CP is fast becoming Leeds's answer to the drawn out, prolonged rigmarole that is London Bridge Tower. What I find frustrating is that the developers are still straddling the fence, and it seems that much of the delay is down to the design and engineering dictating whether the bloody thing can actually be built in the first place.

I'm pinning hopes on Linfoot, he really does seem to be able to deliver. A Milgarth Tower could be spectacular next to Quarry Hill and the Eastgate Quarter.

There next to town hall

I'm Posting to stop this thread becoming a forgotton one

hopfully we will hear something about this in the new year so fingers crossed

An article by 'oh bearded one' Dr. Kevin Grady in today's YEP says that 'work on Lumiere and the kissing towers will start in 2008'. !

Could there be a start with the kissing towers it would be amazing to see these towers and Lumier going up.

hmm, how much more than us do the Civic Trust actually know though?

I would take it with a pinch of salt, they know little more than we do. News on the project seems to change from time to time but is generally kept secretly behind closed doors and very little gets out into the public realm. It's therefore highly unlikely that they'll know any more than us.

Why is there so much secrecy with things like this?

Subliving.

I don't think it's secrecy so much as that when designing a development project, letting a bunch of idiots on the internet know about it isn't high on the list of priorities.

why dont someone ring up simongroup leeds like i did last time. The receptionist will be able to confirm if they i still working on it and she's lovely. Will someone volunteer?

I emailed them in December and they've not got back to me.

Subliving.

if you phone them the woman at reception is very helpful. Who's gonna do it then?

Go on Wiggs, a bit of D.I.Y wouldn't do you any harm...

lol i did it last time, someone else should. Besides, i'm a shy internet geek :P last time a rang, before the recent bad news, she said she cant give any details away but its very much alive and people are working on it daily in the office

I don't think it's secrecy so much as that when designing a development project, letting a bunch of idiots on the internet know about it isn't high on the list of priorities.

ouch you smegpot, we're a bunch of happy amateurs :nuts:

An article by 'oh bearded one' Dr. Kevin Grady in today's YEP says that 'work on Lumiere and the kissing towers will start in 2008'. !

two options:
- the sage is heralding some good news (in direct opposition to insider007s suggestions re: cancellation etc; or
- the YEP has misquoted him.

I hope the former.

ok, seeing as none of you miserable-farts would ring up lol..... i took the liberty of calling simonsgroup again today for some information :)

and..

and... it was engaged!

lol . what? :P

ok. She said..........

.... its deffinately not been cancelled. The receptionist said they know there are lots of rumours flying about but the scehme is still alive and just in the pre-planning stage, and she said because of this she cant give any more info out. She did say if i rang back in 6 months they'd be able to give a lot more information - which imo implies that within 6 months the full scheme will be in public realm by then...submitted as a planning application.. so anyway.. its not been cancelled thats the main thing :)

Was the receptionist engaged, pillow talk and all that...

so we habe to wait another 6 monthes for this to start so it could well start late this year if everything goes well the same time as Lumiere started last year

ouch you smegpot, we're a bunch of happy amateurs :nuts:

We would be happier if they got their fingers out.

I'm ok waiting 6 months just as long as its definately gets built

Some relevant stuff in the December Civic Trust newsletter, including a suggestion that the plans for Criterion Place have changed.

http://www.leedscivictrust.org.uk/

And a development on South Parade. Please let it be the Eagle Star building.

Some relevant stuff in the December Civic Trust newsletter............And a development on South Parade. Please let it be the Eagle Star building.


I'm not sure if the building is owned by Eagle Star but it is a real stinker on the corner of East Parade and South Parade. See the report which went in November to the City Centre Plans Panel here (http://www.leeds.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000173/M00003016/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf); see pages 11-14.

Sorry to bump this to the top (I always get excited when I see it at the top of the list). But just seen that www.simonsgroup.com website has been updated, and as far as I can see there is now no mention of Criterion Place.... Quietly swept under the carpet and forgotten?...

It's too quiet on this again. Shows how fickle the boards of big business are - they're mobilising massive teams one month, and then standing them down again the next. It's telling that they virtually got to Panel Presentation, and then pulled back again. I think they'll be renogotiating the scheme with the City Council (in term of the Council being landowner and they as competition winner, not in terms of planning), which could be tricky- by rights, the City could take the site back out to the market if they change from their winning scheme. For what it's worth, I think a similar situation is occuring on the International Pool site too. I've got my happy-cap on tonight... :|

It's too quiet on this again. Shows how fickle the boards of big business are - they're mobilising massive teams one month, and then standing them down again the next. It's telling that they virtually got to Panel Presentation, and then pulled back again. I think they'll be renogotiating the scheme with the City Council (in term of the Council being landowner and they as competition winner, not in terms of planning), which could be tricky- by rights, the City could take the site back out to the market if they change from their winning scheme. For what it's worth, I think a similar situation is occuring on the International Pool site too. I've got my happy-cap on tonight... :|

As far as i know, it's coming up to four years since the competition presentation.

lol . what? :P

ok. She said..........

.... its deffinately not been cancelled. The receptionist said they know there are lots of rumours flying about but the scehme is still alive and just in the pre-planning stage, and she said because of this she cant give any more info out. She did say if i rang back in 6 months they'd be able to give a lot more information - which imo implies that within 6 months the full scheme will be in public realm by then...submitted as a planning application.. so anyway.. its not been cancelled thats the main thing :)
well in January they were still working hard on this as Wiggleyleeds rang them up and they said that it wasnt cancelled, so it could be that they have taken the old proposal off the site and are replacing it with the new proposal only time will tell, if we ring them back June, Jully time we can find out if it is still going ahaid.

It is mentioned on page 13 of their latest Report and Financial statement wich can be loaded from their website, however that is dated March 07 so doesn't tell us that much. Presumabley there is a new one due out soon.

Well who knows what that means? It could either be that this scheme is shudder cancelled or they are still revising it.

Could they perhaps redesign this scheme perhaps to only have one tall initally whilst developing low rise on the rest of the site or even keep a small plot available to develop a second tall when the economic conditions are right? Surely in light of the now under construction Lumiere it is now not unique to have a twin tower scheme in Leeds (although it does have the distinctive kissing) and engineering wise how easy would it have been to do a tower in that shape? Just a shame it has taken so long to develop and did the other proposed schemes for this site ever state what developer they had behind them as it would have been good to see someone more willing to develop on this site.

Well, Ian Simpson has finally updated his site a bit (well presumably not he himself but you know what I mean) and the status of Criterion has been changed to................Awaiting Instruction.

No idea what that means but it doesnt fill me with confidence. It will be a massive, monumental shame if this scheme doesnt happen.

OK... first of all sorry for bumping this, and DON'T get too excited, as these are from Aug 2007, but are these renders new?:

http://www.kingassociates.com/assets/images/criterionplace.jpg
http://www.kingassociates.com/assets/images/image16.jpg

From: http://www.kingassociates.com/dandra.html

Yeah I think they are; I haven't seen them. And that is definitely a change in design.

That is definitely a design change there... Hmm...

Subliving.

Looks alot more bulky; the main tower kinda comes forward to about half way up. Or is this the hotel tower? I can't remember. Whichever it is, it could be either for more apartments or more office space, with demand as it is?

im confused.. looking at that photo it makes it look like criterion place will be next to mal maison ?

I thought it was on the BT car park?

It looks like two rectangular boxes...

Subliving.

oops. i hadnt got my bearings right. Its fine. ignore me :)

Yeah it does. Looks like a bulkier version of Lumiere. I think we need to see some better renders though really. It's not as elegant as before, but I'm not saying this design is good or bad at this stage. It's annoying to know where this project is; if it's cancelled, on the boards, in progress; it's a tease to get these little trickles of information.

Hard to tell from that angle - it's the side profile that makes this development.
Again - these were from Aug 07 so do't get too excited - nothing since then remember

If this building is going to contain apartments, I'm afraid it hasn't got a hope in hell of being built for the next 10 years ... sorry.

1 tower is apartments. Well I think we've all had doubts tbh. CP is more like Piccadilly; it hasn't got the pride element of Lumiere driving it. It might just be postponed for ages.

Why try to fix something that ain't broke?

The original design was stunning, the new one looks a little 'watered down'.

the original seems like a concept car i guess. id stil rather have the watered down design then nothing. whatever it is (if it ever happens) its likely to be some kind of +150m scraper

I'm happy to see this on the backburner for the time being

It's ambitious and "of its time" and I'm quite happy to wait until its time comes

It's a primo piece of land and LCC would be well advised to leave it as a car park until such time as it can be developed to the potential the site deserves

All this doomin' n' a gloomin' over the housing economy doesn't take into account the predicted acute housing shortage

There's still scope for high rise apartments imo, but perhaps the predictions of a few years ago need re-assessing? Is West Properties' recent modest sounding application perhaps more realistic a propostion than Criterion Place and its iconic, but no doubt expensive, Kissing Towers?

mmm the new renders look good and it will fit into the area nicely but I preferred the first elegant design as that just looks stunning.

it all boils down to cost! They can easily convert more space to offices though.

Yeah that's what should be done. Office demand is still high in Leeds, and I'm sure some companies would prefer to take up space in the core of Central Leeds rather than fringe locations.

OK... first of all sorry for bumping this, and DON'T get too excited, as these are from Aug 2007, but are these renders new?:

http://www.kingassociates.com/assets/images/criterionplace.jpg
http://www.kingassociates.com/assets/images/image16.jpg

From: http://www.kingassociates.com/dandra.html

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1005CriterionPlacehoteltower_pic1.jpg

As I have provided the previous design from this vantage point, yes it does definatley show a major change in design. Could it be my guess that it now shows one mid-rise which would be all office (considering what could appear to be a larger floorplate which is something needed for office accomodation) and the one tower is of a more conventional curved block shape which appearance could suggest combined hotel / residential use.

However considering the credit crunch could possibly have scuppered any chance of this scheme from ever occuring is there any alternative plans for this site and how come couldn't the council give some assurance of development of this site when that competition was done back in 2004 as opposed to just leaving the site bare (which as great as the inital proposals were could we have seen something on this site by now had one of the other proposals been chosen)? Also I know it might be controversial considering it is a skyscraper website but could it be better to develop the same number of apartments in somewhere like Holbeck Urban Village in a low rise development as opposed to developing everything in one location. Still wish something was done on what is such a key key key site. Do they still have advertising boards showing this development at the Criterion Place car park?

From the same website where pics from: The Dandara Group has appointed King Associates to develop the Building Services Strategy and Master-planning for their proposed development of Criterion Place, Leeds. The development, which incorporates almost a million square feet of Commercial, Residential and Leisure facilities includes two residential towers reaching almost 160m into the Leeds Skyline and providing up to 54 Stories of accommodation.

From the same website where pics from: The Dandara Group has appointed King Associates to develop the Building Services Strategy and Master-planning for their proposed development of Criterion Place, Leeds. The development, which incorporates almost a million square feet of Commercial, Residential and Leisure facilities includes two residential towers reaching almost 160m into the Leeds Skyline and providing up to 54 Stories of accommodation.

I think we should point out that the above quote from King Associates' website was dated 15 August 2007 so shouldn't be interpreted that something positive has happened very recently. I'd be very surprised if this one is progressed in current conditions.

Once again sorry to bump this thread, and for little reason, BUT
YEP states that Leeds office of Simons has relocated to larger premises - a sign of much activity to come? However the article makes no mention of Criterion, which is strange, since this must be their flagship project (if it's still alive)... http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/business-news/Room-for-expansion.4222164.jp

Once again sorry to bump this thread, and for little reason, BUT
YEP states that Leeds office of Simons has relocated to larger premises - a sign of much activity to come? However the article makes no mention of Criterion, which is strange, since this must be their flagship project (if it's still alive)... http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/business-news/Room-for-expansion.4222164.jp

It might be time to give it up as a bad job??

I think it needs to be realised that nothing is going to happen for a while now considering the economy. But having said that, it is a prime site in the city. By the time the next period of growth comes, it may well be the only site left in the true city core that hasn't been developed. As a result, I'm sure that eventually we will see a quality development on the site of some description.

