Maybe a new thread is in order for this massive yet sometimes overlooked project.

CHAPEL WHARF

Info:
Developer - Dandara
Architect - Sheppard Robson
Usage 983 flats, some retail and office. Total project area: 808,000sqft.
Site Next to the 5* Lowry Hotel and Edge buildings, partly on Lowry car park, partly on currently vacant riverside land. Will require demolition of some small buildings.
Buildings 4 residential buildings in two phases. All 4 have outline approval. The first phase is a 112m(366ft), 37 storey tower and a 60m(196ft), 19 storey tower alongside which has been submitted for full planning. There are 539 flats in phase 1.
The 2nd phase is two buildings of 16 and 17 storeys.
Planning applications
Phase 1 full - http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/planning/planning-press-notices/ppn-land-at-chapel-wharf.htm
Both phases outline -
http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/planning/planning-press-notices/ppn-land-bounded-by-chapel-street.htm

images(All I could dig up right now)
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2305ChapelWharfTower2_pic1.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1709ChapelWharfTower1_pic1.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1709ChapelWharfTower1_pic2.jpg

Skyline impact
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b292/caw1234/mancfromsalford2.jpg

Hopefully we will see a better render of this tower in a few weeks,possibly when Dandara open there new HQ right next door to this site...

Great future skyline pic there,nice cluster will be forming in the next couple of years

Thanks Caw. Much appreciated. Wow.

The buildings may be superficially attractive (the jury is out on this one, I await further renders) but this whole area is becoming far too overdeveloped and oppressive. If only they'd had the foresight to introduce a wide pedestrian promenade along that side of the Irwell to provide some relief and make the area a better experience for the pedestrian.

As it is, I think this scale of development along the little river Irwell will prove to be far too big.

Nice project. Still unsure about its proximity to The Edge.

What Sleepy said. The Irwell is getting as claustrophobic as in the CBD now.

As it is, I think this scale of development along the little river Irwell will prove to be far too big.
Well, I beg to differ.

I don't.

The Irwell is very claustrophobic already, it's framed by buildings at least 35m high all the way from North Tower to Albert Bridge House. There is barely any green space around here, Parsonage Gardens is the only example and that is tiny.

If Chapel Wharf goes up, the Ramada Hotel should be demolished and left as an open area with some quirky resturaunt on a boat in the river or something. Then It'll feel like you have room to breathe, room to appreciate 1 Deansgate, The Edge and er.......North Tower.

Some aerials of the area:
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/manchester/agts28.jpg
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/manchester/agts29.jpg

General
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/323EdgeB_pic2.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/323EdgeB_pic7.jpg
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/324EdgeC_pic2.jpg

Deplorable
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/658RamadaRenaissanceHotel_pic1.jpg

Caw: Have you got a car? If so is it dirty? And if it is, are you going to trade it in for a new one? No. As per the Jarvis Hotel there is nothing wrong with this building that a modest makeover won't put right.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/658RamadaRenaissanceHotel_pic1.jpg

lol, so predictable :laugh:

And you haven't got a car have you Accura? Or a house? Or the ability to look at a dirty building and see what it could be before spending millions of somebody else's money replacing it with something that will look worse in a few years.

Caw: Have you got a car? If so is it dirty? And if it is, are you going to trade it in for a new one? No. As per the Jarvis Hotel there is nothing wrong with this building that a modest makeover won't put right.


I am barely old enough to drive Farsight. If I had a nice car, say, a BMW, I would clean it when it got a little dirty. But the Ramada is not a BMW, the Jarvis is not a BMW. More like a pair of A reg Ford Popular Plus bangers with a taped-on wind mirror and a loose exhaust. In that case, you wouldn't clean them, you would trade them for a BMW. Or maybe trade them for nothing and start walking through the nice new open space created by giving that horrid Ramada a painful explosive death.

The building across the river from the Ramada is horrible too, the 6-8 storey one, occupied by a hotel, can't remember which one though.

They probably won't bother though, end of the day how most cities of the world thrive on their rivers.. we didn't give two shits to chuck in it. If you want water and air, just have go to SQ

It's not like it's just a knackered cortina. It's a knackered Cortina dumped in the middle of a beautiful field.

And you haven't got a car have you Accura? Or a house? Or the ability to look at a dirty building and see what it could be before spending millions of somebody else's money replacing it with something that will look worse in a few years.
I'm still 2 months off the legal driving age. I dont have a house, but I live in one.
My parents car looked nice when they bought it, but it looks kinda crap now compared to others, so we are going to by a new one in January.
My house is about 40 years old, but it looks okay, its well built and it fits in with the rest of its environment.
Have you EVER walked past Ramada without looking up? (probably not)
At ground level its absolutely fucking rank. It looks like the entrance to the pedestrian subway outside Salford Shopping City. And what makes it worse is that its on a prominant location, on one of the busiest streets in Manchester right across the road from the city's first £1m apartment, the most expensive shop etc.

Oh well if thats the case Shortsight then lets stop everything, cease the groundwork! halt!! It aint worth building it.. why bother if it aint gonna be there forever, lets just live in mudpits then because we cant have a world of 'modern cars'

Nothing that a modest makeover with a wrecking ball and some explosives wouldn't put right.

Caw: Have you got a car? If so is it dirty? And if it is, are you going to trade it in for a new one? No. As per the Jarvis Hotel there is nothing wrong with this building that a modest makeover won't put right.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/658RamadaRenaissanceHotel_pic1.jpg

What you guys don't appreciate is that the new buildings you rave about today will be slagged off in a few years time when they've acquired a bit of grime. By people who are like you are now.

What the Ramada needs is a clean, and some tidying up on the roof. Personally I'd also be looking to see what I could do with the entrance and the back of the building, to see if I could open up that patch of river by the bridge. But it really isn't a bad enough building to start calling for demolition.

Anybody who thinks this should be demolished and Chapel Wharf shouldn't be built is on the wrong website. Unless they're here on purpose trying to influence young impressionable minds. Think about it.

I cannot fathom why anyone would want to keep the Ramada, it's a terrible building. No we should not renovate, we should take the oppurtunity to demolish it. IMO it's the last piece in the post-IRA jigsaw that needs redevelopment. The Arndale, Shambles, M&S, Triangle, Printworks, Urbis and Royal Exchange being the other pieces.

Even with a reclad it would still block out 1 Deansgate and the river. The shape and positioning is crap. Farsight's indiscriminate defence of anything highrise is becoming tedious.

When Chapel Wharf goes up the Irwell will be extremely overbearing and a bit too dense, the best way to help alleviate this? Demolition of the shittest buildings along the same stretch of river; Alberton House, Ramada Hotel and the Blackfriars Road travel inn. Unfortunately Alberton House is in the hands of Bruntwood and so will remain.

Anybody who thinks this should be demolished and Chapel Wharf shouldn't be built is on the wrong website. Unless they're here on purpose trying to influence young impressionable minds. Think about it.

Yeah because if you want to influence impressionable young minds the obvious thing to do is join a skyscraper forum, where you can take them over to your NIMBY dark side that campaigns for demolition of anything over 5 storeys. They'd have a massive total of about 10 people under 18 they can influence. :crazy:

Come on. I want Chapel Wharf to go up, and anyone in their right mind would want Ramada to come down. They can build a tower at Greengate just down the river and get rid of that 70s eyesore.

Farsight, even if it was cleaned up, is it still not just just a block of concrete?
The Jarvis hotel is debatable because its fairly unique in design, but this is just a dirty, giant brick.

I can see Farsight's point. There's a definite cycle with architecture. People rave about it when it's new, then it falls out of favour both through changing fashions and the acquisition of grime, then it becomes appreciated again. It happened with Victorian architecture which is why planners thought nothing of demolishing entire Victorian streets to make way for new developments in the 50s, 60s and 70s (e.g. the Arndale).

That the 50s and 60s are associated with cheap and nasty architecture is no coincidence. My friend's dad was an architect in the 60s and I remember him saying that the country was still feeling the effects of the aftermath of WWII and consequently there wasn't much money around, so a primary concern of an architect in that era was to design buildings as cheaply as possible.

However, it's interesting to note that post-war architecture is now starting to be appreciated, even stuff from the 60s, if it happened to be built with materials that aged well. That's why the CIS was a success, as was Pall Mall Court and only a handful of others. The difference now is that with most new developments the building materials are given more consideration. Consequently Urbis and No.1 Deansgate are unlikely to look shabby, ever.

Oh yes, the Ramada...

The Ramada block is an eyesore in my opinion for a number of reasons. First of all, it's bare, unadorned concrete. You could argue that a reclad will solve the problem, but in addition to its condition, the proportions are all wrong. It's too big and imposing and it's not interesting enough to warrant such scale. It ruins that whole gateway to the city centre.

^^ Yep. Good design is sustainable and will ride out transient tastes and fads. Bad design will not.

What constitutes good and bad design is somewhat subjective and quite hard to pin down but I believe there are some fundamental things (be it material, form, context, massing, detail and so on) which most people naturally respond to most of the time. Being individuals there are of course some things which people find attractive which the next person would find abhorent but they tend, as Farsight, to be very much in the minority.

I will defend the 40-odd year old CIS tower to the hilt. That is a great example of enduring good design for a variety of reasons (common consensus would appear to back this up) so it certainly ISNT the case that buildings inevitably fall out of favour and therefore will inevitably present a strong case for demolition.

Ramada and a few other notibles are head-and-sholders, clear cut candidates for the wrecking ball though. I can't see this ever being considered a worthy building at any point in its existence.

Ramada is a slim cuboid. A rectangle. OK it's dirty and somewhat untidy, but if you cry demolition instead of looking into a spruce-up, think about where it takes you. Into a PC never-never land where buildings aren't permitted a functional economical shape because of the whimsies of architectural fashion.

CJC is another slim cuboid. Will that need demolishing? Obviously not. But the obvious solution that then pops up is to dress the Ramada to echo CJC and be left with something attractive.

