yet to realize that suburbs aren't meant for 100m+ buildings.

What would you prefer.

- Endless suburbs

- Sprawled out suburbs separated by lush countryside, forests and lakes.

I know what I would prefer.

Beetham is nowhere near any suburbs you plank. Ever been to deansgate locks? Gmex? Manchester? :lol:

The closest 'residential' area would be Castlefield, this is not a suburb!

Omg student tower shit again is it. :wallbash:

Beetham is nowhere near any suburbs you plank. Ever been to deansgate locks? Gmex? Manchester? :lol:

The closest 'residential' area would be Castlefield, this is not a suburb!

Yes I know, I was exaggerating to prove a point, that btw still stands.

Yes I know, I was exaggerating to prove a point, that btw still stands.

I put to you this...

How about not bothering with you exaggerations?

Funny how the Leeds chumps have not commented on the effect of the 1995 Leed's city council to cancel the proposed Supertram which meant that they ended up behind the other cities progressing such a scheme.

No doubt the important issue on the subject will continue to be ignored and Darling will take 100% of the blame.

I get the impression that over simplicity is the way of the world in Leeds.

Obviously you agree with my sentiments?

The center of Leeds is small, this reflects the proximity to the country side and suburbs, Manchester has yet to realize that suburbs aren't meant for 100m+ buildings.

What would you prefer.

- Endless suburbs

- Sprawled out suburbs separated by lush countryside, forests and lakes.

I know what I would prefer.

I know what I would prefer too! To be able to go into the city centre shopping and not have sheep and cattle lapping at my feet after they've wandered into the city centre from the farm 500metres away.

Oh dear, Leeds :ohno: :

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqImnU5943pc53NHZD5KQc6qUH1G;_ylv=3?qid=20101119093654AAY3twt

Everyone always talks about Leeds asif it's the 'London of the North' but I'm not that bothered over it. The nightlife is rubbish, the shops are all on tiny cramped streets and the people are always really rude to you. I prefer Sheffield for shopping (Meadowhall), Doncaster and Barnsley for nightlife (more pubs and clubs per square mile in Barnsley than Leeds) and Nottingham for restaurants etc..

Anyone else not see the fuss over Leeds?

Manchester is more like the London of the North. Leeds is an ok city but it doesn't have a patch on London.


:) :)

Sorry the London of the north would be Manchester.

Manchester 1-0 Leeds

leeds does have those nice arcades though, its the reason I went there last year, but for me that was it really.
unlike liverpool amd manchester there is nowt much else to see

liverpool, manchester ,brum...., big city feel with an air of excitment as you arrrive.

leeds.... very large 'pleasant enough' town feel

dont know about the nightlife but i am not a clubber so dont care.

Oh dear, Leeds :ohno: :

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqImnU5943pc53NHZD5KQc6qUH1G;_ylv=3?qid=20101119093654AAY3twt







Manchester 1-0 Leeds


:lol: Who wrote that Sandblast, the guy is clearly a spastic no one complains about nightlife in Leeds and then says Doncaster and Barnsley have better nightlife :lol:, and he likes shopping in Meadowhall to top it all off :rofl: says it all really.