This one just refuses to curl up and die :ohno:

I took a short cut through the Criterion Place car park yesterday and discovered that a section had been closed off close to the side of the multi-storey car park. A couple of trucks were on site, along with an excavator and a drilling rig. Anybody got an idea of what's going on?

This one just refuses to curl up and die :ohno:

I took a short cut through the Criterion Place car park yesterday and discovered that a section had been closed off close to the side of the multi-storey car park. A couple of trucks were on site, along with an excavator and a drilling rig. Anybody got an idea of what's going on?

Everyone seems to know the score, they've seen it all before...

Probably some soil sampling for the university natural sciences department. Unless...

This one just refuses to curl up and die :ohno:

I took a short cut through the Criterion Place car park yesterday and discovered that a section had been closed off close to the side of the multi-storey car park. A couple of trucks were on site, along with an excavator and a drilling rig. Anybody got an idea of what's going on?

Took these shots from my balcony, about 20 min ago... wasn't there some planning application to increase the car park by 2 extra levels, maybe this is where the crane goes ? :dunno:

http://i320.photobucket.com/albums/nn341/mark-ie_mark/DSCF0538.jpg

and a closer look..

http://i320.photobucket.com/albums/nn341/mark-ie_mark/DSCF0539.jpg

dang, sounds logical to me - can't imagine why anyone would start on CP when it hasn't even been submitted for planning yet.

where've you been Markie? Seems you disappeared from the forum for six months.

Is it just me, or does the cladding on that car park just look awful. Its getting really grubby and dented.

Thought it had already been increased 2 levels around a year ago, Don't think they would be drilling next to the car park if they were increasing the number of levles. This is interesting!!

dang, sounds logical to me - can't imagine why anyone would start on CP when it hasn't even been submitted for planning yet.

where've you been Markie? Seems you disappeared from the forum for six months.

Hi Jimbo, "or should I say Dear All :)" It's great to be back !
Umm relationships and things and I've been busy busy busy !, at work with a new tech drivers course. So now it's all over and done, I've got myself a new camera and some interesting shots to post, Along the way I've made some new friends here at BWP, interesting news on Lumiere !
Also I was chatting to the site director or some big wig "with a rather large gold and diamond looking rolex" for Granary Wharf the other day, he's from Australia and staying at BWP for the next year or so.. he said he had some cad and renders and info on disc, that he would leave me ! So watch this space...

Hi Markie, good to see you back. Nice to know you've settled in at BWP, looking forward to seeing any new photos you have to post and tales to tell on here.

Yes I remember an app for a height increase of the multistorey - and might they be making the ground suitable for a crane to go next to the carpark to facilitate? :(

Umm latest update today, drilling rig has gone now ? Saw some workers milling around.. so may have a chat with them later,.. but ah have to iron my shirt and go to work right now !
P.S forgot to mention the digger has been doing quite well with a 16ft hole or so within the compound

http://i320.photobucket.com/albums/nn341/mark-ie_mark/DSCF0588.jpg

From Quarmby's website, no date though.

Multi-storey Car Park Extension, Criterion Place, Leeds
• Quarmby is due to start on site in July on a £2 million two storey extension to an existing 8 storey city centre car park for Q-Park Limited. 105 additional car parking spaces will be provided.

I think Markie is ri right in that its the base for a tower crane, as look like driven steel tubular piles ( Machine was a Roger Bullivants hydraulic piler with silenced Hammer unit). In the photo at top of page by Markie.

^^ this thread is dead - everyone, back to Lumiere quicksmart!

theres a report going to Leeds City Council executive board next week on the Sovereign St site;

http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.asp?ID=20583&J=4

make of it what you will...

Page 456:

'This page is intentionally left blank'


WELL IT'S NOT BLOODY BLANK THEN IS IT!?!?! :lol:

I think Markie is ri right in that its the base for a tower crane, as look like driven steel tubular piles ( Machine was a Roger Bullivants hydraulic piler with silenced Hammer unit). In the photo at top of page by Markie.

So will this car park have to close to allow these works to commence and how long will it take?

Also did anyone watch the Top Gear episode from a few years back which mentioned this car park (which was mentioned in the Top Gear studios I think as part of the News segment and not at the car park itself), which James May read from their publicity material that "the QPark Leeds is not only a car park but a contemporary and fashionable boutique destination as opposed to a car park." or something along the lines of that :lol: :nuts: That episode seems to be repeated a lot on Dave if anyone sees it although I can't find out which one it was exactly I think it was quite an oldish one.

theres a report going to Leeds City Council executive board next week on the Sovereign St site;

http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.asp?ID=20583&J=4

make of it what you will...

Reading the report it appears that the towers are no more, and Simons are trying to put some other inferior scheme in it's place. The council is deciding whether to allow it/reoffer it to the market/keep it as a car park :bash:

^^ this thread is dead - everyone, back to Lumiere quicksmart!

^^ oh tits, talk about your absolutely shocking timing.

Hey ho, it's been dead for four years anyway. Leeds snatching mediocrity from the jaws of greatness once again.

Taken 20 min ago....
Not ground breaking news ! "but this is where the crane goes"

http://i320.photobucket.com/albums/nn341/mark-ie_mark/DSCF0592.jpg

Well - call me cynical, but it looks like the City Council are about to officially drop Simons and take this site back - what they do with it will be the interesting thing. Simons has never actually owned it of course, but contractually the City Council would have had to sell it to them if they got a planning application in by a certain date.

This report (LINK HERE (http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/Published/C00000102/M00003682/AI00013185/$SovereignStreetReport250608.docA.ps.pdf)) is going to the LCC Exec Board next week (16/07). It details the saga quite well - Simons has missed even its extended deadlines and therefore broken the terms of the contracts.

For information, here are the options:

There are a number of options available to the Council in respect of this site, and these are listed below for Members consideration:
i) Continue to negotiate with Simons on the basis of the revised conditional offer recently received.
ii) Invite Simons to submit an unconditional offer for the site. An unconditional offer would be an offer with no conditions attached to it and future control over the scheme proposals would be via the planning process.
iii) Remarket the site, either immediately or at some time in the future, inviting offers and scheme proposals.
iv) Terminate the contract with Simons and continue to use the site for car parking, which generates substantial revenue income (detailed in the confidential appendix) by virtue of the rents received on an annual basis from the two car park operators.

Given the current state of the market, Option iv) must surely win by any sensible assessment? I think the clue is also in the 'substantial revenue' point... When the market improves then the Council can try again.

Annoyingly, the actual recommendation of the report is restricted, but look out for an Evening Post story late next week on what the Council has decided to do with the site.

** EDIT ** just noticed mszybut's post on this above amongst all the car park extension posts! You've got a very good camera there by the way mark*ie...

Of course, if the council had any gumption/clue/vision/bottle this is where the Arena should go.

Of course, if the council had any gumption/clue/vision/bottle this is where the Arena should go.

Would be logical seen as it is right next to the train station, and not far from mway. also this was site of queens hall in recent years, so take it back to its original use as a concert venue.

Would be logical seen as it is right next to the train station, and not far from mway. also this was site of queens hall in recent years, so take it back to its original use as a concert venue.

Would there actually be any room for an arena though at the Queen's Hall site bearing in mind I would have thought it would take up quite a substantial floor area and that part of this site is already developed for the multi-storey car park and those BT offices.

Out of interest how come was the Queen's Hall demolished considering it was such a noted concert venue by many major acts until its closure and it had a lot of other uses such as exhibitions, flea markets etc. Looking at the aerial view below from 1981 wouldn't it have been a good idea if the Queen's Hall was used as a nucleus for a conferencing and exhibitions quarter with a refurbished Queen's Hall acting as a nucleus for expanded exhibition and conferencing space on both banks of the River Aire (and thus could allow for a public riverside with hotels, restaurants, shops, bars etc). I guess an arena could have also been developed at or around this possible site which at the time was largely disused.

Considering its location right next door to the railway station and near the M621 motorway leading to the M1 and M62 surely it was a shame something like that never took place as it would have surely dragged this area into the high use core of the city centre and it would surely have helped Leeds compete against the likes of the International Convention Centre in Birmingham and Manchester Central (formerly GMEX) in Manchester especially as this could have been done in a similar time frame (1980s, early 1990s) of those two developments.

Yes I know about Harrogate International Centre but surely a large convention and exhibition centre in the centre of Leeds would surely have had a massive positive impact for Leeds City Centre. Did Leeds City Council or anyone else with responsibility for developing Leeds such as the now defunct West Yorkshire County Council and Leeds Development Corporation ever make any proposals (even ones which were swiftly forgotten or just a sentance long) for a large convention and exhibition centre anywhere in Leeds?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2315/2326269935_8184091a26_b.jpg

As for Criterion Place unsurprising considering the climate although it really has never even gone anywhere advanced in coming close to actually going under construction even when the economy looked much better regarding apartment led skyscraper developments. Such a big shame overall that this highly prime central site is going to be left as car parking for at least a few more years yet. :ohno: Anyone prepared to bet when this site would finally see some sort of development?

As predicted. Important to note though that its the council that terminated the contract with Simons, rather than the developer axing the project.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/BREAKING-Leeds39-39Kissing-Towers39-axed.4301883.jp
BREAKING Leeds' 'Kissing Towers' axed

18 July 2008
Howard Williamson

THE £115m "Kissing Towers" scheme for Leeds city centre has fallen victim to the property slump.

Simons Developments wanted to revise the scheme because the original plan was no longer commercially viable.

But the city council's executive board has decided to terminate the contract.

The site off Sovereign Street, once occupied by the Queens Hall, will now continue to be used for car parking.

TO READ AND ADD YOUR VIEWS ON THE CITY CENTRE PROPERTY CRISIS, CLICK HERE.

Simons wanted to build a 47-storey tower next to a 27-storey tower and provide 301 apartments, a 161-bed hotel, shops and car parking.

The collapse of the scheme follows soon after the 952-home Lumiere scheme on Wellington Street was put on hold and the 24-storey Spiracle - planned for the International Pool site - was scrapped.

Deputy council leader Andrew Carter, who is in charge of development matters, said the council now had the chance to look at other options for a valuable site.

Mark Newton, development director of Simons Developments, said: "It is unfortunate that due to current market conditions the Criterion Place development is no longer viable.

"The city council in consultation with ourselves and our development partner, Dandara, has decided to terminate the contract for the scheme.
"While we are disappointed, we support the council's decision to do what is economically right for the city at a time of uncertainty.

"We hope that when the market improves, the future of Criterion Place can be re-assessed and the potential of this prime location realised."

Property consultant David Powell of Drivers Jonas of Leeds said confidence was now at an all-time low and more big schemes might be postponed or cancelled.

"This announcement speaks volumes for the current climate in Leeds," he said.

Dr Kevin Grady, director of Leeds Civic Trust, said he believed the Simons scheme would never be built to the original design.

"It was so complicated and costly," he explained. "So this is disappointing but not surprising.

"The council was seduced by stunning architectural drawings. They would have been better advised to appoint a tried and tested local developer."

Well that is unsurprising in light of the economic conditions right now. Just a shame though that the council chose the development with the greatest headline generation of the Simons / Ian Simpson scheme and did it seem to be a case of headline generation or a glorified vision over an actual serious proposal considering that ever since it was first launched in 2004 there has bearly been any news on this regarding any possible office tenants, hotel operators, contractors etc even when it had seemed the economy was in a stronger condition.

Obviously we would never know but would we have now seen a building on site had either the shorter DLA architecture or DTR:UK designed schemes had been chosen for the Criterion Place site as it would be essential to develop this key central site sometime in the future?

Here is the BBC's article on the axing of the Criterion Place scheme: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7513752.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44843000/jpg/_44843614_kissingtowers226.jpg
Skyscrapers axed as market slides

The taller tower would have stood 520ft above the streets of Leeds
Plans to build a pair of skyscrapers in Leeds have been scrapped because of the property market slump.

The demise of the £115m Criterion Place project, known as "The Kissing Towers", comes a week after work was suspended on the city's Lumiere apartment block.

Simons Developments said plans for the towers, including flats and a hotel, were not viable in the current market.

The company had wanted to submit a new plan, but Leeds City Council decided to terminate the contract.