Can I just chuck this into the melting pot: I'm not keen on 1 Deansgate. I reckon the stilts look un-pretty, and the overall effect is somewhat unfinished. I'm not saying I'd like to see it go. But I can imagine a Ramada-type situation in future where a new generation of people are slagging it off no end and calling for demolition for fatuous reasons.

The difference with Ramada and 1 Deansgate is no1 doesn't completely overpower what little breathing space there is left down the Irwell like North Tower and the Ramada do. There really isn't a single redeeming feature to the Ramada though, I don't see why you have such a bone on for it. Street level, it does *fuck all* to enhance your experience down there. Yet over the road, 1 deansgate as uber-wide pavements with retail units fully let and add to the vibrancy of the road. Ramada and it's grott just destroy whatever soul this end of Deansgate has. This is most notable when you're driving into town from Broughton and you pass the lovely cathedral to be greeted by the single most horrific sight in North Manc: that fucking purple staircase fronting onto Blackfriars.

The back of Ramada (as Caw's pic shows), kills off whatever hope you would have of having a lovely riverside view. No landscaping around the back, nothing, just a horrible concrete box that shits on the river.

You could cover the building in kryptonite and put a 300ft Dolph Lundgren on the roof, no matter what reclad you gave this building, it would never enhance the general walking/shopping experience.

Pull the thing down. Either redevelop the plot as a public space with lovely elevated views over the Irwell or build something to compliment 1 Deansgate but also respects it's immediate area.

So, what are we saying here? We sit on our hands for years while a load of other buildings line the riverside chock a block. But then we complain that there's no view and North Tower and Ramada make the riverside claustrophobic. Even though they were there first. Oh, and Chapel Wharf shouldn't be built.

Bah. Somebody just doesn't like skyscrapers.

Some space is needed on the Irwell, but why sacrifice new development to allow that blot to stay there?

No. If you'd have seen anything I've posted in relation to the Irwell, I've been dismayed by the lack of open space for yonks now. And the Ramada was being slagged off here long before you or I showed up. This isn't everybody picking on you.

I didn't think it was, dgnr8.

Mez: If it was just the Ramada we were talking about, may be. But this particular aspect of the discussion started when somebody said Chapel Wharf was too big and shouldn't be built. Same old same old.

Fair do's fair do's. I just cant wait to see the back of Ramada.

I think the uneasing feeling about CW is the fact it's a huge tower bang next to a small and already claustrophobic river. And it's also being built between the Lowry and the Edge which is like trying to squeeze Russell Grant in the centre aisle of a plane.

Nobody actually dislikes the tower (although from the sketches, it doesn't look that impressive but we can't judge it from them alone), people just seem to dislike it's positioning. In respect to the whinge about it being so close to the river, look at the St Georges Wharf tower for Vauxhall in London. It's huge and totally overpowers the area and in my opinion, most certainly should not have been approved.

Like I say, nobody has any qualms (with legs) about the tower. It's the positioning that's wrong. For instance, why couldn't they just swap the tower and lowrise element around so the tower is further back? Or even have the lowrise attached in an L shape so that'd be built behind the Lowry and the tower by the smaller of the Edge buildings (3 & 4)?

This argument isn't anything to do with building quality. It's about the quality of the area the building will bring and considering all the shaking of heads about the over development of the Irwell (especially on the Manc side), it does warm the smaller cockles of my heart that people are looking at the wider picture instead of just fudding off to a tall building.

OK noted. Swapping the tower and lowrise around sounds like a good idea.

I hate the positioning of the massive 60m block in Chapel Wharf. It's a wall of a building, totally blocking out the Edge and not interacting with them at all. I think the 112m tower should be a bit further back from the river, with the 3 lower buildings rotated so that they are parrallel with the Lowry Hotel and create a 'stepping up' effect.

Fair do's fair do's. I just cant wait to see the back of Ramada.
That could be a couple of decades off yet. They have a 22-storey extension planned and the current building will be reclad.

That could be a couple of decades off yet. They have a 22-storey extension planned and the current building will be reclad.

That plan is actually 26 floors(I thought it was 22 too) and that plan probably won't be built.

Some space is needed on the Irwell, but why sacrifice new development to allow that blot to stay there?
Not to detract from peoples perceptions but we are talking about the Irwell ffs! It's not exactly a beautiful wide waterway like the Seine or even the Thames that meander through their respective cities. Let's be honest with ourselves here, the Irwell is nowt more than a narrow stream snaking it's way through parts of the centres of Manchester and Salford. As waterways go, if it were a bit straighter it could easily be mistaken for a canal.
All these claustrophobic buildings on its banks don't really obscure any tangible beauty it has to offer. The only way I could see to make it more 'people-friendly' is to try and wedge in some pedestrian walk-ways on both sides, where possible.

Trying to create a nice riverside environment around this part of the Irwell is pretty pointless now. The same goes for the section of the Irwell next to the area where the Greengate masterplan is planned to go. Too many bridges, too overshadowed, too many busy(ish) roads. The best bits of the Irwell at the moment are the square and bridge outside the Lowry Hotel, and to some extent, the section adjacent to Spinningfields (Leftbank, Peoples Museum, that water level cafebar etc).
However, lets not forget about Urban Splash's planned resort on the Irwell near the Nynex. There you will have a nice riverside environment!

A kind of promenade along the riverbank would be nice. But some buildings were built right to the absolute river's edge a long time back. Pity. Come to think of it, I think it's these buildings that give the hemmed-in feeling rather than Ramada or North Tower.

edit: Does anybody have the daylight and better version of this to hand?

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/709/490buildings07.jpg

They could create a floating promenade made of wood along one side of the river, but that would make the Irwell seem even smaller :(

Is that from the Trinity footbridge? I think I've got one from there at home, I'll check when I get back.

Ramada is a slim cuboid. A rectangle. OK it's dirty and somewhat untidy, but if you cry demolition instead of looking into a spruce-up, think about where it takes you. Into a PC never-never land where buildings aren't permitted a functional economical shape because of the whimsies of architectural fashion.

CJC is another slim cuboid. Will that need demolishing? Obviously not. But the obvious solution that then pops up is to dress the Ramada to echo CJC and be left with something attractive.

Can I just chuck this into the melting pot: I'm not keen on 1 Deansgate. I reckon the stilts look un-pretty, and the overall effect is somewhat unfinished. I'm not saying I'd like to see it go. But I can imagine a Ramada-type situation in future where a new generation of people are slagging it off no end and calling for demolition for fatuous reasons.


Farsight. If I cry demolition for Ramada, it doesn't take me into a PC never-never land. It just means I would like a shit building to come down. That's it.

Crap building. Crap location. Creates a crap ambience, blocks off the riverside, is horribly run down, has very little if any architectural value. A prime candidate for demolition.

You cannot compare it to CJC, CJC does not sit on and overshadown and block off the riverside, CJC is a fantastic piece of daring architecture.

Of course there are cycles of architectural taste and many buildings of previous generations will end up being hated.
Good architecture will stand the test of time and will not be hated in future generations. As has been said, CIS, Pall Mall and a few, very few others from the 60s-70s boom have stood the test of time. Ramada has not, it should go.
Likewise, the stuff we are building today will obviously come under similar scrutiny. Buildings like Baribolli Square and CJC will stand the test of time, Sovereign Point and The Hacienda will probably not. 1 Deansgate will, in my opinion.

I can see Farsight's point. There's a definite cycle with architecture. People rave about it when it's new, then it falls out of favour both through changing fashions and the acquisition of grime, then it becomes appreciated again. It happened with Victorian architecture which is why planners thought nothing of demolishing entire Victorian streets to make way for new developments in the 50s, 60s and 70s (e.g. the Arndale).

But developers will always be willing to get rid of nice old buildings to build modern stuff, it wasn't necessarily just a sign of the times. Did victorian architecture really 'fall out of favour?'
Remember that some old buildings that were threatened with the chop ie. The Holy Name Church, were saved thanks to protests in the mid 60s.

I think the situations are different, the 60s and today.

In the 60s, victorian architecture was being demolished in droves, and this is now regretted.
Today, 60s architecture is demolished in droves, but you can't say this will be regretted in 30 years just because of what has happened in the past.

As you said most 60s stuff was built as cheaply and quickly as possible, to capitalise on the land made avaliable by the luftwaffe, and to regenerate the old towns as fast as possible.
Victorian architecture was often built out of pure ego, and there was a strong sense of competition, to build the grandest and nicest buildings around. This was not the case in the 60s.

The crappest buildings from each generation should be demolished if need be, and the quality stuff preserved. It's important to remember that despite our losses we still have the best examples from different periods of architecture in Manc remaining, The Town Hall, Midland Hotel, Palace Hotel, St James etc And the best examples from the 60s will remain as the worthy ones are all listed.

Ramada should go. It won't be regretted, ever.

A kind of promenade along the riverbank would be nice. But some buildings were built right to the absolute river's edge a long time back. Pity. Come to think of it, I think it's these buildings that give the hemmed-in feeling rather than Ramada or North Tower.

edit: Does anybody have the daylight and better version of this to hand?

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/709/490buildings07.jpg

Yep the 60s stuff built right to the edge is a shame, solution? Demolish Alberton House too!
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/323EdgeB_pic2.jpg

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/709/490p8080020_psd.jpg

Thanks caw.

Hmmn. what's the name of that big new building with all the balconies smack in the middle, built right up to the edge of the river? :)

Seriously though, there's a bit of prom jutting out there. It could be done elsewhere. Where there's a will there's a way. Never say never.

Something that would do wonders for that part of the Riverbank would be if Bruntwood took some of the fence down which goes round the Riverside Building car park. You have to walk all the way round to get to Spinningfields etc.

