Anyone any ideas about what is going with the Greengate proposals?


Quick history:

2001(ish) - Whealing Horton Toms gain outline approval for a 30 storey and 24 storey project, never built.

2004/2005
BSC (www.bsc-group.net) reveal 201m, 60 storey high turbine tower concept.

The concept is passed on to Acra Architects who come up with a 62 storey, 179m high tower, Canopus. BSC launch official marketing site and state that the podium section would be built first to finance the tower section. www.canopusgreengate.com

Meanwhile Oakglade draw up plans for a set of 3 towers of 30,24 and 17 floors for the same site, which ends up being submitted before Canopus.

Canopus is widely panned, and seems to have been abandoned.
BSC recently submitted another planning application for the site, for two towers of 32 and 30 storeys over a 10 storey podium.



I've been searching the Salford site but can't find a decision notice for Canopus or the Oakglade project which should have been decided officially by now. Can someone try and do some digging with these:

Planning app numbers:

Canopus: 49922
Oakglade: 49521
Outline approval for 30 storey tower: 48300
BSC two tower scheme: 50729

A perplexing quote from the Canopus site:

''A building that will rapidly take it's place as the pinnacle of Manchester City living. With a specification as yet unseen in Britain, CanopusGreengate will take a proud place alongside such prestigious projects as Taipei 101, Burj Dubai and Chicago's John Hancock Centre as Europe's, and indeed the world's tallest residential buildings.''

Oh well, at least they are ambitious.

??? That would make it over 270m ???

And it says "buildings" meaning more than one taller than 270m...................

Sounds like somones ben drinking :drunk:

Made a mistake, it should say 'one of Europes'.

That wasn't the point anyway, how silly is it of them to compare this to Burj Dubai????

Well that doesn't make any sense..........

It still says that they will be the "world's tallest residential buildings.''

it says it will take place with its prestige, i doubt it means itll half as big let alone!

Ahem...... Burj dubai?
thats just an embarrasingly stupid and arrogant statement to make.

yes, and we feel that embarrasment.

http://www.salford.gov.uk/search-decisions.htm?search=49922&postback=true

Decision notices page. Doesn't recognise any of the relevant planning numbers.

Just want to know

Is Canopus formally rejected?
Has that shite Oakglade proposal been rejected or (god forbid) approved?

Has something changed recently? Months back the planning officers asked the applicant to withdraw the Canopus application, so it never got to the planning committee to be rejected.

Caw!
Has that shite Oakglade proposal been rejected or (god forbid) approved?

Oakglade has been submitted! There are no problems with the height of the towers, but the design of the towers is not acceptable! :)

Yeah jrb, I knew it was submitted!

Thank god that shite got rejected. But I reckon the new BSC one will be rejected too! 3 designs for the site rejected, what a mess.

The new BSC one doesnt look that much different from the Oakglade one, so its bound to get rejected!

jrb: do you know if "not acceptable" means the applicant has been asked to come back with a rethink? Or has this been formally rejected on given grounds.

A reminder of the designs proposed for this site.

Original, gained outline permission
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1509GreengateTower2_pic1.jpg

BSC 201m Turbine
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/178Canopus_pic1.jpg

Canopus
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/178Canopus_pic6.jpg
http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/02/340276.jpg

Oakglade
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2566OakgladeGreengateTower1_pic1.jpg

BSC revised
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/caw123/BSCcrap2.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/caw123/BSCcrap1.jpg

A farce.

A reminder of the designs proposed for this site.


BSC 201m Turbine
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/178Canopus_pic1.jpg
.

And just what the hell was wrong with this one?....it would have looked fantastic alongside Beetham and Eastgate.

All the the others look like some 1970's crap.

There is nothing nice about that greengate.. the best bet would of been to build the original! nice shape and that, plus two towers.. my only gripe is that I'd have them on a slight angle to each other to give a better impression on the skyline...

The 200m+ tower was boring.. too wide, crap banal cladding..
And the others, I shan't even go there :S

All of them without exception were appalling designs - The first, outline design at least had promise.

Regarding the turbine design - we've been here before. Its not a real design, merely a concept visualisation someone's whipped up during their lunch break by the looks of it.

Irish investor's interested in Abito


Investors are likely to be interested in the launch of a new contemporary studio apartment development in Manchester. The first of its kind in Britain, the Abito condominium complex at Greengate has been designed to capitalise on the demand for low-cost, high-quality living spaces.

Developer Abito, the innovation arm of local firm Ask Property Developments, expects the €8.5 million scheme to be complete in the summer of next year when it will comprise 256 studios - 200 apartments with 32 square metres of living space and 56 of the larger Abito maxis, which extend to 58 square metres and are set within a three-sided tower of polished concrete and glass.