A council spokesman said: "We have a conditional contract with Simons and they have not fulfilled conditions set out in it, specifically they have not prepared and submitted a planning application within the timescales set out in the contract.

We support the council's decision to do what is economically right for the city at a time of uncertainty

Mark Newton, Simons Developments director

"We have put a report before the council's Executive Board to consider future options for the site."

Mark Newton, development director of Simons Developments, said: "It is unfortunate that due to current market conditions the Criterion Place development is no longer viable.

"Whilst we are disappointed that we are not going to be able to turn the Kissing Towers into a reality, we support the council's decision to do what is economically right for the city at a time of uncertainty.

"We hope that when the market improves the future of Criterion Place can be reassessed and the full potential of this prime city centre location realised."

At 47 storeys, the taller tower would have stood at 520ft - two feet higher than the Blackpool Tower. Its smaller next-door twin would have risen 27 storeys off Sovereign Street.

The development would have included 301 apartments, a 161-bed hotel and shops.

Last week, developers K W Linfoot and Frasers Property said building work had been halted on the 32-storey Lumiere apartment block until "the climate stabilises".

A spokesman for Leeds City Council, which approved planning permission of the project in July 2007, said: "K W Linfoot was right to adopt a prudent attitude in the current economic climate, but the good news is that this is a postponement, not a cancellation."

Anyone see the lunchtime Look North bulletin? I'm sure I heard the reporter misquote the cost of this scheme as £115 billion. Hmmm... £115,000m, sounds like an Austin Powers esq ransom demand. Of course, I may have just misheard her.

Oh well, this site missed being developed during the recent boom but it is too valuable to be left as it is indefinitely. I'm sure we'll see something impressive on here in years to come. To be fair the kissing towers never really got off the ground did they, I have to say I lost interest in it a couple of years ago.

Oh well, this site missed being developed during the recent boom but it is too valuable to be left as it is indefinitely. I'm sure we'll see something impressive on here in years to come. To be fair the kissing towers never really got off the ground did they, I have to say I lost interest in it a couple of years ago.

I think we all did tbh.
At least it isn't the first big scheme to have been dumped from this site, remember the Foster & Partners masterplan? I'm sure they'll be something worthwhile here eventually.

See 1995
http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Data/Competitions.aspx

These were shelved months ago, in fact never really got started, never even bought the land, so the only new news is the cancellation of the contract. Should have done it ages ago, the useless folk at Simons just sat on a precious piece of land on false pretences through the precious boom years, now the site is dead for a few years.

doomed, its all doomed. Its the architectural equivalent of prick teasing (pardon my smut). Beautifully designed building, soaring glass tower to act as a pinnacle to the city, but proposed by frankly a purveyor of lowrise retail schemes with no provenance in delivering landmark schemes like this. Credit crunch or not, this wasn't likely to get off the ground ever, and my lord, its painful to see, because it was miles better aesthetically than Beetham Manc, Eastgate and Lumiere (runs for cover......., but it was!). All looks, not practicality. Permission to say cock.

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/2008/07/another_leeds_tower_set_for_the_axe.html

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/images/lumiere_resized_250_tcm18-1709515.jpg
Another Leeds tower set for the axe
Published: 17 July 2008 08:29 Author: Alasdair Reisner More by this Author Last Updated: 17 July 2008 09:53

The Lumiere residential tower scheme was also mothballed because of the collapse in the market

Increase image
View all images
The credit crunch was ready to claim the life of a second tower scheme in Leeds this week just days after the Lumiere residential tower scheme was mothballed because of the collapse in the market.
Simons Developments, part of the Simons Group, proposed the £115 million Criterion Place scheme in April 2004.

The apartment and hotel project would have involved building a 47 storey tower with a second 29 storey tower next door - and was known as a 'kissing tower' scheme.

But Simons' failure to progress the job has left the council looking at scrapping the deal.

Leeds City Council was due to discuss a number of options at the monthly meeting of its executive.

A council spokesman said: "We have a conditional contract with Simons and they have not fulfilled conditions set out in it. Specifically they have not prepared and submitted a planning application within the time-scales set out."

Other options available to the council are to proceed with a smaller project proposed by Simons to remarket the site, or to continue the site's current use as a car park, which generates revenue.

Project sources suggested this last option was the most likely as the council is understood to have a recommendation to dismiss Simons' revised proposals. Simons declined to comment.

Sources at designer Ian Simpson Architects this week confirmed that its work on the Simons scheme had been suspended.

The Manchester-based architect was also designing the West Yorkshire city's Lumiere tower which was mothballed last week by developer KW Linfoot.

The firm blamed the depressed residential market for the decision and has given no firm date when work will restart.

Leeds contractor Hewlett has been carrying out a £10 million job for main contractor Carillion on the three-storey basement at the city centre site.

But the prospects for a third tower designed by Ian Simpson look more positive with the news that Manchester-based Browns is in negotiations with developer Westbridge Living to build its £70 million Westbridge One tower in Leicester.

The 354-apartment scheme in Bath Lane requires approval from the developer's lender, the Royal Bank of Scotland.

But Westbridge project manager Ryan O'Neil said he was confident the 26-storey scheme would go ahead.

He added: "We have some conditions to do with archaeology on the site that we need to deal with but I am hoping we can get started by the end of the year.

"Leicester is a different market - it's one city where there is an undersupply of city centre apartments.

"We wouldn't be doing it if this was in Leeds or Liverpool."

Analysis: Too many schemes, too little cash

By Michael Ladbrook

Leeds is representative of some of the problems in the housing market, although its issues are compounded by the size and number of schemes and the shortage of investors.

The market for flats in cities just isn't there now, with first-time buyers and investors concerned about falling prices.

Investors will also be concerned about whether in the future they will be able to sell the flats they purchase because there is so much else new available.

However, there are some glimmers of hope, with schemes that have a mixed-use element or housing-related schemes rather than apartments standing a better chance.

But generally for private residential developments, it looks likely to remain slow for a year or more until funding and buyer confidence comes back.

Michael Ladbrook is head of the residential sector at Davis Langdon

I don't usually post on other forums but I also read about this project in this weeks Construction News. This is very disappointing I really liked both the Lumiere and Criterion towers and looked forward to visiting Leeds to check them out, fingers crossed and maybe they can be resumed in the future, good luck.

the Lumiere toweres are just on Hold and will start again in 18 months time but this could be longer depending on the credit crunch, I was really looking forword to seing the Criterion towers but hopfully something better and taller takes its place in the future

Permission to say cock.

Permission granted.

I don't usually post on other forums but I also read about this project in this weeks Construction News. This is very disappointing I really liked both the Lumiere and Criterion towers and looked forward to visiting Leeds to check them out, fingers crossed and maybe they can be resumed in the future, good luck.

Thanks for your kind words (as they say at funerals). It was also a shame not to see the quite similar Brunswick Quay building go up in Liverpool. Another scraper that would have put Beetham Manc in the shade.

http://********************************/BrunswickQuays-3.jpg

I don't usually post on other forums but I also read about this project in this weeks Construction News. This is very disappointing I really liked both the Lumiere and Criterion towers and looked forward to visiting Leeds to check them out, fingers crossed and maybe they can be resumed in the future, good luck.

I think most people are pretty sure Lumiere will rise as soon as the economy improves.

Criterion was never gonna get anywhere. The people involved in it were too slow and it never got started really. This wasn't a victim of the credit crunch, rather Simons not sticking to a contract (although the reality of it not getting built because of the economy was probably a major factor adding to LCCs decision to terminate the contract).

I think we all did tbh.
At least it isn't the first big scheme to have been dumped from this site, remember the Foster & Partners masterplan? I'm sure they'll be something worthwhile here eventually.

See 1995
http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Data/Competitions.aspx

Sorry to repeat what I had said on the end of the previous page but does anyone know just why the Queens Hall was demolished in the mid 1980s especially as until then it was a notable concert and exhibition venue (which obviously its demolition would have resulted in a major loss in the ability to host such things in Leeds city centre)?

Just wandering as surely Leeds City Council or anyone else involved in the development of Leeds at the time didn't want that site to be just left as a surface car park. Was anything planned for the Queen's Hall when it was demolished in the mid 1980s or was the axed mid 1990s Norman Foster development for Royal London Insurance the first proposal for this site?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2315/2326269935_8184091a26_b.jpg

That is a shocking picture. Absolutely stunning how much Leeds has changed since then- infact, nearly every undeveloped site in that picture is now developed (equally some of the developed sites are now brownfield, ie CP). But that gyratory particularly- it feels like you are entering a capital now with big office buildings shadowing the fast flowing roads adorned with corporate names- but there it's literally a few car parks and warehouses.

Wowzers @ Val's photo

I remember all that desolation on my way back from Elland Rd as a nipper. Late 80's. When was that from, could be relatively recently? Early to mid 90's?

I'd love to see a contemporary comparison

I'd also love to see an 1880's comparison. Fat chance?

I think alot if it was still there well into the 90s. It wasn't until the late nineties and from 2000 that developments like City Walk sprung up. I suppose ASDA was an early development, but in general...

Wowzers @ Val's photo

I remember all that desolation on my way back from Elland Rd as a nipper. Late 80's. When was that from, could be relatively recently? Early to mid 90's?

I'd love to see a contemporary comparison

I'd also love to see an 1880's comparison. Fat chance?

It's from the 18th June 1981 to be exact and I got it off Flickr. Theres quite a few other shots which I believe have been posted on this site before as well posted by the same user: http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielrobot/2326269935/

As for a contemporary comparison Live Maps / Multimaps Birds Eye View Feature does give a birds eye view which is roughly comparable of that 1981 view although it is more zoomed in and despite the loss of the Queen's Hall it is apparent significant changes have occured over the past 25 years.

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/57/criterionplacerecentsy9.jpg

Photo taken today,...

Oh well for what it's worth, anyone who's interested the crane is now in place for the 2million 2 level extension to the car park.

http://i320.photobucket.com/albums/nn341/mark-ie_mark/DSCF0644.jpg

It's from the 18th June 1981 to be exact [/IMG]

I don't know why I thought it could be from the early 90s

So I take it the Queen's Hall was the nissen hut looking thing on the south side of Sovereign St?

Well as carparks go ets at least hope this one has a nice design somethinglike the one in Sheffields saintpauls place.

It'll just be the same as what's there now, but with two extra levels. CD's car park is of good architectural quality as far as car parks go.

So I take it the Queen's Hall was the nissen hut looking thing on the south side of Sovereign St?

No - it was the converted tramshed on the other side.

Thanks for your kind words (as they say at funerals). It was also a shame not to see the quite similar Brunswick Quay building go up in Liverpool. Another scraper that would have put Beetham Manc in the shade.

http://********************************/BrunswickQuays-3.jpg

Now, now. :nono:

Like it or not, it's still the only 'real' skyscraper outside London. Don't take your frustrations out on Beetham Manc and Manchester. :) You've only got another 18 months to wait. Tick, tock. Eastgate is still going BTW. :wink2:

Considering that nothing development wise is going to occur on the Criterion Place site anytime soon could part of this site perhaps be converted by Leeds City Council into a nice new "Park Square" style green space to serve this end of town whilst retaining some surface car parking space which could be developed in the future into something nice when the economy picks up?

I guess it would be a good idea to create a new public space here considering it is a common criticism that Leeds City Centre doesn't have enough green spaces and I guess using part of the Criterion Place site would be a good opportunity and that it could also be a possible concert / events venue in addition to Millennium Square. I guess it could make the dark arches along here more popular for possible retail / leisure units if this space was made more attractive.

Before (indeed before BWP was finished):
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/59/212448971_1e2f544937.jpg?v=0

After:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2340/2124103475_c2439bce33.jpg?v=0

Also wasn't there going to be a new pedestrian access through one of the dark arches from Criterion Place towards City Square. I guess the council could still construct that to allow improved access to any possible new square on this site and was there ever any renderings showing how that will look?

Crystalline Criterion Place Plans Shattered

Published on 21-07-2008 by Skyscrapernews.com
Following on from the suspension of the Lumiere towers in Leeds, plans for Criterion Place have now been axed by the developer.