The problem with adding promenade to what's already there though is the inevitable shortening or our already small river. As has been said many times by myself an others, developers should've been forced to build a few metres back from the existing walkway, thus creating a new Sein like walkway down the river. Aye, it may not be the Sein, but there are parts of that river which are as small as the Irwell but the added walkway do so much for the experience. Somebody here can correct me as I was only 15 when I went to Paris, but I do seem to remember the Sein being quite Irwell sized around Notredamé. And that was a lovely experience down them parts from what I remember.

Agreed. Total lack of Farsight.

Notre Dame is on an island in the middle of the Seine, so the river forms two narrow(er) courses at that section. Still nowt like th'Irwell though :)

Isn't the 'island' actually another town/city with Paris, Notre Dame sitting to the left (when facing) of said island?
Few years since I was last in French, but I was pre-occupied in finding the mysterious 'humpback whale' of Notre Dame.
Has the Irwell any such frightening marine life to boast I wonder?

There'll be a few scary, blubbery creatures in the Irwell once that beach gets built :)

Isn't the 'island' actually another town/city with Paris, Notre Dame sitting to the left (when facing) of said island?
Few years since I was last in French, but I was pre-occupied in finding the mysterious 'humpback whale' of Notre Dame.
Has the Irwell any such frightening marine life to boast I wonder?

Yes ,,some fat old Cheetham Hill slappers falling in ,pissed after a night out :laugh:

I likes whats yers saying!

Have a good week guys.
Off to Berlin for a bit.

Born in the North said:

''If you don't beleive me ring Salford City Council, they have advised that the tower is too high.''

The 112m is too high? Didn't Salford approve the outline application that included a 108m tower on the same plot?

I looked up 05/49877/OUT and it said pending consideration.
It says the same for 05/50479/FUL

http://publicaccess.salford.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_searchform.aspx

You cheeky devil you ! I was aware the Dandara were nothing to do with Beetham, it was just a little extra info. lets just wait and see regarding the floors! Dandara moved because they outgrew there old offices not because of Chapel Wharf, out of interest Salford City Council have turned down their plans for a 37 storey.

Happy to say your wrong Born In The North!

The proposals by Dandara for the Chapel Warf site have not been rejected because of the height of the tower!

I've also been told there is no problem at all with the height of the tower! :)

so it's going ahead, or its been rejected for another reason?

Or are they making some refinements? What's cooking jrb?

no, jrb has obviously rung SCC today. i think you might be getting mixed up with canopus?

Happy to say your wrong Born In The North!

The proposals by Dandara for the Chapel Warf site have not been rejected because of the height of the tower!

I've also been told there is no problem at all with the height of the tower! :)

I'm not wrong JRB! Dandara were told that the 37 storey tower was too high and to come back with further proposals by Salford City Council. I got the info from my relative at Dandara. I'm sure it will go ahead just not in it's original form.

Kids: jrb musta rung Salford Council and asked about Chapel Wharf and Greengate. See Greengate thread.

yeh, i know, i was talking to BITN (my post got infront of his)

I'm not wrong JRB! Dandara were told that the 37 storey tower was too high and to come back with further proposals by Salford City Council. I got the info from my relative at Dandara. I'm sure it will go ahead just not in it's original form.

You are my friend!

I have it from a very, very, good source! (you can't get much better!)

The planning application has not been rejected! I would have been told if it had! No decision has been made so far on the proposals! If the application had been rejected because of the height of the tower, the whole application would have to be submitted again, and it hasn't!

You are my friend!

I have it from a very, very, good source! (you can't get much better!)

The planning application has not been rejected! I would have been told if it had! No decision has been made so far on the proposals! If the application had been rejected because of the height of the tower, the whole application would have to be submitted again, and it hasn't!

Believe what you want jrb, I never said the proposal had been scrapped! I went to visit my brother this afternoon and spoke to two of the headboys at Dandara, I'm right just admit it. The 37 storey tower is on hold until refinements have been made regarding it's height. If you think your source can better a Scot and an Irish man then think again.

Believe what you want jrb, I never said the proposal had been scrapped! I went to visit my brother this afternoon and spoke to two of the headboys at Dandara, I'm right just admit it. The 37 storey tower is on hold until refinements have been made regarding it's height. If you think your source can better a Scot and an Irish man then think again.

Put it this way! The refinements must be down to Dandara then! As I have already stated! there is no issue over the towers height and the current application has not been refused because of it!

One more thing! If Dandara change the height, they will have to withdraw the current application and submitt another one!

As for my source! You couldn't ask for a better one! :)

Born! Out of interest! What is the new height proposed by Dandara?

jrb, for some reason i get the impression that your shouting with exclamation marks. lol.

Id be glad if you could terminate the (!) key al together. Not that its a bad thing.
Anyway why am i up at 2am talking about exclamation marks?!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ive got the habit of doing it now!!

Ps! Thank you once again! You know who!

As for my source! You couldn't ask for a better one! :)


No worries jrb, glad I could help, and thanks for the compliment!
And I thought it was just pillow talk!

Site of Chapel Wharf
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1709ChapelWharfTower1_pic4.jpg

View into the murky waters
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/323EdgeB_pic10.jpg

Sorry Farsight, but if you want to keep this, you need yer head checkin:
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/658RamadaRenaissanceHotel_pic2.jpg

Give it a clean up and stick on a bit of tickytack and it'll look like that MIB you were raving about. A little more money and you could have another CJC. Jeez, what is it with these calls for highrise demolition.

Another CJC???... Which Ramada are you looking at? :|

Duh.

See above. Compare with this, because after a few years and a bit of grime some tosser will be saying demolish it.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/tuesday29aug002.jpg

I think the ramada just needs an OUTSIDE renavation job.

Painting, cleaning , windows etc. (Like sunley)

... plus some large bombs.

Agreed 9462. You other guys, give it a chance. There's a proposal for an add-on curvy tower that would bring a Ramada refurb, and the whole thing could end up looking pretty good.

http://www.calderpeel.com/projects/city/ramada/ramada_01.jpg

Anyhow, what's cooking with Chapel Wharf?

I agree with farsight on this. There is much talk about sustainable development both on this forum and in the wider media. But what exactly do we mean by sustainable?

How can knocking down such a young building be sustainable decision for the 21st century. Sure, the Ramada is tired and is arguably past it's sell by date, but given a reasonable budget and a talented architect I see no reason why it can't be successfully reinvented for the world in which we live today - the continued use of buildings like this is the ultimate form of recycling imo.

I also don't accept the argument that this building blocks access to the Irwell. There is actually a quite substantial plaza between Ramada and the Irwell. Fair enough, few people have actually been down there since the 70's and it takes real effort if you do want to get down there, but the fact is the space remains. An architect with imagination and vision should have no problems properly integrating this space into the city.

I take a more holistic view of "sustainable development". Its not just about recycling and bringing redundant floorspace back into use, sustainaibility is also about ensuring you dont hinder present and future development opportunities both in terms of the building itself and surrounding sites. To that end you have to consider form as well as function.

Subtract has previously hinted that ISA have carried out a feasibility study on Ramada and found a redevelopment of this structure (apparently to the standards of this particular firm of talented architects) unworkable. It doesnt surprise me. A simple clean and reclad is insufficient in my view.

The hotel tower is isolated in the middle of the podium and respects neither the line of the Irwell nor the junction of two of Manchester's most significant streets (Deansgate and Blackfriars). Visually its a mess. Psycologically and physically, this building must impact on the development of surrounding sites and buildings. The hotel tower's isolation is caused in part by sitting on top of a large NCP multistorey car park which fronts onto the river. Whilst the roof of this particular part of the structure may indeed be a "space" or plaza of sorts, it is in no way attractive or useable nor in my view has any prospect of being.

So in sumary, Ramada presents a significant challenge to redevelop to any kind of acceptable standard. The ultimate in sustainable development in this case appears to be full demolition and redevelopment (the council's executive's minutes seem to back up this view)...... unfortunately it doesn't appear to be feasible to do this so a less substantial or phased redevelopment seems to be on the cards - and more's the pity in my view. If we end up with Calder Peel's vision of sustanable developemnt then I fear this building will again be needing substantial redevelopment in another 20 years when people realise the same inherent flaws have not really been dealt with.

Indeed, like many buildings of the era, Ramada was built with little or no consideration for the surrounding area implemented into the design.

Why spend an obscene amount on a reclad, just get rid of it, I don't want to have to look at this horrible building in any form ever again, it utterly destroys any kind of tingling feeling that may have been aroused by having just wandered past the Cathedral and 1 Deansgate.

It should come as no surprise to note that the Ramada Hotel is the surviving part of the Shambles Square "master"plan which blighted that part of the city centre until the IRA thoughtfully bombed the fuck out of it.

The point which Farsight makes about CJC looking grimy and horrible in twenty years time or so I don't think is a valid one. Buildings like the Ramada aged very badly because of the materials from which they are built. With most modern buildings, CJC included, the mistakes made in the 50s to 70s have been learnt from and new buildings are usually clad in more durable materials. I don't think CJC will ever suffer as much from a shabby appearance as the Ramada; certainly Beetham won't, nor will Urbis or No.1 Deansgate being almost entirely clad in glass. To illustrate the point, look at the few buildings from the 60s that were built with durable materials, e.g. Pall Mall Court and the former Natwest building on King Street. They were both built in 1969 and I don't think they've ever looked shabby.

I agree that the Ramada is not worth saving. It's downright ugly and surely wouldn't be worth the expense involved in doing so.

<badtaste>
In fact I've half a mind to park a van load of explosives outside it myself.
</badtaste>

Even if it was demolished, you wouldnt be happy if they replaced it with low rise projects. I wouldnt be anyway. Manchester is desperate for towers after a 25 year wait since the last.

Some people would be very happy with lowrise. Especially if it was was clad in stone. Then they'd come here and tell us stupid oiks how wonderful it was, like with the MIB. But the selfsame good folk don't want to even think about recladding a highrise, be it Ramada, Sunley, or Maths Tower, and when you study their reasons you find they are evasive and vacuous.