The majority of the units available at the scheme are under the British stamp duty threshold of stg£120,000 with prices averaging stg£108,000 for the normal studios and stg£139,000 for the maxi studios. A total of 50 apartments are available off the plans through the Prestige Group, which has branches in Dublin and Galway.

Local agents claim that rental yields for the apartments will be among the strongest in the city when the development is completed in July 2006, and are predicting rents of stg£500 per month for the smaller units.

The brainchild of interior designer Jasper Sanders and architect Gavin Elliot of the Building Design Partnership, the Abito project aims to offer “sophisticated living'‘ within a compact living space.

The design of the individual apartments centres around a four-sided pod that divides the studio space into two - one area for sleeping, complete with a fold-down bed, fold-out work station and integrated wardrobes and storage, and one space for living, equipped with a fitted kitchen and reception area, shower room and utility room. All apartments have their own balconies, high ceilings and floor to ceiling windows spanning the full width of the property. The space above the pod can be utilised as an extra bed deck if required.

Other features include fitted combination microwave ovens, two-ring hobs, fridges and dishwashers, a remote control lighting and heating system, and a video entry system. A 24-hour concierge service will provide a range of services.

The Greengate area is within a few minutes of the Harvey Nichols department store as well as the main shopping area of King Street, and is also within walking distance of the business district. Investors will require 5 per cent for an initial deposit, followed by another 5 per cent due in September, with the 90 per cent balance due on completion.

^^^ Lets not start to confuse the many ongoing developments in the area of Greengate within Central Salford with the tower proposals in one particular part of Greengate. Ill repost this in the Central Salford thread.

The Greenagte saga continues!..............................

Very interesting news! :wink2:

I'm just going to get some pet food from Jolly's!

Back in 20 minutes! :runaway:

Ps! A big thank you to you know who! :)

Gah... jrb is keeping us sat on a knife edge yet again, frothing at the mouth for info!
Whats more important... info or pet food?!?! :D

What? Who? Aw.

ahrg, he's doing it again!

What are the odds we already know? :laugh:



(Only joking mate!)

He certainly takes his time when buying pet food!

I'm gonna guess they BSC have had their shitty two tower Canopus-replacement knocked back and have been enlisted with the services of a huge architect firm to get something decent built.

Like ISA? Is that what he meant by "you know who"?

Come on jrb. Finish your dinner and get your ass on this bulletin board.

http://www.electrolley.com.au/ximages/fp-250x250/17/9310022421709.jpg

What are the odds we already know?

None Caw! :okay:

Just for Caws Cheek, again!

I will change the light bulb on the landing first! :lol:

He certainly takes his time when buying pet food!
I say we kidnap his cat or w/e so we dont have this problem again!

Come on jrb,spit the fucker out :)

Can't believe this!

My http://www.eismann.es/Images/Produkte/0098.jpg is ready now!

Give us 20 minutes!:wave:

Yeah.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/avatars/PabloPlatypus.gif

Get ya fucking hands off my duck :laugh:

this will be anti climatic...

Duck? It's a Platypussy.

What are the odds we already know? :laugh:



(Only joking mate!)

Smurk :lol:

Come on spill the beans, or should i say 'spagehtti'....

he's dragged this out for over 2 hours now.

so it bloody is :)

Gah! I've got to go in 20 minutes :cry:

Where was I?

Anyway! The proposal for a large tower on the Greenagte site may not be dead yet?!

Apparantly, Cabe are against any large tower on the Greenagte site! They are not keen on the Oakglade plan either, presumebly because it consists of 3 large towers, albeit not as large as Canopus!

However, Salford Council and the Salford URC (Urban Regeneration Company) are very keen to have a large tower on the Greengate site! Discussions are currently taking place between all parties and the architects/master planners for the Greenagte site(forgot who they are) about the possibility of a large tower on the Greengate site!

Hopefully Cabe will see sense, and all the parties involved will work together, so we finally end up with a large well designed tower on the Greenagte site?!

Come on Caw! Even you didn't know about that? :)

Ps! Thank you once again! You know who! :)

what do you mean by large tower, 60 floors + ?

Cheers jrb.
Where and when are the discussions taking place?

and anyway what the hell have cabe got to do with it? if scc wants a very tall building on the site, then bring the tall building!

No info about height! But we must be looking at Beetham, Crown, etc height?
Can't see it being Eastgate height?

Discussion between all parties are currently taking place!(cabe, Salford Council, URC and the Greengate architects/master planners)

Like I said! Salford Council and URC are very keen for a tower to be built on the Greengate site! If anything, the news about Chapel Warf supports the belief that Salford Council are pro tower, as long as the design is acceptable!

Yeah. Screw CABE. Who the hell are they to tell everybody what they can or can't have.

http://www.cabe.org.uk

Tanx jrb.

Where was I?

Anyway! The proposal for a large tower on the Greenagte site may not dead yet?!