Designed by Ian Simpson Architects, the proposals would have seen 53 and 33 storey towers built adjacent to each other with a distinctive crystalline shape and a height of perhaps 180 metres. The architects have however confirmed that they have stopped working on the scheme.

The problems arise thanks to the developer Simons Developments who reached an agreement with Leeds City Council to submit a full application for the centrally located site within a certain time-span, something they have failed to do. The result of this is the council pulling their support and ending their contract with Simons.

The likely reason for the failure to work to schedule is the size of the developer relative to the scheme and their inability to make it happen despite the plans having floated around for years in some form or another.

Simons has never worked on anything as large as Criterion Place before putting it slightly out of their league in terms of established experience. It's also likely to be thanks to the credit crunch that has caused finance to dry up for developments in central Leeds following fears from investors of an oversupply in the market.

Where Simons go from here remains to be seen. One option is that Leeds City Council will look for another developer who can construct a skyscraper or two on what they consider to be a key site.

Another is that Simons will take a smaller scheme and advance with that instead to the council with the council reconsidering. That doesn't resolve the issues of oversupply and difficult to realise financing that remain for Simons no matter what the scale of their proposals.

Either way the Ian Simpson proposals are unlikely to ever see the light of day unlike Lumiere and these are unchartered waters for the property market in Leeds.


______________
Leeds has really gone down the pan now.
Lets just hope they propose a 200m + tower after the credit crunch :)

I cannot say I'm surprised about these towers being cancelled, If the developer had not faffed around for years it may of already been well under way.

If I recall correctly, weren't the original delays on this scheme due to ownership issues and rights of access across the site? In other words, someone was sitting on a parcel of land required for the development and refused to deal with the council or the developers?

If I recall correctly, weren't the original delays on this scheme due to ownership issues and rights of access across the site? In other words, someone was sitting on a parcel of land required for the development and refused to deal with the council or the developers?

I believe the ownership with access to be railway property.

Part of the development was to open up some more of the dark arches to link CP better with the city. It was to create an underground gallery/space type thing. But there was conflict as to who owned the space under the viaduct which stumbled the development alot.

The reason these developments have been canned, and the reason why most high rise builders in the UK will be canned for the foreseeable future, is simply affordability.

Forget supply and demand because demand has got to be affordable. These projects no longer stack up financailly for 3 reasons:

1. Construction costs are increasing due to increased oil price and commodity prices.
2. Financing costs have and are increasing drastically.
3. Revenue returns are falling. ie apartments are worth less than 12 months ago, rents for offices are dropping etc.

Any one of these on a development increases the risk significantly, all three at once and, to put it simply, its game over.

nm

Have you actually read any of the articles or releases on CP? Evidently not. Obviously it wasn't gonna get anywhere with the economy as it is, but there is the quite explicitly put reason as to why it was cancelled which is that LCC terminated the contract with Simons as they didnt stick to it. That is the reason this project has been cancelled, not due to the credit crunch. LCC could have still approved it so that when the economy picked up it could be built as they have done with most other developments, but instead they terminated the contract.

Now, now. :nono:

Like it or not, it's still the only 'real' skyscraper outside London. Don't take your frustrations out on Beetham Manc and Manchester. :) You've only got another 18 months to wait. Tick, tock. Eastgate is still going BTW. :wink2:

'In the shade' metaphorically speaking because they were much better designs.
Have you ever thought about getting a life, jrb?

Have you actually read any of the articles or releases on CP? Evidently not. Obviously it wasn't gonna get anywhere with the economy as it is, but there is the quite explicitly put reason as to why it was cancelled which is that LCC terminated the contract with Simons as they didnt stick to it. That is the reason this project has been cancelled, not due to the credit crunch. LCC could have still approved it so that when the economy picked up it could be built as they have done with most other developments, but instead they terminated the contract.

Within all of these development agreements that local authorities have are drop dead dates. These dates are there to ensure that the developers undertake certain legal obligations within certain periods. It is impossible for developers to enter into these legal obligations with a scheme that doesn't stack up financially.

LA's will normally extend these deadlines if developers are still making progress and are close to getting a vaible scheme.......in all my experience an LA only ditches a developer if the developer wants it to. It costs the LA's too much money to go back out to the market.

Indirectly this is due to the recession. Secondly Simpson schemes are always financial disasters because they cost way too much too build.

The reason these developments have been canned, and the reason why most high rise builders in the UK will be canned for the foreseeable future, is simply affordability.

Forget supply and demand because demand has got to be affordable. These projects no longer stack up financailly for 3 reasons:

1. Construction costs are increasing due to increased oil price and commodity prices.
2. Financing costs have and are increasing drastically.
3. Revenue returns are falling. ie apartments are worth less than 12 months ago, rents for offices are dropping etc.

Any one of these on a development increases the risk significantly, all three at once and, to put it simply, its game over.

nm

That's a fair summary, particularly with the three points of increased build costs, credit crunch, and dropping revenues. However the economy is a dynamic entity, and as the downturn hit hard and fast, we don't know when this could turn around, and when it does, how quickly. I remember the last recovery crept up on us and after a steady start caught like wild fire before anyone could realise what was happening.

Incidentally, the first bit of good news was reported a couple of days ago that the price of oil took it's first dip in some time, to below $130 per barrel. This may not be the start of a downward trend in prices, but hopefully is the end of the increases. If this does continue the right way, it could mark the beginning of the end of the downturn.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44843000/gif/_44843777_oil_prices_jul08_226.gif

'Oil price drop in volatile market

Falling demand for gasoline in the US has forced oil prices down
The price of oil has recorded its biggest weekly drop, slipping under $130 a barrel on Friday.

Crude prices have fallen more than 11% over the past four days, knocking $15 off a barrel of oil in that period. Fears of high prices weakening the US economy set oil off on one of the biggest weekly falls since 1983.

Sweet crude for August delivery fell 41 cents to settle at $128.88 in New York - far off the record of more than $147, reached one week ago. A key reason for this week's decline was evidence of falling demand for gasoline in the US, despite it being the peak summer driving season, analysts said another key factor was the easing of tensions in the Middle East and Nigeria, both major production points for crude.

"From both a demand and supply perspective, the fundamental picture has turned more bearish," said Walter de Wet, an analyst at Standard Bank in Johannesburg. It has been a volatile month for commodities. Oil prices edged up after the IMF raised its global economic forecast for 2008 earlier this week. And although a pipeline in Nigeria belonging to Italian energy group Eni was blown up, another pipeline belonging to Chevron in the country has been repaired after sabotage in June. Also, the US said on Wednesday it was sending an envoy to Geneva to join nuclear talks with Iran for the first time. Military action against Iran could lead to the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, through which nearly half of the world's traded oil moves. Roy Mason, of oil consultancy Oil Movements, estimated on Thursday that Opec oil exports, excluding Angola and Ecuador, would rise by 560,000 barrels per day in the four weeks to the beginning of August.

BBC.co.uk, dated 19th July 2008

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/7807/image142il3.jpg

Picture taken of the sign advertising the planned (now cancelled) Criterion Place development. I wonder how long this sign will stay up for bearing in mind the cancellation of this scheme. Will it be kept up until it falls off or some other scheme supercedes the axed Simon Estates scheme perhaps? Also below is another picture of the multi-storey which is having a couple of storeys added.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9163/image143yz4.jpg

Also below is another picture of the multi-storey which is having a couple of storeys added.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9163/image143yz4.jpg

Maybe if they keep adding a couple of storeys on at a time it will reach 180 meters in the not too distant future :lol:

And have you ever parked at the top of that? It takes ages to drive back down

Maybe if they keep adding a couple of storeys on at a time it will reach 180 meters in the not too distant future :lol:

And have you ever parked at the top of that? It takes ages to drive back down

How long does it take to get up?

How long does it take to get up?

Thought about that whilst typing :tongue:

At a guess I would say just as long:lol:

Thought about that whilst typing :tongue:

At a guess I would say just as long:lol:

;)

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/4877/cpl1zx4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Not quite what I thought this site would look like 4 years ago......

I realise that this may be an old image, but it includes the multistorey carpark (wasn't that built after the od original design comp?)
Anyway, scroll 9 through http://www.archialgroup.com/commercial.php?submenuheader=1
http://www.archialgroup.com/mixed-use.php?submenuheader=1

^^ That's quite a nice design actually. I'd rather that than a car park.

Ah OK - thought they might be more recent with the car park in them... Maybe it's been there longer that I thought!

I remember that proposal. There was also another twin tower proposal, 33 and 20 something storeys- I think by DLG architectS?

Now this is an intriguing bit of news. Next week's meeting of the City Council's Executive Board is to consider a report on proposals for the Criterion Place site.

As we all know the Ian Simpson-designed towers being proposed here were ditched when Simons couldn't find the cash to go forward. Accordingly, the Council took the site back and the last we heard was that it was considering turning the space into a city centre park.

The report up for discussion next week (see here (http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/Published/C00000102/M00004754/AI00026618/$SovereignStreetCoverReport120710_v1.docA.ps.pdf) for the document) contains some interesting points:

1.0 Purpose of the Report
1.1 The purpose of the report is to update members on work undertaken on the potential redevelopment of Sovereign Street and:-
• to seek Executive Board approval for the preparation of a Planning Statement for Sovereign Street to assist with the future development of the site
• update members of the outcomes to date regarding the feasibility works undertaken on the development of new greenspace at Sovereign Street
• inform members of the site’s potential to deliver a new city centre greenspace whilst exploring the potential to retain an element of car parking and commercial development
• to request approval to engage directly with a potential occupier who has approached the Council regarding the opportunity to bring forward a pre-let opportunity on the site

There is an appendix giving some details on this potential occupier but this is, sadly, commercially confident so we can't see it. However, we can see what this occupier envisages for the site (here (http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/Published/C00000102/M00004754/AI00026618/SovereignStreetReportApp3120710.pdf)).

I really don't think this is a good site for green space. It's an awkward space to start with, but is overshadowed on each side.

I'd much rather see a central park developed on the ASDA site (if it ever is redeveloped), and around the Brewery Site- which is of course really close to the end of Briggate.

I have to agree with you No1. I know we've already had the discussion about the area being quite dark and I still believe that. I don't think the space is large enough either, if the council are serious about creating a city park then it should be much larger so that it could hold large events. Also, final point, I don't see the point in creating a park in an area that already has plenty of development, if it was placed on the Tetley site then it would encourage new development around it because it would be a great attraction.

Next week's meeting of the City Council's Executive Board is to consider a report on proposals for the Criterion Place site.

Thanks for the links.

I think it's quite encouraging actually. There might be a green space surrounded by discrete office blocks, which would be useful for the people who already use that area but don't really have anywhere decent to eat there sandwiches.

Interesting article (and comment) following on from this -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2010/jul/14/leeds-city-council

Great find. Hmmm... I have my doubts on anything rather tall will come out from these proposals though, certainly nothing as tall as CP. Though, saying that, I do hope the design is as good, the site definately deserves it.

The area south of the river is screaming out for redevelopment... or at least a bit of greenery - if nothing else. A riverside park would be pretty awesome. It would sure be hard to aquire the land but the land value would be raised higher in the process.

They could always resubmit the proposal albeit half the height (90m). ;)

I really don't think this is a good site for green space. It's an awkward space to start with, but is overshadowed on each side.

I'd much rather see a central park developed on the ASDA site (if it ever is redeveloped), and around the Brewery Site- which is of course really close to the end of Briggate.


This assertion that Criterion Place is too dark for green space has been made many times before but it has no evidence to back it up. And if any of you folks repeating this canard ever did any gardening, you'd know that it is perfectly feasible to create an attractive green oasis in a shady area.

More to the point, though, is the fact that the City Council is planning a much larger green space, an actual city centre park, south of the river. This thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=60320373#post60320373) has more information and a series of maps.

There is an appendix giving some details on this potential occupier but this is, sadly, commercially confident so we can't see it. However, we can see what this occupier envisages for the site (here (http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/Published/C00000102/M00004754/AI00026618/SovereignStreetReportApp3120710.pdf)).

Interesting plan. Any estimates as to how tall the buildings for the Queen's Hall / Criterion Place site will be considering the square metres size in the range of 1,200 - 1,535 sq m?

This assertion that Criterion Place is too dark for green space has been made many times before but it has no evidence to back it up.