Favourite buildings:

Farsight - CIS
Griff - The Reform Club (Edward Salomons, 1870-71)
SleepyOne - St James' Buildings
Caw - Town Hall

Can't you just shut up? I'm not being funny like, but we've had the same bollocks from you since the first time you posted. The majority of Manc SSC users are adults and generally explain their reasons for disliking a building. Yet you just cannot accept that others have a mightily different view from you. Then you start calling everybody a prick (in this case, "stupid oiks") purely on the basis of differing opinion.

If you can't accept somebody else's views without being an offensive little child, then don't bother posting.

It's getting ridiculous Farsight. We've had fuck all but a year of you calling us bellends and disregarding anything we've got to say (when it's a different opinion from your own). Added with the general shite posted in the Manc forums since construction was deemed "sexy" (including tripe posted by myself), this forum is God awful these days. Little information, constant bitching, fucking txt speak and a general all-round lack of respect.

You can keep whinging about Manc Fan and his supposed hatred of tall buildings (bollocks mate, utter bollocks and you know that all too well, Farsight), you can also carry on whinging about us all being fooled by Manc Uni's "flawed 21st Century vision". But for fuck's sake man, unless you've got something NEW to add to the constant bollocks you post regarding existing/future development and the Manc forumer's opinions, then stop with the constant fucking broken-record posting. Have these stupid fucking arguments in your head instead of constantly spamming the board with rhetoric we've heard from you a thousand times before.

dgnr8: Can't you just shut up? I'm not being funny like, but we've had the same bollocks from you since the first time you posted. The majority of Manc SSC users are adults and generally explain their reasons for disliking a building. Yet you just cannot accept that others have a mightily different view from you. Then you start calling everybody a prick (in this case, "stupid oiks") purely on the basis of differing opinion.

If you can't accept somebody else's views without being an offensive little child, then don't bother posting.

It's getting ridiculous Farsight. We've had fuck all but a year of you calling us bellends and disregarding anything we've got to say (when it's a different opinion from your own). Added with the general shite posted in the Manc forums since construction was deemed "sexy" (including tripe posted by myself), this forum is God awful these days. Little information, constant bitching, fucking txt speak and a general all-round lack of respect.

You can keep whinging about Manc Fan and his supposed hatred of tall buildings (bollocks mate, utter bollocks and you know that all too well, Farsight), you can also carry on whinging about us all being fooled by Manc Uni's "flawed 21st Century vision". But for fuck's sake man, unless you've got something NEW to add to the constant bollocks you post regarding existing/future development and the Manc forumer's opinions, then stop with the constant fucking broken-record posting. Have these stupid fucking arguments in your head instead of constantly spamming the board with rhetoric we've heard from you a thousand times before.

Huh? This was the Chapel Wharf thread until somebody started saying demolish the highrise again. If you don't like me rebuffing this, tough titty you arrogant git.

Exactly. It takes one person to say "demolish the highrise" for you to start tarting on with tripe you've posted one thousand and one times before (827 to be exact but this is no time for semantics).

This all may be very interesting and entertaining for yourself but given the responses by most forumers in the past 12 months towards some of your choice posts, I'd wager there are a hell of a lot more people than just me getting incredibly tired by your pap.

The one saving grace is you've stopped the "this is SKYSCRAPERCITY, not Florence-a-like construction" line you harped on with for ooh, a good 6 months. Although this had been taken over by your favourite current phrase, pissing on about dreaming spires etc. It's boring. Change your tune.

And I don't see the arrogance in my post, but fair enough. But I still find it incredibly rich that you have the audacity to call anybody arrogant.

No, you can't see your arrogance can you. That's obvious. And what else is obvious is that you think this website belongs to you and your coterie and you can shout down anybody who answers back to the drip drip demolish the highrise. Jeez, it's not even as if Ramada is close to Chapel Wharf. If anything needs demolishing it's the building opposite the Chapel Wharf site. That would open up the river nicely with a park.

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/manchester/agts28.jpg

Eh? I'm talking about your constant spamming of this forum with the same, tired lines. Do you honestly think that saying the same sodding thing for the hundredth time will change somebody's opinion? I'm not claiming this is mine or anybody's forum. But I DO get fucked off with coming home, seeing loads of threads updated then finding they're filled with the same bollocks I've read everyday for the past year. Are you really so blind to your actions?

I'm not claiming to be brilliant or the best or anything. I'm as fallible as the next bloke so get it out of your head that this is some ego trip. I'm telling you how you come across on here (from my point of view), very much the same as others have told you. You cannot accept criticism of an existing old building (or criticism of your own views) so you revert to name calling (see my point about us "stupid oiks").

What's the fucking point man? Are you here solely to call everybody a twat and just be a difficult cunt for shits and giggles? Because this is certainly the impression you've built up for me since April, 2004.

I'd only happily see a reclad of the Ramada if it was a lot more substantial than that curvy tower, the height and shape are good but the white-panel cladding is disgusting

dgnr8: Eh? I'm talking about your constant spamming of this forum with the same, tired lines. Do you honestly think that saying the same sodding thing for the hundredth time will change somebody's opinion? I'm not claiming this is mine or anybody's forum. But I DO get fucked off with coming home, seeing loads of threads updated then finding they're filled with the same bollocks I've read everyday for the past year. Are you really so blind to your actions?

I'm not claiming to be brilliant or the best or anything. I'm as fallible as the next bloke so get it out of your head that this is some ego trip. I'm telling you how you come across on here (from my point of view), very much the same as others have told you. You cannot accept criticism of an existing old building (or criticism of your own views) so you revert to name calling (see my point about us "stupid oiks").

What's the fucking point man? Are you here solely to call everybody a twat and just be a difficult cunt for shits and giggles? Because this is certainly the impression you've built up for me since April, 2004.
Name calling? What are you on about? You're the one doing the name calling. Try reading the thread. Read what I actually said.

Farsight: Some people would be very happy with lowrise. Especially if it was was clad in stone. Then they'd come here and tell us stupid oiks how wonderful it was, like with the MIB.
And stop trying to shout me down with all your cunts and shits. It doesn't work, and you aren't getting away with it. Grow up.

:bash:

Anyhow, Chapel Wharf. Anybody heard anything? I couldn't find anything about Acroy Limited on the internet. I did however bump into the Dandara website. Most people will know already, but they are doing some quite nice stuff.

http://www.************/index.html

Huh. I can't post the link because d a n d a r a . c o m gets turned into asterisks.

wtf... you can't write ************?

Jeez, it's not even as if Ramada is close to Chapel Wharf. If anything needs demolishing it's the building opposite the Chapel Wharf site. That would open up the river nicely with a park.


The building opposite the site eh?

That would be the Century Buildings.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/322CenturyBuildings_pic3.jpg

Shock horror, a highrise! What is wrong with you! This is skyscraper-fucking-city! Next it'll be CIS, Sunley, Arndale. Are you on the wrong website? This isn't lowrisecity.com mate!!!!


dgnr8 is spot on though. Everytime someone states their opinion about a disgusting building worthy of demolition you go mental if it's over 12 floors. Just accept it, most of us think the Ramada is rank and want it blown down. Why should this be met with a barrage of bollocks about how we all hug old stone, and will inevitably all be calling for the demolition of our other highrises too?

Well for your information, I would be happy with a lowrise on the Ramada site, provided that it improves that area of the city. Ramada is rank, I don't give a toss if it's 2 floors or 25, it's disgusting. Same for every other shit building in this city. Not arsed how short or how tall, if it's crap, I want something done with it, if it's as crap as Ramada, I want it gone forever.

Well said caw.

Actually, if I might go one further, I'd be happy to see NOTHING on the Ramada site. The Irwell is a little bit crowded with buildings, not being the widest of rivers and all that, and it would be good if there was a nice green open space right next to the river.

Unlikely to happen though, unfortunately.

I live inhttp://www.clay.co.uk/diss/diss1.jpgand aside from the stench of a pigs cadaver and the odd rastapaedic bulimic Visa carrier, there really is lots to stomach.

A lovely little grass verge, with a boat similar to the one at Canal Street that serves only the finest of beers to the nicest of people. Ahhh.

caw: Mental? LOL! Have a read of dgnr8's posts if you want mental. And you brought up demolish Ramada saying I needed my head testing if I wanted to keep it. So spare me the lecture.

Since you are/were a moderator, why don't you start a new thread saying "Which highrises do you want to see demolishing" and encourage people to express their opinions on that thread rather than others. Then we can all talk and enthuse about ongoing new highrise developments with reduced distraction.

Numerous companies have been trying for yrs now to get their hands on the ramada site to knock it down and replace it but there is a real issue with some a/c vents or some sort on or under the plot for another adjoining building and its impossible. Everyone knows its an eyesore but nothing can be done

caw: Mental? LOL! Have a read of dgnr8's posts if you want mental. And you brought up demolish Ramada saying I needed my head testing if I wanted to keep it. So spare me the lecture.

Since you are/were a moderator, why don't you start a new thread saying "Which highrises do you want to see demolishing" and encourage people to express their opinions on that thread rather than others. Then we can all talk and enthuse about ongoing new highrise developments with reduced distraction.

^^ Because this website is not called
SlavishDevotionToAnythingHighriseRegardlessOfHowUglyItMightBeCity.com

All over this website you will see intelligent and likeable people talking about architecture, what they like and what they dont like, regardless of building type.

Unfortunately you seem to be incapable of this - instead resorting to agressively shouting down anyone with whom you disagree, the same tired highrise rant time and time again. No reasoning, no explanation just pure witless aggression which is why I dont think anyone really listens to you.

Most people here agree that Manchester would be much the better city without Ramada - we KNOW you dont agree for god's sake but just accept it and move on. :|

Numerous companies have been trying for yrs now to get their hands on the ramada site to knock it down and replace it but there is a real issue with some a/c vents or some sort on or under the plot for another adjoining building and its impossible. Everyone knows its an eyesore but nothing can be done
Of course something can be done. If someone wanted the site so much they would buy both plots level it and clear what ever is in the way.