It doesn't need evidence, it's just an opinion and I stick by it. My only concern, however, was if this site was going to be the site of the City Centre Park not just an added green space.

• to request approval to engage directly with a potential occupier who has approached the Council regarding the opportunity to bring forward a pre-let opportunity on the site[/I]

There is an appendix giving some details on this potential occupier but this is, sadly, commercially confident so we can't see it. However, we can see what this occupier envisages for the site (here (http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/Published/C00000102/M00004754/AI00026618/SovereignStreetReportApp3120710.pdf)).

I notice elsewhere it mentions that this occupier is a 'major' national business and that it does not want it's competitors to know of it's intentions. Let the wild guessing begin.....

It doesn't need evidence, it's just an opinion and I stick by it. My only concern, however, was if this site was going to be the site of the City Centre Park not just an added green space.

Hopefully this will be offices and some green space in addition to, not instead of an actual park on the south bank. If that's the case - and I think it is - then its an excellent idea.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Exclusive-Leeds-39kissing-towers39-to.6420893.jp
Exclusive: Leeds 'kissing towers' to be replaced with public park

15 July 2010
Suzanne McTaggart

The axed Leeds "kissing towers" are set to be replaced with a public park, the YEP can reveal.

As well as the green space, a car park and a footbridge over the River Aire are also planned for the site on Sovereign Street.

The £115m Criterion Place development, which was shelved in 2008, a victim of the recession, would have included twin 47 and 29 storey towers.

According to a council report, the proposed park would provide a "high quality environment" for visitors, residents and workers, help combat flood risk and enhance the city centre's reputation.

The report reads: "The site holds the potential to incorporate high quality greenspace at its heart."

The site was previously home to the Queen's Hall, a tram depot-turned-concert venue, demolished in 1989.

Park plans – to be discussed at next week's Leeds City Council executive board – were developed after the 2008 Leeds City Centre Vision Conference identified a need for green space by the River Aire.

In February 2009, councillors agreed to fund a £50,000 feasibility study It is hoped private developers would pay for the park.

The project was discussed at Tuesday's Leeds Business Forum, where guests heard about the impact of government cuts.

Council leader Coun Keith Wakefield said:"We have an aspiration for that part of Leeds which is to promote a city centre park both as a destination in its own right and as a catalyst for the reconnection of the South Bank to the city centre and surrounding neighbourhoods.

"It is expected that this area of the city centre is likely to change significantly in the next few years. This is the starting point to ensure that any change will provide a long-lasting legacy .

"We are facing massive cuts from Government – but this should not stop us having aspirations and planning for the future."

Councillors will be asked to approve the preparation of a new planning statement at next Wednesday's executive board meeting.

Is this a joke? Last time I checked, New York was one of the world's greatest cities. Leeds was not. Why are some people against ambition... or more accurately, their ambition is to make sure everything is average.

I'm not saying a public park shouldn't go here- I'm open to opinions. But on this basis? I'm sure many people would love to live in New York.

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Exclusive-Leeds-39kissing-towers39-to.6420893.jp

Comments:

Aunty Warr,
Leeds 15/07/2010 13:18:07
At last,a sensible idea to prevent Leeds becoming a smaller edition of New York, as some parts resemble now.
A W

It seems pretty clear they are commenting on New York's reputation as a place consisting largely of skyscraper canyons. The previous proposal would have contributed to such an effect in Leeds, the current one would not. To not want such an environment in Leeds is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. Nothing to do with 'greatest cities' or 'average'.

How can you assume such things? They did not say any of that; their point was not backed up and so completely invalid.

If they had said they didn't want it because it would create canyons, fair enough. If they had said they didn't want it because it doesn't fit in, fair enough.

But to say it shouldn't be built because it will make Leeds like New York is like someone saying the packaging of a product shouldn't change because that's the way it's always been. So what.

Things change; who says the character of something shouldn't change? If they back it up with a reason then fine, but just to say "it shouldn't change" is ridiculous. It's exactly the type of attitude that resulted in the UK lagging behind in almost every field; while we're busy saying "why?" to everything, other countries are saying "why not" and leading the way.

I looked at the context and used my noggin.

There's no accounting for taste. Why should people have to justify their taste to you? There's not always a cold, hard, factual, scientific reason for everything. Everyone has their views on the sort of environment they prefer, and if they prefer one without skyscrapers then, well, they just do.

It's thoroughly disingenuous to push the whole 'they're just ridiculous people who don't like change' line also. In case you've forgotten the comment actually approved of this scheme; a scheme which will result in considerable change to the area concerned!

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/yorkshire/news/108001-criterion-place-masterplan-revealed.html?news_section=7
KPMG in talks to build new HQ in Criterion Place plans

23rd December 2010
By Ian Briggs - Deputy Editor, Yorkshire

A MAJOR city centre site which fell victim to the property slump when plans for 'kissing towers' to be built on it collapsed could become home to three new buildings, including a new Yorkshire headquarters for professional services firm KPMG.

KPMG has started a nine month exclusivity period with Leeds City Council to explore options for delivering a new building on Criterion Place.

The Yorkshire headquarters for the firm would be one of three new buildings constructed on the brownfield site, which has been used as a car park for more than a decade and is owned by Leeds City Council.

Plans for two £115m towers on the Leeds site, which is flanked by Sovereign Street and Swinegate and was once occupied by Queens Hall, were scrapped in 2008 after Leeds City Council's executive board ruled the project proposed by Simons Developments was not commercially viable.

Sovereign Leeds, a company established by property professionals Mark Hancock and Mike Heydecke, is working with Leeds City Council and KPMG to bring KPMG's potential building forward.

Mr Hancock told TheBusinessDesk.com Sovereign Leeds would fund the building, which he said could be completed by early 2015, but not the other two planned for the site.

Leeds City Council is developing a draft masterplan for the site, and wants to include urban public green space as part of the proposal.

Coun Richard Lewis, Leeds City Council executive member responsible for city development, said: “We are pleased to be working with KPMG to explore the delivery of a new office in Leeds for the firm. The Council is keen to re-invigorate development in the city centre.

"This is an exciting development opportunity which could help fund the new proposed city centre green space on this site and boost the construction industry, bringing additional investment and jobs to the city.

“The Council is currently working on a draft masterplan for the site which will include three buildings, with the possibility of KPMG occupying one, and the potential for a multi-storey car park to be incorporated into one of the two remaining buildings proposed on the rest of the site.”

KPMG, which is currently based nearby at Neville Street, said potentially moving to Criterion Place was one option it was pursuing. Others include looking at other office sites in the city.

The professional services firm, which has 750 employees in Leeds, has been reviewing its Leeds office options in the context of employee growth and a 2015 lease expiry on its current property.

Iain Moffatt, KPMG’s Leeds office senior partner, said: “In the face of a challenging property development market we are pursuing an innovative route to meeting our future office requirements by taking on an active role of development partner.

“Though at a very early feasibility stage, our agreement with Leeds City Council is an exciting step forward in our planning towards the future of KPMG in Leeds. We are continuing to consider all options but, clearly, will be focusing on the opportunity presented by Criterion Place in the coming months.”

Mr Hancock, who is a founding partner of Talisman Capital and also set up Amerdale Group, a privately-funded development and investment company with a portfolio of approximately £100m when it was sold to Kilmartin in 2007, said discussions had been taking place between the parties for several months and that Sovereign Leeds was set to appoint an architect to design the building.

He said if a building was designed for KPMG, which Sovereign Land would own, it would reflect KPMG's "brand and ideology" and would be state-of-the-art and include the latest sustainable building methods.

Criterion Place has been a brownfield city centre site since the demolition of the Queens Hall in 1989. Simons Developments wanted to build two 47-storey and 27-storey towers on the land, which has been viewed as a major development site for many years.

Speaking at a property seminar earlier this month, Martin Farrington, director of city development at Leeds City Council, said the Criterion Place site should be developed in phases and that a strategy for the area was to "de-risk the environment so you then have the opportunity to get someone with the confidence to come forward and develop it".

Early Christmas present? :D

I still feel sadness that the 47/27 storey could never materialise. I really thought it could be a proper landmark for Leeds.

It won't need to be that big to house 750 staff.

It would be a shame if this building was short but as long as it's aesthetically pleasing it's better than what's there now!

I would think (and hope) that KPMG won't be going for some standard grey plastic clad low rise block. Note with the other accounting firms, they like high standard accomodation to create a good impression. This certainly gives them the chance to get one over on the other firms with a flash building.

There's already PWC on Wellington St and Deloitte in 1 City Square (not sure where E&Y are?). Both these are high quality builds - expect something as good if not better from KPMG...

So they have no interest moving into any of the already proposed schemes such as Wellington Place or City Square House, or indeed any of the empty space like that at Latitude.

I would think (and hope) that KPMG won't be going for some standard grey plastic clad low rise block. Note with the other accounting firms, they like high standard accomodation to create a good impression. This certainly gives them the chance to get one over on the other firms with a flash building.

There's already PWC on Wellington St and Deloitte in 1 City Square (not sure where E&Y are?). Both these are high quality builds - expect something as good if not better from KPMG...

Ernst & Young's Leeds office is in Bridgewater Place.

As for KPMG at the Criterion Place site that is certainly good news to finally see some development there (if it happens of course). However if three buildings are to be constructed then surely there wouldn't be that much room for that mooted green space which is supposedly going there. I guess it also has other advantages such as close proximity to the station and the traditional business and retail quarters and it has a multitude of hotels (Hilton, Mint, Travelodge, Malmaison, Roomz, Marriott etc) located right by the Criterion Place site. I wonder how tall an office housing 750 staff will be though. Whilst not expecting something spectacular it would be nice to see something sticking out of the other buildings in that part of Leeds.

Is it also worth noting that the Criterion Place surface level car park is now operated by Leeds City Council as opposed to Q-Park who previously operated the Criterion Place surface level car park (but still control the adjacent multi-storey). Wonder if that is a sign that something could be occuring there in the future.

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3400/southbnk.jpg (http://img109.imageshack.us/i/southbnk.jpg/)


Obviously that's just giving an idea of what they want to do with the site, but I like the idea of masking the multi storey with presumably better quality buildings.

is it just me or do you get that sinking feeling that the site of a potential skyscraper is about to be hijacked by a groundscraper box? Even if it's going to be architecturally appealing, I think it's a concern that even with Leeds economic success in financial services the powers that be cannot get a very modest 550-600ft building out of the ground!

:( Don't want to be down having lived in leeds for 4 years up to last year, but I was looking forward to either of the tower schemes going up and Leeds felt like it deserved at least one.

I'm struggling to see how places like Brisbane (Australia's 3RD city, yes 3rd!) can manage a skyline like it's got in a country of 22 million people! We have a much bigger economy but for some reason no northern cities can get anything out of the ground. I'm going to consult some people in real estate on this one that I know and ask why this is the case!

Breaks my heart everytime I see this thread pop up! All I can say is that I now hope they intergrate whatever proposal for the criterion place site into the South Bank plans. Think long term.

I'm struggling to see how places like Brisbane (Australia's 3RD city, yes 3rd!) can manage a skyline like it's got in a country of 22 million people! We have a much bigger economy but for some reason no northern cities can get anything out of the ground. I'm going to consult some people in real estate on this one that I know and ask why this is the case!

I'd expect the reasons are:

Proximity to London - being 2hrs away by train means little requirement for big companies to have offices in both London and Leeds and other large cities.

Land value - there's still so many 'brownfield' undeveloped sites in the city centre. So it's cheaper to take up lots of land with few floors, than take up a small footprint with many storeys. Assuming that cost per additional floor rises with number of floors:
(Number of floors x cost per additional floor) + cost of land = Total Cost

So at the moment because the cost of land half of the equation is lower than the other half of the formula, we get low-rises. eg

Option 1 - build 1 20 storey building:
(20 x £1m) + £2m = £22m
Option 2 - build 4 5 storey buildings:
((5 x £200k) + £2m) x 4 = £12m (cheaper)

Once value of land rises:
Option 1 - build 1 20 storey building:
(20 x £1m) + £10m = £30m
Option 2 - build 4 5 storey buildings:
((5 x £200k) + £10m) x 4 = £44m (now more expensive)

So until our regional cities become much more developed, or companies want to 'show off' their wealth (unlikely in current climate) then we won't see many high rise offices. Had the flat building boom continued, then much of the spare brownfield would have been developed on, leading to higher land values and more talls.