Now might be a good point to repost this from the Council's Executive's meeting minutes from June 05. Thankfully they are looking very hard at improving Ramada but appear to have come to the conclusion that the preferred option of complete demolition and redevelopment is not feasible so rather it will be a phased redevelopment - hopefully involving some sort of substantial demolition and rebuild programme to bring about the best possible result.

Exe/05/95 Ramada Hotel Complex

(Public excluded, Paragraphs 7 & 9, Part 1, Schedule 12A, Local Government Act 1972)

A report of the Chief Executive, City Solicitor and City Treasurer was considered informing members of discussions regarding the redevelopment of the Ramada Hotel complex and outlining a partnership approach that will provide a structure to underpin redevelopment. The Ramada Hotel Complex is bounded by Deansgate, Blackfriars Street, Victoria Bridge Street and the Irwell.

It occupies a prominent site of strategic significance at a key entry point to the City from the North and the West. It is in close proximity to the Shambles West, Exchange Street and the Cathedral. The development of the complex will support the natural extension of the City's core shopping offer given its short distance from Market Street, St Ann's Street and New Cathedral Street. The complex comprises three elements: the Ramada Renaissance Hotel, Premier House and a multi-storey car park. The hotel although well used is in need of major refurbishment.

The condition of the block as a whole detracts from the nearby high quality developments including No 1 Deansgate, Urbis and Exchange Square and is in need of radical and comprehensive treatment. The officers have been seeking for some time to secure the redevelopment of the block in view of its strategic significance and have been in discussions with the site owners on potential options, through a collaborative arrangement with the Council. Central to discussions has been the need to exploit the full regeneration potential of the site to ensure that it complements adjacent new developments and contributes to the overall vibrancy of the area.

It is clear that a full scale comprehensive new development on the site involving wholesale demolition would be unachievable in the short to medium term. Doing nothing on the other hand would merely allow the area to deteriorate further and the preferred option is for phased development of the site.

An outline strategy has now been agreed with the landowners on this basis, which would essentially be the first phase of a comprehensive redevelopment scheme and result in significant enhancement of the complex. An outline scheme has been prepared by the landowners and it is generally agreed that this has the potential to bring substantial regeneration benefits to this key site and will ensure that the objective of completing the City Centre master plan can be met.

There have been extensive discussions with the owners about how the scheme could be realised and it is clear that without intervention from the Council, the scheme is not commercially viable and would not proceed. A proposed structure for the development has been drawn up with draft heads of terms as part of which the Council would make a capital investment capped at £5m. With other elements the overall value of the Council's investment into the scheme would be around £7m.

We have agreed that, in the particular circumstances in this case, the principle of such an investment should be supported provided that the Council can satisfy itself that the overall arrangements represent a sound investment for the Council to make. The development profile proposed with or without the existing Hotel should be the optimum possible. Detailed obligations between the Council and the site owners must also incorporate proper measures to trigger development beyond any release of the hotel recognising that this could be the most realistic way of the Council realising full value for its investment.

Decision
1. To agree that the proposal to secure the redevelopment of the site as described in the report is in the interests of promoting the social, economic or environmental well-being of the area.

2. To approve, in principle, the proposed arrangements with the landowners of the site, Quintain Estates and Development plc, to bring forward the development of the site subject to Quintain Estates and Development plc formally agreeing the arrangements, and to a further report on detailed proposals including confirmation that the Council will receive full value for its investment.

3. To recommend Council to approve an increase in the Capital Programme of £5M to enable the City Council to provide the financial contribution necessary to make the proposed redevelopment viable.

4. To authorise the Chief Executive, in conjunction with the Chair of the Executive, the Executive Member of Finance, the City Treasurer and the City Solicitor to progress the development agreement and commercial plan and to report back to a future meeting.

SleepyOne: All over this website you will see intelligent and likeable people talking about architecture, what they like and what they dont like, regardless of building type. Unfortunately you seem to be incapable of this - instead resorting to agressively shouting down anyone with whom you disagree, the same tired highrise rant time and time again. No reasoning, no explanation just pure witless aggression which is why I dont think anyone really listens to you.
I'm the one with the explanations and reasoning getting shouted down by the witless aggression. Anybody and everybody can see that.

Dandara have their launch night tomorrow night, entry strictly by RSVP but I will be there. Will try to find out when Chapel Wharf and it's 37 storey, which is currently on hold is likely to go ahead, will try and find out anything else worth passing on, all the big cheeses such as Bob Dyson chairman from Dunlop Haywards and Sir Howard Bernstein will be there. Lets hope they spill the beans !!

Good stuff! And good luck - hope you come back with the goods..

Maybe you should take your camera along Born?

You never know, you might just get a pic of Manchesters latest high flyers!:wink2:

Cough!

try and get info on crowngate tower too.

''Will try to find out when Chapel Wharf and it's 37 storey, which is currently on hold is likely to go ahead''

On hold? In what way? They've submitted it and are waiting for approval, nothing unusual there?

Couple more elevations from the planning app

from the east. It's just 17m wide from this side, same as the slimmest part of Beetham.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/caw123/chapelwharf1.jpg

From the west with the lower block
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/caw123/chapelwharf2.jpg

I wonder how the applications 05/49877/OUT and 05/50479/FUL are getting along:

http://publicaccess.salford.gov.uk/...searchform.aspx

Huh? Doesn't work. Maybe it's me and my antivirus.

I found it again.

http://publicaccess.salford.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_searchform.aspx

Still "pending consideration".

Dandara have their launch night tomorrow night, entry strictly by RSVP but I will be there. Will try to find out when Chapel Wharf and it's 37 storey, which is currently on hold is likely to go ahead, will try and find out anything else worth passing on, all the big cheeses such as Bob Dyson chairman from Dunlop Haywards and Sir Howard Bernstein will be there. Lets hope they spill the beans !!

Born!

We're waiting! :)

http://www.nndb.com/people/125/000098828/terry-thomas-1-sized.jpg

Hi guys sorry for the delay been really busy, Chapel Wharf is still on hold. Having spoken to the MD of Dandara he advised me that despite what a few posters on here think is happening with Chapel Wharf it is quite the contrary. Chapel Wharf is definatley on hold and they are in negotiations regarding the height, so much so that the Dandara staff that were due to start work on Chapel Wharf have been sent to the Spectrum and St Georges Island developments to work there until things are thrashed out.

Should have some very good news on Crowngate by the start of November. CAW your wrong regarding Chapel Wharf just be a man about it and admit you were wrong !

CAW your wrong regarding Chapel Wharf just be a man about it and admit you were wrong !

Excuse me?? There's no need for that!

Thanks for the info re Chapel Wharf

Not the news I was hoping for :? :? - but thanks anyway BITN :)

I don't understand.

I don't understand.
Dont understand what?

Hi guys sorry for the delay been really busy, Chapel Wharf is still on hold. Having spoken to the MD of Dandara he advised me that despite what a few posters on here think is happening with Chapel Wharf it is quite the contrary. Chapel Wharf is definatley on hold and they are in negotiations regarding the height, so much so that the Dandara staff that were due to start work on Chapel Wharf have been sent to the Spectrum and St Georges Island developments to work there until things are thrashed out.

Should have some very good news on Crowngate by the start of November. CAW your wrong regarding Chapel Wharf just be a man about it and admit you were wrong !

Very interesting,,the thing about the Chapel Wharf site , the bit where the tower will go is a bit to cramped,i think they should have the tower fronting onto Chapel St.

I'll look forward to an announcment in Nov for Crowngate, i think BITN knows something we dont?

Accura: I don't understand what's going on and I don't understand despite what a few posters on here think is happening with Chapel Wharf, it is quite the contrary.

Hi guys , Chapel Wharf is on hold now until at least Jan 06, I know it is not the news we wanted but i will keep my ears to the ground, if anyones got a camera there are some good models in the Dandara office, in particular Crowngate. I would take them myself but don't know how to get photos attached to posts on here, do you need permission to attach posts ?

no. what does crowngate look like?

Hi guys , Chapel Wharf is on hold now until at least Jan 06, I know it is not the news we wanted but i will keep my ears to the ground, if anyones got a camera there are some good models in the Dandara office, in particular Crowngate. I would take them myself but don't know how to get photos attached to posts on here, do you need permission to attach posts ?

Correct Born!

Spoke to the Dandara receptionist today, she told me it was on hold aswell!

Got some pictures of the models, espcially the one with the crescent shaped tower! Crowngate?!

I'll post it now!

Born! Castlegate?

I'm guessing, but I think Dandara have put Chapel on hold so they can concentrate on Castlegate?

Taken from outside! Have been invited back for a closer look and chat! :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0788.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0799.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0811.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0800.jpg

Thanks jrb. Interesting. I wonder if they'll end up with sweeping slopey roofs on them smaller blocks.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0788.jpg

I saw you in Dandara JRB about 6ish, and overheard you talking I spyed over the mezzanine level as soon as i heard , I left the previous post to see who would come back with the photos. Cannot afford to give too much away, but i will give as much as possible over the next few months hee hee !

Thanx BITN.

Bloody hell, that Crowngate baby looks about 40 floors, and it slopes!

Also, there's a huge 20+ storey block just behind the Spectrum scheme.

Btw, when you say Chapel Wharf is 'on hold until Jan 06', what exactly do you mean? Surely it would take them until Spring at least to get it approved and the construction contract tendered?

God... I'm losing track of projects now. I think its time to look through the projects list.

Screw that... the development list is well.... ummmm, fairly out of date...

I'm sorry, I can't keep track, I can't be arsed to update it. :cry:

Okay, fair enough lol. Half term is coming up though you know ;)

I'll do it then. I promise. :master:

Good :D

BITN , are you working for Dandara ?

Whatever gave you that idea Highriser ? Hee hee. A bit more news on the Chapel Wharf site, The Lowry have put there weight behind getting the tower project moving as they feel the scrub land next to them does not befit next to one of "The Leading Hotels of the World". I believe they have approached Salford Council regarding the height issue and delay of Chapel Wharf. Part of the Chapel Wharf development will mean Dandara building a spa and ballroom for the Lowry within the tower for hotel guests and residents of the apartments. I will keep you posted bye for now.

Why did the Lowry not object when that hideous 'Bridge' apartment block was built by Persimmon, resplendent as it is in its beige and grey plastic cladding and that dumpy shape. That detracts more than anything else from the hotel.

Interesting stuff though BITN.

I saw you in Dandara JRB about 6ish, and overheard you talking I spyed over the mezzanine level as soon as i heard , I left the previous post to see who would come back with the photos. Cannot afford to give too much away, but i will give as much as possible over the next few months hee hee !

Born! Correct!(nice grey coat n/t!) Were you one of the people sat around the table in the small office, to the right of the reception desk? Very official looking!

Thanks for all the info! :)

Cheers BITN, looks like the Beetham effect to me. Who'd have thought we would have 5 star hotels trying to out modern-ballroom each other!

Ah, the Beetham effect. I get it. The Lowry Hotel will have a piece of the tower. So the tower will be in their brochure.

Well, I was thinking more about the scramble to add facilities, but yeah, that too I guess.

JRB saw you today in Dandara taking photos i beleive the reception manager told you off, if you shave next time she might let you take some more photos? Anyway just joking, good news though, people will be making there way back to Chapel Wharf in the next few weeks it looks like it's action stations lads !

BITN Can you confirm that the model in JRB´s pics isn´t Chapel Wharf?

Cannot say too much but think of some good news we had last week and link it to that, I cannot say much more !

JRB saw you today in Dandara taking photos i beleive the reception manager told you off, if you shave next time she might let you take some more photos? Anyway just joking, good news though, people will be making there way back to Chapel Wharf in the next few weeks it looks like it's action stations lads !

Next time I'll wear a suit and tie! I might even get in to one on those meetings, in those very nice offices? :wink2:

BITN! Are both schemes being built? The model! Is it Capel Warf of Castlegate? Can't we squeeze a bit more info out of you? Its good PR you know!:)

05/50479/FUL 07/04/2005
Land At Chapel Wharf Bounded By Chapel Street, Clowes Street And River Irwell Salford 3 Demolition of existing buildings and erection of two blocks of 37 and 20 storeys compising 539 apart...

Pending Consideration

The application has been in for over 8 months and is still pending consideration - teh fuckage?

The application has been in for over 8 months and is still pending consideration - teh fuckage?

Indded Caw! But BITN did say we would hear somthing soon regarding this development.

BITN , said we would hear something before the end of the year with this and Crowngate, i think Dandara have gagged him, and chucked him in the Irwell :)

BITN , said we would hear something before the end of the year with this and Crowngate, i think Dandara have gagged him, and chucked him in the Irwell :)

Hi guys just got back in to the UK tonight. Bloody hell it's freezing. Work on Chapel Wharf is definately on and will begin mid Jan, now we have been given the go ahead by Salford City. Slightly shorter than planned but all will be revealed later with some great addition's. More news to follow on the 5th of Jan. All systems are go on Chapel Wharf, yee haa!

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year guy's, even you Highriser you cheeky begger!

Cheers for that born, shame about the height though (can you spill what height it's going to be?)

do you mean the actual building will begin in jan? btw.

looked all over the place but cant find any decent renders anyone got any

^^ Havent got any decent renders - don´t think any exist. These are all I´ve got. They´re probably completely outdated judging from BITN´s comments.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/cottonopolis/IMAGE_00028s.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/cottonopolis/dandara.jpg

Any new news on Dandaras proposed Chestergate tower on Chester Road BITN?

I remember you saying a few months ago there would be some more news on both developments soon.

Hi guys just got back in to the UK tonight. Bloody hell it's freezing. Work on Chapel Wharf is definately on and will begin mid Jan, now we have been given the go ahead by Salford City. Slightly shorter than planned but all will be revealed later with some great addition's. More news to follow on the 5th of Jan. All systems are go on Chapel Wharf, yee haa!

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year guy's, even you Highriser you cheeky begger!


All sound's very good, looking forward to the upcoming news :)

Lets hope they're great additions.. Cos this has to be one of the most doubtful projects in my opinion, lol.. Block, Block, Block and then that great thing practically sharing a facade with an Edge tower judging by the model.. So I hope it's been redone a little :P

Any new news on Dandaras proposed Chestergate tower on Chester Road BITN?

I remember you saying a few months ago there would be some more news on both developments soon.

You mean Crowngate.

By the way, if the tower has been shortened, that will require another planning application to go in with the modified height.

A mere formality, if they've been working with Salford Planners and the latter suggested it for some reason. Quickly expedited.

However, because of this, I doubt we will see a mid-Jan start as BITN said.

Hi guys just got back in to the UK tonight. Bloody hell it's freezing. Work on Chapel Wharf is definately on and will begin mid Jan, now we have been given the go ahead by Salford City. Slightly shorter than planned but all will be revealed later with some great addition's. More news to follow on the 5th of Jan. All systems are go on Chapel Wharf, yee haa!

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year guy's, even you Highriser you cheeky begger!

BITN,, now dont break your promise, it's the 5th tomorrow , we're waiting :)

By the way, if the tower has been shortened, that will require another planning application to go in with the modified height.

Already gone through, be patient all will be revealed. Work will start on site by mid Jan.

Already gone through, be patient all will be revealed. Work will start on site by mid Jan.

Two questions:

How high?

Will it really start in mid-Jan?

Mid january? Jesus... :cheers:

Perhaps it's going to be January 2008 ;)

I bate my breath.

Aw, spill, BITN. Come on!

I'll believe that when I see it, false dawns and all that, I'm not suggesting for a second that BITN is lying, its just when people tease and don't just give you the facts I'm always a bit suspicious/cynical...how tall is this tower for instance? what code of conduct would one be breaking to reveal that?

come on tell us, no ones listening

Doesn't this tower have an interesting story attached to it? That Salford City Council thought that it was was too tall for its location, and wanted to refuse it, but the Lowry Hotel complained because they wanted it as it would add facilities or something of that nature?

Or have I been dreaming?

What happened to Jan 5th then?

What happened to Jan 5th then?

Was thinking that too, but wasn't that going to be info relating to Crowngate rather than Chapel Wharf. As far as I understand from what BITN said, Chapel Wharf will be starting mid Janurary.

Either way it will be interesting to see what the news is.

BITN hasn't said who he is, what he does or where he gets his facts.

The Salford Council site still says that Chapel Wharf is pending consideration.

Zzzz!

Have patience my friend's , this will be starting this month :)

Really? Proove it.

Sorry guys, we had a further meeting with SCC on Monday and though we have most of the contractors signed up and ready to go our new proposal despite being slightly shorter has been knocked back despite assurances that we would probably be able to start mid/ late January. This is a major blow to the Chapel Wharf Tower and development. I will keep you informed.:moods:

Sorry guys, we had a further meeting with SCC on Monday and though we have most of the contractors signed up and ready to go our new proposal despite being slightly shorter has been knocked back despite assurances that we would probably be able to start mid/ late January. This is a major blow to the Chapel Wharf Tower and development. I will keep you informed.

As long as it produes a better design at the end of the day I think this is good news. I find Chapel Wharf, aside from The Lowry and the Calatrava bridge, has been a wasted opportunity. The area has clearly not been masterplanned properly - if at all - and my opinion on the Dandara proposal from what Ive seen of it is that it was all about cramming as many apartments onto the available land without much thought as to how the buildings would contribute to creating a people-centred neighbourhood and high quality, meaningful public spaces. I have sympathy for the developers though in that in many ways the die was cast by 'The Edge' development so this latest news (if reported accurately) seems like slamming the stable door after the horse has bolted. Still, anything the planners can do to improve what is at present a pretty disappointing district is a bonus.

Sorry guys, we had a further meeting with SCC on Monday and though we have most of the contractors signed up and ready to go our new proposal despite being slightly shorter has been knocked back despite assurances that we would probably be able to start mid/ late January. This is a major blow to the Chapel Wharf Tower and development. I will keep you informed.:moods: This is sounding ridiculous BITN. They can't let people develop other sites then tell you it's too crowded. It's a year since the outline application, and eight months since the full application. I smell the dead hand of CABE at work. They wormed themselves in with Salford Planners and managed to stop the Greengate Tower dead. They talk the talk, and will spout flowery phrases like "massing" and "relates", all nebulous knocking under the cover of rooting for better built environment. But the noble cause is belied by the fact they are totally in bed with English Heritage, who hate skyscrapers with a passion.

If this rings any kind of bell you should contact the chairman of the Salford Planning Committee, and go see the Head of Planning at Manchester City Council. Maybe Graham Stringer could help, or maybe he'll know a man who can. Otherwise this Chris Farrow might be worth a bell next month - thanks go to SleepyOne for the info.

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=7054377#post7054377

"Following an extensive search, the Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company (URC) - the body responsible for one of the biggest regeneration programmes in the UK - has appointed its new Chief Executive, Chris Farrow, who will take up this senior position on 27th February 2006. Chris Farrow has been described as one of the most experienced regeneration experts in the country..."

I doubt this would have happened on the Manchester side of the Irwell... ;)

Exactly. It takes a bleedin fortnight in Manchester.

I get irritated at the way local government is carved up into petty fiefdoms. This is basically a Manchester development, a few hundred metres from the Town Hall. But it's in Salford, and they're messing people about.