Take the Asda Walmart HQ as an example - it's floorplate is huge, and it's very low rise. Assuming they want to stay in Leeds city centre, and that nowhere currenltly available in Leeds can house so many staff, then in order to relocate they will require a new build tower. They will only do so once the value of the land at the current HQ is high enough to cover the cost of building a new tower to relocate to - otherwise it makes no business sense.

Travelled to Chester via Manchester today and whilst Beetham is a great building, it just makes the place look more provincial as it's stuck there on it's own.

I would love to see some 50 floor + buildings in Leeds but now I think that clustering might be more important than height in some respects.

I'm struggling to see how places like Brisbane (Australia's 3RD city, yes 3rd!) can manage a skyline like it's got in a country of 22 million people! We have a much bigger economy but for some reason no northern cities can get anything out of the ground. I'm going to consult some people in real estate on this one that I know and ask why this is the case!

Brisbane has 2mn inhabitants on finite good land (hence building up) and is the state capital so has a broad catchment area. Australia's state capitals compete for investment so even though Sydney is the financial centre it does not the be all and end all. Cities in England except London are not big on a world scale. Thats's because London captures the vast majority of inward investment because it's London and most regional centres have continued to lose there edge over the last 100 years or longer. For instance, Leeds was famous because of cloth and when that went nothing ever replaced it to make it known on the world stage.

Also tall does not mean beautiful or a good city. Having been to Brisbane it's pretty ugly and (from my admittedley short time there) it doesn't compare to the likes Leeds, Birmingham or Manchester culturally. The great thing about England is that it's cold and we have to do lots of interesting things to keep us occupied indoors (apart from the obvious) eg great music, bars, art, shops, fashion. That is where our regional cities punch above their flyweight populations. Unfortuantely we are rubbish at telling people. In Aus or NZ they lay claim to the most mundane self certificates (Dunedin has the second most photographed building [not ruin or structure] in the southern hemisphere) to publicise themselves. The news wires or Lonely Planet pick it up and hey ho then the PR machine runs. If they don't have anything they'll build the worlds biggest pineapple.

I don't think we should build big pineapples (generally because they are hmmm) but the cities here need to sell themselves more and create a unique identity. The infrastructure of the country is set up in a way that everywhere feeds London so it would be hard. IMO I think we should sector the country into North, South and Central, Welsh, NI and Scottish economic zones. For instance, joint economic and infrastruture (but not cultural) policies between Manchester, Leeds, Hull, Liverpool and Newcastle are the only way to draw investment away from London to the North. The problem is each place is too culturally big headed to do so.

Gone a bit random and di livio in contradicting myself. Sorry. Jet lag methinks. Will post a link on the skybar as discussion is probably more appropiate their.

Travelled to Chester via Manchester today and whilst Beetham is a great building, it just makes the place look more provincial as it's stuck there on it's own.

I would love to see some 50 floor + buildings in Leeds but now I think that clustering might be more important than height in some respects.

I think the fact that Beetham is not in a cluster gives it a greater illusion of height - but I always thought it looked out of place as a result. I moved from Leeds to a city that has a great skyline with a couple of 200m+ buildings and a 244m one currrently being built. The clustering does seem to make the buildings feel not as tall, so the height isn't as important.

I think you're right, Leeds skyline would benefit from more of a cluster of reasonable sized buildings. (But the odd 50 floor + would also be fantastic!)

The infrastructure of the country is set up in a way that everywhere feeds London so it would be hard. IMO I think we should sector the country into North, South and Central, Welsh, NI and Scottish economic zones. For instance, joint economic and infrastruture (but not cultural) policies between Manchester, Leeds, Hull, Liverpool and Newcastle are the only way to draw investment away from London to the North. The problem is each place is too culturally big headed to do so.



This is EXACTLY the point of view I have put forward on these forums before. I suggested thsi in the Manchester forum to a very objecting couple of guys and again in the infrastructure forums over the net. You are right...people still seem to think they live in mill villages even though they are now part of city regions and vast metropolitan areas joined together!

My point has always been that by all trying to pull in business for many smaller CBD's any expertise is diluted somewhat anyway, thus, creating no critical mass of labour pool or talent to really create economic 'pull' factors for commercial enterprise other than in a few smaller niche cases.

You can see as well as I can 'The Big O' as I've coined it in my studies (the area from Birmingham joined through Leicester to Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester (through the Calder Valley), Liverpool, Stoke (with a small gap and back round to Birmingham (with a small gap). High speed 2 will knit this area into a much more cohesive economic area, albeit one that works still independently of one another too. But there undoubtedly a case for all these cities getting together (as they form a population of over 17million people) and seeing how they can become an enterprising area capable of much stronger cohesive working and so become more attractive to international business.

I have to say, I really don't think it's any good places like Wakefield trying to be a seperate place, like Bradford tries to too from Leeds. I wish they'd swallow their pride and admit that Leeds has become the dominant CBD and admit that having a larger critical mass in Leeds city centre and pooling resources towards that goal would make everyone in the west Yorks area better off in the very long run!!!! We have too many places saying they're cities with small populations when they'd be better accepting they're part of a bigger place meaning larger critical masses and pooling of expertise meaning more investment and a functioning economic organism.

I'd expect the reasons are:

Proximity to London - being 2hrs away by train means little requirement for big companies to have offices in both London and Leeds and other large cities.

Land value - there's still so many 'brownfield' undeveloped sites in the city centre. So it's cheaper to take up lots of land with few floors, than take up a small footprint with many storeys. Assuming that cost per additional floor rises with number of floors:
(Number of floors x cost per additional floor) + cost of land = Total Cost

So at the moment because the cost of land half of the equation is lower than the other half of the formula, we get low-rises. eg

Option 1 - build 1 20 storey building:
(20 x £1m) + £2m = £22m
Option 2 - build 4 5 storey buildings:
((5 x £200k) + £2m) x 4 = £12m (cheaper)

Once value of land rises:
Option 1 - build 1 20 storey building:
(20 x £1m) + £10m = £30m
Option 2 - build 4 5 storey buildings:
((5 x £200k) + £10m) x 4 = £44m (now more expensive)

So until our regional cities become much more developed, or companies want to 'show off' their wealth (unlikely in current climate) then we won't see many high rise offices. Had the flat building boom continued, then much of the spare brownfield would have been developed on, leading to higher land values and more talls.



Bang on! The maths certainly makes interesting reading. My Hoesli and MacGregor (Property Investment Principles and Practice of Portfolio Management) will help me with this over the next few months!

Shiny Dave does make an excellent point that I've also supported on these forums and suggested many times and stated above.

Gone a bit random and di livio in contradicting myself.

:shocked:

I never contradict myself.
Well, maybe I do sometimes .

Option 1 - build 1 20 storey building:
(20 x £1m) + £2m = £22m
Option 2 - build 4 5 storey buildings:
((5 x £200k) + £2m) x 4 = £12m (cheaper)

your maths is totally wrong. in terms of the "sweet point" the average for a high density residential development is 22 floors balancing density, sales cost and build cost.

Hats off to Shiny Dave for summing things up so accurately. It seems to have been discussed on here so many times, but nobody can see an end to it. Cities like Leeds, while having populations similar to Lyon, Valencia, Dusseldorf etc, etc etc, have been depressed by the massive centralisation of all things on London and consequently have much smaller world roles and much lesser contibutions to GDP. Certainly in Germany and Spain, similar-sized cities have much greater automony from central government and have not historically been dominated by a capital city (in fact, many were themselves capitals of their own states for considerable periods, while London was drawing everything toward it for 1,000 years).

I came across an interesting article on Alpha Cities on Wikipedia the other day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city). Even though, population-wise, the UK isn't huge, and London even less so, London still ranks close behind New York as the world's second city. As an aside, it sort of makes a mockery of the argument that all the financial institutions will move abroad if the governemnt tries to regulate them properly.

Cities like Manchester and Birmingham creep in near the bottom of the page as Gamma Cities (below Antwerp, Rotterdam, Stuttgart, Munich, Ljubljana, Bratislava, Nicosia AND Brisbane).

How long is the Greek alphabet?

You have to be joking about Nicosia?!

You have to be joking about Nicosia?!

Wish I was. Global City.

Ever been to Bratislava?

Hats off to Shiny Dave for summing things up so accurately. It seems to have been discussed on here so many times, but nobody can see an end to it. Cities like Leeds, while having populations similar to Lyon, Valencia, Dusseldorf etc, etc etc, have been depressed by the massive centralisation of all things on London and consequently have much smaller world roles and much lesser contibutions to GDP. Certainly in Germany and Spain, similar-sized cities have much greater automony from central government and have not historically been dominated by a capital city (in fact, many were themselves capitals of their own states for considerable periods, while London was drawing everything toward it for 1,000 years).

I came across an interesting article on Alpha Cities on Wikipedia the other day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city). Even though, population-wise, the UK isn't huge, and London even less so, London still ranks close behind New York as the world's second city. As an aside, it sort of makes a mockery of the argument that all the financial institutions will move abroad if the governemnt tries to regulate them properly.

Cities like Manchester and Birmingham creep in near the bottom of the page as Gamma Cities (below Antwerp, Rotterdam, Stuttgart, Munich, Ljubljana, Bratislava, Nicosia AND Brisbane).

How long is the Greek alphabet?

Absolutely right. Part of the problem is historical. Countries like France, Italy, Spain and Germany are either relatively new and/or very large, with "provincial" cities actually former capitals in their own right. These factors persist is regional and federal policies in many countries. The closest equivalent we have in Scotland relative to England, where Edinburgh and Glasgow are the Rome and Milan of the far north, in a region which was and to a large extent is, another country. You just can't imagine any other city than London as the capital of the UK, well England anyway, whereas Milan, Frankfurt, Barcelona, Antwerp and even Lyon actually look and feel like capital cities.

Well yes, but many of them have been designated as state/regional capitals as well...

I agree, it's actually ridiculous that wealth isn't shared evenly with other Cities up and down the country, what i find absurd is that London doesn't want other cities such as Leeds, Liverpool etc to grow and do well, even though if they did do well it would actaully benefit this country tremendously, lack of investment to these cities are held back by London constantly stealing all the countries wealth only to be spend on one single city in the UK, "LONDON", Don't get me wrong im proud of London and i think it's a great place, but we pay heavly for it, other UK cities are neglected because of it! something which i don't get is, Leeds is in the same country as London, whatever gets spent in Leeds will end up down in London anyway thats how it goes, so what is the problem of investing more money into other UK cities making them into super modern metropolises? it's going to benefit the UK either way..

just can't imagine any other city than London as the capital of the UK, well England anyway, whereas Milan, Frankfurt, Barcelona, Antwerp and even Lyon actually look and feel like capital cities.

I disagree, Lyon is nothing like a capital city, i should know i've been, it has nothing on paris in any possible way! all i think is that it's lack of shared investment in the UK which is holding other UK cities back, i think you would find that if more investment was happening in places Like Leeds and liverpool etc, then we wouldn't have this problem.

Not necessarily Lyon, but the point still stands. There are several 'capital style' European cities that aren't capitals; Barcelona is a good example.

This is part of the reason I'm pro European. Their ideals of subsidiarity; a 'Europe of the Regions', fits much better with the interests of Leeds & Yorkshire than surrendering our potential strength to London for the sake of the UK. In other words, the strengthening of Europe and the regions at the cost of Westminster is to the regions' benefit.

Don't get me wrong im proud of London and i think it's a great place


Why be proud of it? It's another country.

I agree, it's actually ridiculous that wealth isn't shared evenly with other Cities up and down the country, what i find absurd is that London doesn't want other cities such as Leeds, Liverpool etc to grow and do well, even though if they did do well it would actaully benefit this country tremendously, lack of investment to these cities are held back by London constantly stealing all the countries wealth only to be spend on one single city in the UK, "LONDON", Don't get me wrong im proud of London and i think it's a great place, but we pay heavly for it, other UK cities are neglected because of it! something which i don't get is, Leeds is in the same country as London, whatever gets spent in Leeds will end up down in London anyway thats how it goes, so what is the problem of investing more money into other UK cities making them into super modern metropolises? it's going to benefit the UK either way..