I wouldn't mind if I thought Salford planners were being really sincere, but I don't accept that there's sincerity if a planning application dawdles for a year and then gets knocked back. And I wouldn't mind if the Salford side of the river was something special, but it's a dump, full of crap old buildings that have been crap since the day they were built. If some smarmy git from Surrey starts telling us its our heritage I will not be a happy bunny, because this area needs major landmark developments to put it on the skyline and the map. Not go-slow inordinate resistance which smells like something more than a concern for planning quality.

Exactly. It takes a bleedin fortnight in Manchester.

I get irritated at the way local government is carved up into petty fiefdoms. This is basically a Manchester development, a few hundred metres from the Town Hall. But it's in Salford, and they're messing people about.

I wouldn't mind if I thought Salford planners were being really sincere, but I don't accept that there's sincerity if a planning application dawdles for a year and then gets knocked back. And I wouldn't mind if the Salford side of the river was something special, but it's a dump, full of crap old buildings that have been crap since the day they were built. If some smarmy git from Surrey starts telling us its our heritage I will not be a happy bunny, because this area needs major landmark developments to put it on the skyline and the map. Not go-slow inordinate resistance which smells like something more than a concern for planning quality.

^^ ^^ :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Exactly. It takes a bleedin fortnight in Manchester.

I get irritated at the way local government is carved up into petty fiefdoms. This is basically a Manchester development, a few hundred metres from the Town Hall. But it's in Salford, and they're messing people about.

I wouldn't mind if I thought Salford planners were being really sincere, but I don't accept that there's sincerity if a planning application dawdles for a year and then gets knocked back. And I wouldn't mind if the Salford side of the river was something special, but it's a dump, full of crap old buildings that have been crap since the day they were built. If some smarmy git from Surrey starts telling us its our heritage I will not be a happy bunny, because this area needs major landmark developments to put it on the skyline and the map. Not go-slow inordinate resistance which smells like something more than a concern for planning quality.

Indeed. I would suggest that not many alterations to those exact words would be required to make them suitable as the bulk of a letter of complaint to Salford planning department. Why not copy in that new Chief Exec of the Central Salford URC? (I'd miss out the Manchester development bit though, that might just serve to irk them)

Thanks roly. Letters can be permanently damning Priscilla, and a letter to the department causing the hold-up won't do any good. It's better to talk to people. The right people. Let's not forget that we don't really know what's going on here. I for one will be interested to find out.

I'm glad it's not been passed through. Everything about the development was wrong. Is this another case of people wanting it on the basis it's tall?

What do you mean everything about the development was wrong? That's a real sweeping statement, and it says nothing. This has had a year for problems to have been pointed out and addressed. But instead it's been been "knocked back" at the eleventh hour. The real question to ask is: Is this another case of people not wanting on the basis it's it's tall?

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2305ChapelWharfTower2_pic1.jpg

I'm not explaining myself again. I've told you my thoughts once before and you agreed with my opinion. It's probably somewhere in this thread if you can be bothered to look. The area beside the Lowry and The Edge should be landscaped into a public area to free up some of the claustrophobia of the Irwell and allow SOME type of extended walkway from Blackfriars down to Calatrava's bridge. There are shitloads of sites in Manc that'd allow a tower like this to fit in so why put it in one of the smallest pockets of land in an already compressed area?

The planning officer handling the case is off until Monday the 23rd. I'll ring him on Monday and try to find out why the application was refused again. Unless BITN would like to tell us before then?

dgnr8: I've read the thread again and you said "...nobody has any qualms about the tower. It's the positioning that's wrong. For instance, why couldn't they just swap the tower and lowrise element around so the tower is further back?" Yes I agree with that, and I do agree it would be nice if the area was more open, but not at the expense of this landmark project.

jrb: BITN didn't say refused, just knocked back. I'm not sure what that means, whether it's the planning officer or the planning committee who aren't happy about something.

dgnr8: I've read the thread again and you said "...nobody has any qualms about the tower. It's the positioning that's wrong. For instance, why couldn't they just swap the tower and lowrise element around so the tower is further back?" Yes I agree with that, and I do agree it would be nice if the area was more open, but not at the expense of this landmark project.

jrb: BITN didn't say refused, just knocked back. I'm not sure what that means, whether it's the planning officer or the planning committee who aren't happy about something.

Lets be honest, the original design was/is nothing special. Hopefully it has changed for the better?

Sorry guys, we had a further meeting with SCC on Monday and though we have most of the contractors signed up and ready to go our new proposal despite being slightly shorter has been knocked back despite assurances that we would probably be able to start mid/ late January. This is a major blow to the Chapel Wharf Tower and development. I will keep you informed.:moods:

Why would contractors sign up to a project that isn't approved?

BITN, can you please tell us why it was knocked back?

Height, design, light issues, etc, etc.

I don't think answering this question would cause you or Dandara any problems?

Because of the assurances.

jrb: the applications still say pending and no details. I had a quick look at planning committee minutes but didn't see anything. Maybe Tim Hartley can tell you stuff.

http://www.salford.gov.uk/meetings.htm?ID=82

I don't remember this application for two 21 and two 29 storey buildings. Is it somewhere on the boards as something else? Ah, maybe it's Marineville.

APPLICATION No: 05/50434/FUL
APPLICANT: Peel Investments North Limited
LOCATION: Land On The South West Side Of Michigan Avenue
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing industrial unit and erection of two 21 storey and two 29 storey towers providing 600 residential units together with retail, leisure and creche development on ground floor with part underground and part integral car parking on ground to first floor, alterations to existing vehicular access and alterations to public realm.

WARD: Ordsall

Because of the assurances.

jrb: the applications still say pending and no details. I had a quick look at planning committee minutes but didn't see anything. Maybe Tim Hartley can tell you stuff.

http://www.salford.gov.uk/meetings.htm?ID=82

I don't remember this application for a 20 and two 29 storey buildings. Is it somewhere on the boards as something else?

APPLICATION No: 05/50434/FUL

APPLICANT: Peel Investments North Limited

LOCATION: Land On The South West Side Of Michigan Avenue Salford

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing industrial unit and erection of two 21 storey and two 29 storey towers providing 600 residential units together with retail, leisure and creche development on ground floor with part underground and part integral car parking on ground to first floor, alterations to existing vehicular access and alterations to public realm.

WARD: Ordsall

He's back Monday. I will try and find out what the problem was.

I don't remember this application for two 21 and two 29 storey buildings. Is it somewhere on the boards as something else? Ah, maybe it's Marineville.

APPLICATION No: 05/50434/FUL
APPLICANT: Peel Investments North Limited
LOCATION: Land On The South West Side Of Michigan Avenue
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing industrial unit and erection of two 21 storey and two 29 storey towers providing 600 residential units together with retail, leisure and creche development on ground floor with part underground and part integral car parking on ground to first floor, alterations to existing vehicular access and alterations to public realm.

WARD: Ordsall

Harbour City, Salford Quays.

Yep, thanks. Duh. I was getting excited for a minute there. Sorry.

hi DGNR8. I take your point about the proposal being really cramped, it's an awfully small space to start building on, but if they are going to build there- which they seem determined to do, wouldn't a nice 36 storey tower be better then, say an 8-storey building, that takes the same footprint?

My resolution would be to make the rest of the buildings that are part of the development where the Lowry Car Park currently is taller and create larger public space that way, as they seem to me to particularly lack thought, or more to the point creativity, and look to have little effect in creating another corridor form Chapel St, to Manchester and vice versa.

Why would contractors sign up to a project that isn't approved?

Not an unusual state of affairs

Lets be honest, the original design was/is nothing special. Hopefully it has changed for the better?

My thoughts exactly. The images didnt exactly promise an inspired design worth of the site. I agree with GShutty in that the public realm looked particularly poorly considered too.

My point about The Edge buildings creating a bad precedent is that in my opinion they were also too tall for the location and not excecuted particulaly well either. In addition their sloping shape seemed to require that a tall tower be built in the remaining space as though to act as a visual 'bookend'.

All in all the area has not been masterplanned at all and it shows. Piecemeal, poorly relating, over-development that reduces the Irwell to a sideshow - a mere conduit to sell apartments rather than an asset to be enjoyed. The point about public space is most relevant though. The Edge turned what little public space there was there into a private rock garden and this Dandara development threatened to create a token windswept void by the riverside with some rather ominous dark corridors leading down to Chapel Street.

Thank god SCC have had the sense to tell the developers to go away and try harder.

I recall that a certain poster said something similar about Greengate. Stuff like "poorly relating". A nebulous knocking reason not to build highrise. So what's the alternative? Lowrise. Lowrise that relates really well. So well that the result is humdrum, and because it's lowrise, the economics mean it covers every last square inch of ground. No thanks. We'll have to wait and see what SCC said. I for one certainly don't thank God that this 40-storey skyscraper proposal is still going nowhere after a year.

Why would contractors sign up to a project that isn't approved?

Contrary to what you may think Chris most of the contractors have signed the various deeds of contract with Dandara Ltd /Chapel Wharf Ltd - which is a Dandara trading company and urgent talks are due with the council over the next four weeks, height is still the issue with SCC not the design, luckily we now have the Lowry Hotel totally behind Dandara, the delay is holding up Dandara building the Lowry a spa and ballroom. Things are not as bad as I thought earlier in the week regarding the development but I cannot see much happening in the next 8-12 weeks but you can guarantee all is being done behind the scenes to push this through as quickly as possible.

If height is the only issue, I reckon Dandara should turn round and tell SCC they want 60 stories.

"Right. Fucking deal with that issue then. Slap. And while you're dealing with it we're going to sue you for damages because you've pissed us around for a year".
Edit: just kidding.

It must be something to do with the shadow cast by it.

I wouldn't think so Weasty. The shadow of the upper portion moves over more ground so nobody gets permanent shade. Hopefully we'll find out more on Monday from jrb after he talks to the case officer.

I wouldn't think so Weasty. The shadow of the upper portion moves over more ground so nobody gets permanent shade. Hopefully we'll find out more on Monday from jrb after he talks to the case officer.