I totally agree. Even though it would benefit London if the rest of the UK was more economically succesful, all the Londo-centric government can see is greed; keeping all the investment money to themselves (consider that they are protecting their personal investment in their London based homes that most of them have). Also consider the London based media's constant deliberate and totally unjustified ridiculing of the northern cities, which really strengthens my scepticism of what is going on here.

I disagree, Lyon is nothing like a capital city, i should know i've been, it has nothing on paris in any possible way! all i think is that it's lack of shared investment in the UK which is holding other UK cities back, i think you would find that if more investment was happening in places Like Leeds and liverpool etc, then we wouldn't have this problem.

I still think that Lyon has a capital city feel. Clearly not as big as Paris but in excess of 1m people. Also has a good metro system. Being on two major rivers helps to give it a big city feel too. It reminds me of Prague. Always been a bit of a Lyon fan since the 60s.
As for lack of investment in the English regions, I think that this is because since the early Middle Ages, London has sucked everything in, partly for geographical reasons. In addition we lack a proper local government structure. My recipe would be to devolve some tax raising (local income tax and say, 50% of business rate) power to local authorities who would be made fully accountable every four or five years in whole-council elections, not as in the present system. In this way the electorate would become more involved in local government. At present the PM is virtually the Lord Mayor of England, with a veto on local decisions (Leeds Tram etc). I really can't see why England can't have regional government. I fail to see what Yorkshire has in common with Cornwall and Devon for instance, though I would seriously have thought that we actually do have a lot in common with either the north-east or Lancashire. What's happening at the moment is that the so called Celtic Fringe is having power devolved in greater quantities while England, the majority population is tied down. Rather like Russia within the USSR, which didn't have any sort of autonomous status, unlike say, Georgia which had a government. I know that it isn't an exact parallel but you see where I'm going. Sorry about this ramble.

I still think that Lyon has a capital city feel. Clearly not as big as Paris but in excess of 1m people. Also has a good metro system. Being on two major rivers helps to give it a big city feel too. It reminds me of Prague. Always been a bit of a Lyon fan since the 60s.
As for lack of investment in the English regions, I think that this is because since the early Middle Ages, London has sucked everything in, partly for geographical reasons. In addition we lack a proper local government structure. My recipe would be to devolve some tax raising (local income tax and say, 50% of business rate) power to local authorities who would be made fully accountable every four or five years in whole-council elections, not as in the present system. In this way the electorate would become more involved in local government. At present the PM is virtually the Lord Mayor of England, with a veto on local decisions (Leeds Tram etc). I really can't see why England can't have regional government. I fail to see what Yorkshire has in common with Cornwall and Devon for instance, though I would seriously have thought that we actually do have a lot in common with either the north-east or Lancashire. What's happening at the moment is that the so called Celtic Fringe is having power devolved in greater quantities while England, the majority population is tied down. Rather like Russia within the USSR, which didn't have any sort of autonomous status, unlike say, Georgia which had a government. I know that it isn't an exact parallel but you see where I'm going. Sorry about this ramble.

very good point, but having been to Lyon heck of a lot, i still don't see it to be any different to Leeds in terms of size and feel, the only thing i can see is that Lyon gets more investment in it's infrastructure, for instance Leeds can't even get a good quality transport system funded, which is absurd considering the city is large and has a population of three quarters of a million people, Leeds is also the capital of West Yorkshire and the whole Yorkshire region, there's no denying that, Leeds like alot of other English cities around need to be invested in more, it wouldn't only benefit Leeds it would benefit the UKas a whole.

The City Council has published a planning statement for the Criterion Place site (see here (http://www.leeds.gov.uk/files/Internet2007/2011/8/sovereign%20street%20planning%20statement%20consultation%20draft.pdf) for the document). It's out for consultation until 18 March and contains the local authority's thoughts on its preferred options for the site.

The building I'm working in on Soveriegn Street has massive pictures of the axed tower scheme in the lobby. It depresses me everyday!!!

The building I'm working in on Soveriegn Street has massive pictures of the axed tower scheme in the lobby. It depresses me everyday!!!

Oooo. Could you possibly take a big picture of them? The only images/renders of CP are very small. Much appreciate it if you can, cheers!

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/yorkshire/news/132400-city-centre-site-plans-unveiled.html

Plans announced today - anyone got the full story?

I can't access it neither, but the 15 storey building is going to be atleast 225ft 70m in height, not too bad i guess.

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/yorkshire/news/132400-city-centre-site-plans-unveiled.html

Plans announced today - anyone got the full story?

Here you go


City centre site plans unveiled
23rd February 2011

By James Reed - Assistant Editor

PLANS for a major redevelopment of a key Leeds city centre site have been published this morning.

Leeds City Council is proposing three buildings, including one up to 15 storeys high, could be constructed on the Sovereign Street plot around a new public space.

The land was the site of the Queens Hall until its demolition in 1989 and has in recent years been used as a council car park.

The council believes redevelopment of the site could open up two railway arches, connect to the nearby Granary Wharf development and link the city centre to a proposed new park on the south bank of the River Aire.

Coun Richard Lewis, Leeds City Council executive member responsible for city development, said: “Sovereign Street is a very exciting part of our vision for the city centre; a prime spot for regeneration with huge potential to attract jobs and investment to that part of the centre.

“We’ve published this draft document to give as many people as possible the opportunity to tell us what they think about the plans for this area and to open up a debate about how we can deliver the new city centre park.”

In December, it emerged that KPMG and Leeds City Council have entered into a nine month agreement with a view to creating a new headquarters for the company on the site.

Plans for two £115m "kissing towers" were scrapped in 2008 after Leeds City Council's executive board ruled the project proposed by Simons Developments was not commercially viable.

The council says it is looking for a mix of uses at the site that could include hotels, restaurants, offices, residential and retail.

Thanks Aviator. Nothing we didn't already know there but good to see things are progressing.

..

An incredibly unambitious proposal for the Criterion Place / Queens Hall site by Conservative councillor for Guiseley and Rawdon, Graham Latty. :ohno: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/leeds_kissing_towers_site_should_be_car_park_1_3180344

Leeds Kissing Towers site ‘should be car park’
Published on Tuesday 15 March 2011 10:23

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/webimage/nlep_15_03_11_p06kiss_1_3180343!image/499690218.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_595/499690218.jpg
A valuable Leeds city centre site once earmarked for a landmark development should remain a car park, says a councillor.

Discussions are underway over the future of the council-owned former Queen’s Hall site, Sovereign Street, where it was proposed to build the “kissing towers” scheme until the economic downturn forced its abandonment.

The three-acre site is currently used as a surface car park and the council is considering how it could be used in the future.

A draft planning statement – a document that will help guide any future development – is currently out for public consultation. It lists a number of possible developments including offices, hotel, residential, cafes, restaurants, leisure and entertainment to be set around a “21st century city centre greenspace.”

But Coun Graham Latty (Con, Guiseley and Rawdon) has called for the site to stay a car park.

He told the council’s city centre plans panel, which was discussing the statement, “It is a car park at the moment and I applaud that. Cars have to go somewhere.”

Recalling the recent controversy sparked when the council tried to close some unauthorised car parks on the city centre’s southern fringes, he said: “Look what happened when we tried to close the peripheral car parks – you would have thought we had declared war on people.

“This site fulfils a similar need. It is close to offices and car parking is needed. More buildings are not needed.”

He said improved drainage and better landscaping around the edge could make the car park more attractive.

But Coun Martin Hamilton (Lib Dem, Headingley) said: “It would be a terrible waste to use such a piece of city centre land as a car park.

“If the best we can do is to park cars on it, it’s a crying shame.”

A rough, indicative plan in the statement showed three buildings on the site surrounded by green space.

Coun Neil Taggart (Lab, Bramley) was unimpressed with the plan.

He said the site should either be a proper park and not simply a green space or an outstanding development with eye-catching, innovative buildings.

Dear me what a depressing idea. Should all the other surface level car parks around city centre development sites (re: Quarry Hill, Wellington Place, Whitehall Riverside, International Pool etc) be left just as car parking space permanently. It certainly is a depressing thought if some people think that way and shows a lack of ambition on the part of the council especially when prime sites are left for just car parking as opposed to anything else. Certainly something needs doing at the Criterion Place site sooner rather than later.

It doesn't harm New York!

A graveyard would be a less depressing use for this site.

Fuck me. I take back everything I've just put on the Arena thread about the leaders of the city possibly beginning to fight for the city. How can somebody with such a staggering lack of ambition be allowed to hold his office? He hasn't even had the wit to suggest it become a car park under a nice green space.

The site could be improved by putting this guy's head on a stake at the entrance.

Am allowed to say that or will this get censored?

Fuck me. I take back everything I've just put on the Arena thread about the leaders of the city possibly beginning to fight for the city. How can somebody with such a staggering lack of ambition be allowed to hold his office? He hasn't even had the wit to suggest it become a car park under a nice green space.

The site could be improved by putting this guy's head on a stake at the entrance.

Am allowed to say that or will this get censored?

You say it as much as you want, old sport. I, for one, agree with you completely.

If I were being nasty, I would suggest that Councillor Latty is rather lazy. If he actually visited the Holbeck car parks that he referred to, he would know that none of them is anything like full and that they could easily cater for the cars now parking on the Sovereign Street site.

....................................................................

Considering there are two multi storey car parks, one of which literally on site, it's about as retarded as it gets

I would rather swim bollock naked through a swimming pool of barbed wire and lemon juice, than see this prime plot be retained as a car park. The idiot who said this should be removed from office ASAP.

I would rather swim bollock naked through a swimming pool of barbed wire and lemon juice, than see this prime plot be retained as a car park. The idiot who said this should be removed from office ASAP.

LOL I have just had a terrible day of work and that made me laugh so much I no longer care about it. Thank you :cheers:

Ya welcome friend.

Flaming hell! It's not like this bloke is actually in charge, shown to share a majority view, or anything like that is it? Every walk of life has such people and he no doubt represents a strand of opinion about this site which of course should be allowed to be aired, all this vitriol and burning at the stake nonsense is out of order. It would be worrying if they all shared his view and it remained a car park but that doesn't seem likely.

In the councillors defense I would say that the only commercially viable use at the moment does appear to be a surface car park. It depends in what context his comments were made, if he feels the site should accomodate a car park on a permanent basis then clearly his views are wide of the mark.

It's a prime site and I'm sure something of substance will come forward eventually.

Flaming hell! It's not like this bloke is actually in charge, shown to share a majority view, or anything like that is it? Every walk of life has such people and he no doubt represents a strand of opinion about this site which of course should be allowed to be aired, all this vitriol and burning at the stake nonsense is out of order. It would be worrying if they all shared his view and it remained a car park but that doesn't seem likely.

Nobody suggested he be burnt at the stake. I asked for his head on one. It's less polluting.

To be serious, it's not that views shouldn't be allowed to be aired. It's that the people elected to represent the city continually show such a dismal lack of ambition, foresight or even understanding.

well said LG, its not that we are against free speech, im just against the negative backward thinking that is sweeping this country. not in my back yard brigade. Its a total joke these idiots drive me mad and i unfortunatly have to deal with people like this on a daily basis. This country would be so much better off if we just stopped paying these idiots any attention at all.

For subscribers only (I'm not one so can't post the whole article) - but further development on this
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/scott-brownrigg-to-take-on-replacement-for-ian-simpsons-kissing-towers/8611835.article

For subscribers only (I'm not one so can't post the whole article) - but further development on this
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/scott-brownrigg-to-take-on-replacement-for-ian-simpsons-kissing-towers/8611835.article

Nice find.

Hello business park. http://www.scottbrownrigg.com/our_work/business_space/

I've decided it's my goal in life to see the Kissing Towers built somewhere in Leeds, preferably on the Hindle site.

my god another dead site
Leeds needs to step up to london
The way i see it, london is effectively a bully, stealing money from the rest of the UK to make it even more better, while leeds can't even afford this amazing skyscraper.
Lumiere must be built also, that buildings cool

Anyway, costs aren't even £400 million, and london are building the shard (over £1 billion)
without a care for leeds.