I can't think of any other reason why the height alone would cause concern.

It must be something to do with the shadow cast by it.

Could be. Not only is there the 112m tower but the 2nd building in the 1st phase is 60m high. It would totally block out the sun from much of the Edge development.

Would the proximity of such a tall building/dense development to the river not also be a concern?

Could be. Not only is there the 112m tower but the 2nd building in the 1st phase is 60m high. It would totally block out the sun from much of the Edge development.
Its proximity to the Edge buildings is worrying as it is. As much as I like towers, this is far from the best site for a scraper.

The delays have nothing to do with the Edge development, Countrywide were made aware of Dandara's intension to build tall on the site several years ago. All the land in that area is owned by Chapel Wharf Dev ( a Dandara company). Chapel Wharf will definately happen, just not this month.

Cheer's for keeping us up to date BITN, cant they start clearing the site now ? or are'nt you allowed until this is sorted ?

jrb: when you're ready.

jrb: when you're ready.

Sorry mate, did'nt have time to ring today due to work. I will try tomorrow.

Thanks.

You had a chance yet jrb? I could ring him if you like.

You had a chance yet jrb? I could ring him if you like.

Sorry mate did'nt. Had my audit today, so no chance. Probably won't have chance tomorrow either. Give Tim Hartley(planning officer) a ring.

:|

jrb: I rang Salford Council on 0161 794 4711 and they put me throught to Tim Hartley's phone, but it was on voicemail because he was out. I didn't leave a message. If you're going in tomorrow it would be better if you saw him face to face. If not I'll try again.

I spoke with Tim Hartley. He was very professional, and most helpful. He explained that the application had been with the planning officers for a long time because it was a complex, significant, application which has undergone a number of revisions to meet concerns raised by Salford City Council planning officers and by CABE. The CABE concerns were to do with placement and proximity, and not to do with the height, shadowing, or elevational treatments. These concerns have now been addressed, and there are now 6 blocks arranged in a more open fashion. The height has increased, and is now 40 storeys. At present they are awaiting a particular detailed description from the architect, and will notify neighbouring properties of these details. The application will thereafter go before the planning committtee, and because the concerns raised have been addressed, it is expected to be with recommendation for approval.

Of course nothing can be considered definite, and some objections or problems may yet arise, but I was pleased by Tim's open communication and the content thereof. Thank you Tim Hartley and Salford City Council.

Sounds promising , cheers Farsight :)

40 storeys could push the height above the CIS building's. Therefore Chapel Wharf could well be the city centre's 5th highest building (after Inacity, Beetham, Albany and 1 Hardman Square) eventually.

Chapel Wharf is definately on ... Slightly shorter than planned
>(

Tim Hartley explained that ... The height has increased, and is now 40 storeys.
:)

...

:? :? :? :gaah: :gaah:

I spoke with Tim Hartley. He was very professional, and most helpful. He explained that the application had been with the planning officers for a long time because it was a complex, significant, application which has undergone a number of revisions to meet concerns raised by Salford City Council planning officers and by CABE. The CABE concerns were to do with placement and proximity, and not to do with the height, shadowing, or elevational treatments. These concerns have now been addressed, and there are now 6 blocks arranged in a more open fashion. The height has increased, and is now 40 storeys. At present they are awaiting a particular detailed description from the architect, and will notify neighbouring properties of these details. The application will thereafter go before the planning committtee, and because the concerns raised have been addressed, it is expected to be with recommendation for approval.

Of course nothing can be considered definite, and some objections or problems may yet arise, but I was pleased by Tim's open communication and the content thereof. Thank you Tim Hartley and Salford City Council.

Good work Farsight.

Agree with you totally about Tim Hartley! A very pleasent and helpful person/planning officer. A credit to Salford Planning Department.

Just to reiterate what Farsight posted. The height of Chapel Warf was never the issue. Tim Hartley confirmed this last year, which I then posted.

Thanks jrb. But not a patch on your good work.

Forty storeys guys, all going through but taking a little while, see above.

I spoke with Tim Hartley. He was very professional, and most helpful. He explained that the application had been with the planning officers for a long time because it was a complex, significant, application which has undergone a number of revisions to meet concerns raised by Salford City Council planning officers and by CABE. The CABE concerns were to do with placement and proximity, and not to do with the height, shadowing, or elevational treatments. These concerns have now been addressed, and there are now 6 blocks arranged in a more open fashion. The height has increased, and is now 40 storeys. At present they are awaiting a particular detailed description from the architect, and will notify neighbouring properties of these details. The application will thereafter go before the planning committtee, and because the concerns raised have been addressed, it is expected to be with recommendation for approval.

Of course nothing can be considered definite, and some objections or problems may yet arise, but I was pleased by Tim's open communication and the content thereof. Thank you Tim Hartley and Salford City Council.
Sigh. People seem to want to talk about mundane old stuff like that Ragged School, and nobody seems to want to talk about this.

Well, we don't know for sure about what's happening with this project.

I rang the planning office and found out. It sounds like it'll be in a go situation soon.

I dont think people are particularly inspired by what they have seen of this project, hence the relative lack of enthusiasm.

I dont think people are particularly inspired by what they have seen of this project, hence the relative lack of enthusiasm.

Agreed.

We've not seen any decent renders yet. Infact we've seen bugger all! Just a lot of hot air from Dandara.

This is going to the committee on 6th April 2006, so we might know more after then.

This is going to the committee on 6th April 2006, so we might know more after then.

Cheers Simon.

Welcome on board.

How did you come by that information? If you can't say, thats fair enough.

i spoke to the planning officer and the information is on the website.

05/50479/FUL

http://publicaccess.salford.gov.uk/publicaccess/dc/DcApplication/application_searchform.aspx

Click important dates on this page.

I was planning on buying an appartment in the edge, but my surveyor advised me not too, at the current prices.

"Demolition of existing buildings and erection of two blocks of 40 and 19 storeys compising 552 apartments, 988sq.m offices (A2 and B1), 290sq.m retail (A1, A4, A5) and 1963sq.m leisure (D2) with 228 car parking spaces and associated landscaping."

Has this changed? I say this as skyscrapernews.com has something different...

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=1709

Or am I completely off track here??

Just read back through this thread - it has changed, as Farsight described two months ago or so.

This is the Sheppard Robson scheme yes?

40 stories would equate to 121m btw - that's taller than the CIS tower. :)

The planning officer confirmed to me, that 40 stories has been proposed and would be set back 23 metres from the river. I guess that we'll know more from 6th April.

Sounds more exciting now - this is only 10m shorter than Albany Tower (unless that has a height increase).

I'm pleased that there is a good bit of distance from the river. Its too overshadowed by buildings in that area as it is.

This is going to the committee on 6th April 2006, so we might know more after then.


I wonder how this went on today ?

I make it tommorrow not today that it is to be looked at, going of the info in post 223, still only a day away.

I make it tommorrow not today that it is to be looked at, going of the info in post 223, still only a day away.

We got the call this morning to say Chapel Wharf is green for go!, I have just comeback back from the Bridge on JD street after we all went out for self congratulatory back slapping and many drinks. Lets see the rise of the towers!

/\ when should we see this rising then born?

BITN,,,we thought you had been shot :)

Great news , so when are we going to see all the plans ?

BITN,,,we thought you had been shot :)

Great news , so when are we going to see all the plans ?

There are there for all to see on the SCC planning portal arent they?
Well ive looked at them so they must be there.
I remember it being very very big!

All ive seen is a massing model

Have you seen it in more detail then Longpant's ?

There are there for all to see on the SCC planning portal arent they?
Well ive looked at them so they must be there.
I remember it being very very big!

Indeed Longford, but if i remember rightly there has been talk of a height increase. ?

All ive seen is a massing model

Have you seen it in more detail then Longpant's ?

Is this not it?
Beware its 50 odd mb

http://www2.salford.gov.uk/docs/50479.pdf

It was revised in Feb 2006 so i'm presuming its the one that went to commitee (and was approved) today.

Cheers for that Longy,,,,there are shit loads of pics on there and loads of colour ones,it looks fantastic,,,can someone put them up,,,i'm shite at that sort of stuff :)

THIS TOWER IS GOING TO BE AWESOME :)

Approved today :)

Love it :)

http://i2.tinypic.com/t685ll.jpg[/QUOTE]

Another glass box. Hurray!

How tall?

looking at one of the renders, you can count 40 storeys on the tower (that we knew) but on top of a 4 storey podium!! I reckon it'll reach 130m easy!

Lovely. Thank you highriser.

It's forty stories, Manc Guy. Well, that's what the planning officer told me when I spoke to him a few months back. I just counted floors on highriser's picture, and I reckon that's what it is. Maybe there's an extra floor's worth of roof or something.

Approved today :)

Love it :)

http://i2.tinypic.com/t685ll.jpg

Took its time!

:runaway:

I'm not happy. From what i can see, it's just albany, different colour cladding...

*shakes head*

Just Albany? Huh?

Forty plus stories of slender gleaming glass 21st century wow factor beauty.

Albany:

:master:

Chapel Wharf:

:bow:

Nothing new is it though mate.

Though...

"Manchester, the city of glass towers" doesnt sound too bad :)

Bit off topic, but I have this little thought. This is the first real tall SCC have approved, so it's obvious that they are not adverse to this size of building. Which begs the question as to why they threw out the Greengate tower point blank. I do not believe that it was its design, because they have approved some right shite in the past at the drop of the hat, and they still do. I reckon they simply clocked what MCC didn't, that BSC are taking the piss.

Anyway, here's to see this little missy going up. :cheers:

When is it due to start?

Looking through the PDF, it has 43, yes FORTY-THREE levels, from the ground level of the riverside walkway, to the roof (Check page 228 on the PDF!!!!)

No wonder they're redesigning albany taller!!! Haha!! Fab!!