F**K OFF LONDON!

I agree with you about London, it is, effectively, sucking the life and soul out of the rest of Britain, except Manchester of course which seems to be London's lapdog nowadays.

What Leeds needs at this time is another juvenile internet troll :ohno:

What Leeds needs at this time is another juvenile internet troll :ohno:

I wouldn't worry about that, I try and avoid the shitty talk forum and its slack inhabitants.

my god another dead site
Leeds needs to step up to london
The way i see it, london is effectively a bully, stealing money from the rest of the UK to make it even more better, while leeds can't even afford this amazing skyscraper.
Lumiere must be built also, that buildings cool

Anyway, costs aren't even £400 million, and london are building the shard (over £1 billion)
without a care for leeds.

F**K OFF LONDON!

The thing is it's about private investment, if a developer want to invest 1 billion on a new skyscraper than they can. It's a harsh fact but true that the north does not attract as much investment as London

my god another dead site
Leeds needs to step up to london
The way i see it, london is effectively a bully, stealing money from the rest of the UK to make it even more better, while leeds can't even afford this amazing skyscraper.
Lumiere must be built also, that buildings cool

Anyway, costs aren't even £400 million, and london are building the shard (over £1 billion)
without a care for leeds.

F**K OFF LONDON!

Have you not noticed the poor state of the economy which has been going on for the last four years or so meaning such skyscraper developments are extremely unlikely to occur anytime soon because of the lack of demand and funding for such developments to take place. The reason London is still attracting a lot of development is because it is a World City alongside the likes of New York, Paris, Beijing, Tokyo etc which would therefore attract much more investment globally compared to the likes of Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool and indeed Manchester which you quoted in the Lumiere thread isn't attracting as much development compared with days gone by (although there is of course the MediaCity development there) with things such as the Piccadilly Tower on hold and perhaps never to be constructed in it's current form.

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/yorkshire/news/195562-sovereign-street-plans-set-to-move-forward.html
Sovereign Street plans set to move forward

20th July 2011
By Ian Briggs - Editor, Yorkshire

ACCOUNTANCY firm KPMG could move into a new regional headquarters on a key development site in Leeds city centre by 2015 if councillors agree heads of terms with the company at a key meeting.

Leeds City Council's Executive Board will vote next Wednesday on whether to approve a revised planning statement for the Sovereign Street site.

As revealed by TheBusinessDesk.com last December, it emerged that KPMG and Leeds City Council had entered into a nine month agreement with a view to creating a new headquarters for the company on the site.

A report on the development proposals for the site recommends approval on the planning statement; the approval of heads of terms with KPMG and its development partner Sovereign Leeds for the sale of a development plot; and the extension of the exclusivity period with KPMG for a further six months so it can complete its due diligence on site.

Although the principal use of the site should be offices, there is scope for ancillary retail, food and drink and leisure uses, the report states.

The proposed timetable for the development would see construction work on KPMG's building begin in July 2013 with staff moving from its existing offices nearby in June 2015.

Sovereign Leeds, a company established by property professionals Mark Hancock and Mike Heydecke, will purchase part of the site for the development of a 60,000 sq ft building between five and seven storeys high which would be leased by KPMG to house its new city centre offices.

Plans for the site include a further two buildings, as well as public greenspace that would cover more than 50% of the area.

To deliver the city's "aspirations of high quality greenspace", the report says, an international design competition could be launched. It is estimated that the delivery of the greenspace could cost up to £2.5m.

The report says that KPMG's interest in one of the three proposed plots on the site has fuelled interest from other potential occupiers, including office occupiers from the professional sector, hotel operators and car park operators, for the remaining two plots.

Marketing of the two remaining plots is set to begin later this year.

Coun Richard Lewis, Leeds City Council executive member responsible for city development, said: “We are delighted at the prospect of the Sovereign Street site being developed, it provides an outstanding opportunity to create an innovative and well designed environment in a key regeneration area of the city.

“It offers the opportunity of creating links with the riverside area and beyond to the South Bank, Clarence Dock and Holbeck Urban Village, opening up that part of the centre and creating thousands of jobs."

The report concludes: "There is a very real possibility of the balance of the site being developed out over the next five years which will contribute to the Leeds economy."

The Sovereign Street brownfield site has been used as a car park for more than a decade and is owned by Leeds City Council. It is expected to generate £825,000 of revenues for the current financial year.

Plans for two £115m towers on the site, which is flanked by Sovereign Street and Swinegate and was once occupied by Queens Hall, were scrapped in 2008 after Leeds City Council's executive board ruled the project proposed by Simons Developments was not commercially viable.

Looking forward to this filling a big hole in the cityscape!

Here is the link to the new planning statement for Sovereign Street (here (http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=58135))

Much better outline than before. The draft positioning of buildings creates a much clearer green space.

Also here (http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=102&MId=5229&Ver=4) is the link to the Councils EB agenda next week. It also includes the proposed strategy document for the market and views on HS2.

Also the most notable thing mentioned is that accountancy giants KPMG are to occupy part of the Criterion Place site by 2015 if councillors agree terms. http://www.propertyweek.com/news/news-by-region/yorkshire/leeds-city-council-to-vote-on-kpmg-regional-hq/5021884.article

Accountancy firm KPMG could move into a new regional headquarters on a key development site in Leeds city centre by 2015 if councillors agree heads of terms with the company at a key meeting, TheBusinessDesk.com reported today.

Certainly there does need to be some development here and anything would really be need to finally fill in this empty space even if it isn't a skyscraper once envisaged (a shame but surely something is always better than nothing).

Will KPMG vacate their existing office then or will it be an expansion into new premises from their existing office across the road from the Criterion Place site?

I agree with you about London, it is, effectively, sucking the life and soul out of the rest of Britain, except Manchester of course which seems to be London's lapdog nowadays.

Talk about sour grapes! Get over it.... sheesh :|

Talk about sour grapes! Get over it.... sheesh :|

This thread has been bumped far too many times now. :ohno:

I came across this?



http://www.kingassociates.com/assets/images/criterionplace.jpg

It was originally posted on here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=238517&page=52) in 2008 by LeedsLad and relates to a render from 2007.

I'm guessing we'll see some movement on the new Sovereign Street development soon as the council agreed the planning statement last month. KPMG had a 9 month agreement to develop proposals for the site from December last year (see post 1203). And the Council sought developers for the remaining plots last month.

locateinleeds (http://www.locateinleeds.co.uk/2011/10/2693/)

October 20, 2011
Sovereign Street development plots hit the market
Filed under: Business in Leeds,Commercial Property,Development,Uncategorized — Tags: Commercial development, Investment in Leeds, KPMG, Office in Leeds — locateinleeds @ 10:16 am

The redevelopment of a prime city centre location is taking another step forward with the marketing of two opportunites.

Leeds City Council is looking for developers to come forward for two sites as part of the new look Sovereign Street site.

KPMG is already commited to building a new Leeds office on the site in partnership with developer Sovereign Leeds.

Now the council is offering two further plots each with the potential for a building between 60,000 and 100,000 sq ft in size.

I came across this?



http://www.kingassociates.com/assets/images/criterionplace.jpg

Don't remind us, they were the days when we thought all of our dreams would come true for skyscraper development in Leeds, but not this one.

With a desire to make the most of its south facing aspect, Bibis Italianissimo have appointed Healey Associates to undertaken design works for a new external dining area for their award winning Leeds City Centre restaurant.

As part of the proposals, Healey Associates have been instructed to prepare a larger masterplan for the adjacent Criterion Place site, which is currently subject to a Draft Planning Statement by Leeds City Council, following the failure of the Ian Simpson designed 'Kissing Towers' for Simons Developments. Our proposals have been sent to the Council as part of their consultation period & trusting they appreciate good design, our masterplan should be incorporated into the new Sovereign Street Planning Statement in the near future!


http://www.healey-associates.co.uk/images/news/SITE%20PLAN%20SMALL.jpg

http://www.healey-associates.co.uk/main.html

That certainly seems like a fair overview of how to fill in the Queens Hall / Criterion Place site giving plenty of room for new buildings whilst giving space for a square. I would assume buildings A & C to be office considering larger floorplates whereas building B is residential or hotel (perhaps more likely a tall to hide the car park in addition to give a sense of high density right next to Leeds City Station).

Any word on the proposed KPMG offices which is supposed to occupy part of the Criterion Place site?

Although I'd thought the council were planning it to "flow" from some newly opened up arches towards Trinity, and with a little more green space, hinting at what it would lead to across the river...

http://www.healey-associates.co.uk/images/news/SITE%20PLAN%20SMALL.jpg

http://www.healey-associates.co.uk/main.html

Love it,

Simple, elegant, functionalist and practical, giving direction to future south central development.

One can only hope the designs are good.

The council seem to be pushing this hard at the moment, this site is seen as key to opening up the Southbank which will unlock, amongst other things,the provision of some much welcome green space in Leeds city centre.

I agree with you about London, it is, effectively, sucking the life and soul out of the rest of Britain, except Manchester of course which seems to be London's lapdog nowadays. Not sure how you come to that conclusion. If your talking about the investment after the bomb in 96, that had to happen. The publicly funded projects such as the Imperial War Museum and Civil Justice Centre were acceptable considering Leeds got the Armouries and Liverpool got the Tate. People forget a lot of the investment has been privately funded in Manchester and actually the Imperial War Museum was partly funded by private investment from the Peel Group.

And even if investment isn't coming in, it still has its music, football, universities etc. to shout out about. That is a useful bonus to have in tough times that no other British city outside London has. The UK has become far too London centric though. Really, it is a city economy built on bankers and spivs over the last 20 years. That is a precarious position to be in going forward.

And even if investment isn't coming in, it still has its music, football, universities etc. to shout out about. That is a useful bonus to have in tough times that no other British city outside London has.


Who cares? This isn't a thread about Manchester.

Who cares? This isn't a thread about Manchester. Your telling the wrong person. You should tell the poster who claimed Manchester is London's lapdog somehow. Think you will find I was responding to that comment.

Your telling the wrong person. You should tell the poster who claimed Manchester is London's lapdog somehow. Think you will find I was responding to that comment.

Sadly your response was nearly a year late

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. If your talking about the investment after the bomb in 96, that had to happen. The publicly funded projects such as the Imperial War Museum and Civil Justice Centre were acceptable considering Leeds got the Armouries and Liverpool got the Tate. People forget a lot of the investment has been privately funded in Manchester and actually the Imperial War Museum was partly funded by private investment from the Peel Group.

And even if investment isn't coming in, it still has its music, football, universities etc. to shout out about. That is a useful bonus to have in tough times that no other British city outside London has. The UK has become far too London centric though. Really, it is a city economy built on bankers and spivs over the last 20 years. That is a precarious position to be in going forward.

forget about London that city is a global phenomenon in fact the decision to relocate many uk institutions re the BBC's move to Manchester,the revitilisation of all the northern cities has shown how the establishment is determined to focus on strengthening the North of England.The capital that is financing the majority of projects in London is Foreign.

http://www.healey-associates.co.uk/images/news/SITE%20PLAN%20SMALL.jpg

http://www.healey-associates.co.uk/main.html

I had a bit of time on my hands so i had a go on Google Sketch again and decided to have a go at making the buildings :lol:


http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot257.png

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot258.png

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot260.png

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot264-2.png

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot265-1.png

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot267-1.png

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot263-1.png

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot261-1.png

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz325/melfiire/SnapShot262-1.png

I went for some much needed glass buildings, i tryed to follow the plan best i could but i found the urge to add a bit of grass as you can see, thought it be nice place to sit in the sun or something :lol:

Tallest building is 70m

Nice effort! There was actually a fairly similarly proportioned building planned for that site before the competition which the Simpson towers won. I recall it being all office and 16 storeys.

I went for some much needed glass buildings, i tryed to follow the plan best i could but i found the urge to add a bit of grass as you can see, thought it be nice place to sit in the sun or something :lol:

I think we can expect a lot more grass anyway, it won't be all hard landscaped like shown in the plan.