Apparantly, Cabe are against any large tower on the Greenagte site! They are not keen on the Oakglade plan either, presumebly because it consists of 3 large towers, albeit not as large as Canopus!

However, Salford Council and the Salford URC (Urban Regeneration Company) are very keen to have a large tower on the Greengate site! Discussions are currently taking place between all parties and the architects/master planners for the Greenagte site(forgot who they are) about the possibility of a large tower on the Greengate site!

Hopefully Cabe will see sense, and all the parties involved will work together, so we finally end up with a large well designed tower on the Greenagte site?!

Come on Caw! Even you didn't know about that? :)

Ps! Thank you once again! You know who! :)

Much appreciated jrb!

Good to see Salford themselves finally intervening into this mess, good to know theres ambition too.

CABE have no real power, so if Salford wants it, Salford gets it, I presume.

I do wonder how high they are willing to go, 200m+ maybe? :runaway:


You know who eh? Sounds to me like we've got a Salford planner or something reading or even participating on this forum? :)

The people you spoke to at that open day from Dandara,were very pleased with the Chapel Wharf design if my memory is right,,a decision should'nt be that far away i would have thought.

Caw! Who are the architects behind the Greengate scheme? I've got a memory like a sieve! Wish I could remember who the architects where!

Highriser!

Information about apartments and prices for the Chapel Warf tower will be available later on this year!

I've got my name down!

If you search the CABE website you can find their guidance notes on tall buildings.

http://www.cabe.org.uk/pdf/Guidance_on_tall_buildings_2003.pdf

Note that it was produced in conjunction with our friends at... English Heritage.

Read the report. You don't have to be the Brain of Britain to understand why CABE so often find fault with highrise proposals.

OK I'll spell it out. They know what is good for you. You don't. Because they are the (self appointed) arbiters of good taste. Not you. And they are also the English Heritage cuckoos in the nest.

I sent a rant to cabe saying as long as the building is good it can be 100 200 or 300 meters high and that height shouldnt be any issue.

See post above. I was editing it.

Are you aiming that at me.

Im glad CABE are involved.

Although they have been criticised for being less than transparent and slow to engage with potential partners, their remit is to help local authorities, architects and developers achieve better designed buildings and spaces. Thats all, there's nothing sinister about their work.Their staff is made up of architects, planners, regeneration experts and so on (exactly the same kind of people they advise) and they are a government appointed quango. Anyone who says they harbour any kind of anti-highrise prejudice is being a bit naive frankly.

Im sure the end result of this collaboration will be a much superior building, hopefully sat within a superior masterplan as it would appear to be the Greengate masterplan that seemed to stipulate the need for that ridiculously large, inhuman podium that all of the Greengate tower designs seem to feature.

jrb - the masterplanners of the Greengate site are Fielden Clegg Bradley (www.fieldenclegg.com) and their masterplan is being incorporated into the visioning work being carried out by Italian architects Fuksas (http://www.fuksas.it/html/index.html) for the URC for the whole of Central Salford.

Caw! Who are the architects behind the Greengate scheme? I've got a memory like a sieve! Wish I could remember who the architects where!

Highriser!

Information about apartments and prices for the Chapel Warf tower will be available later on this year!

I've got my name down!

Acra Architects designed both Canopus and the 2 towered replacement scheme. Not sure who did Oakglades design.

Not sure who did Oakglades design.

AEW Architects

Many thanks Sleepy, Caw!

Andy: Not at all.

Does anyone know what's going on here, it is part of the Greengate masterplan,,they have been farting about with this for months

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/22sept004.jpg

reinforcement

Looks like the BSC scheme for Greengate has gone back in for outline planning.

Building Magazine 25-11-05

'Mixed use development :-

3o storey tower with 252 room hotel
32 storey tower with 234 apts.
10 storey perimeter building with 245 apts.
1600 sqm shops, etc
1380sqm office
Basment parking.

Looks like the whopper 60 storey tower has been split in two??

Client : BSC
Architect : Arca

Ref : 05/50729/OUT.

Good find Superj!

Its been a long time!

Two 32 storey towers on top of a 10 storey base! ( thats two Fourty storey towers!:) )

Lets hope it's better then the previous designs!

Correct me if I'm wrong? But haven't the architects changed?

I'll get a bit more info tomorrow! Should also be in this weeks, or next weeks Salford Planning apps!

http://www.arca.uk.com/

Hope they're nice, those Oaklade towers were criminal.

So this project rears its ugly head again. But is this latest development really news?

Page 1 of this thread has the following:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/caw123/BSCcrap2.jpg


BSC recently submitted another planning application for the site, for two towers of 32 and 30 storeys over a 10 storey podium.

BSC two tower scheme: 50729

That's the exact same setup that was submitted months ago after Canopus was binned. jrb, they are 32 and 30 floors(88m and 102m), not ontop of the hideous perimiter building. The architects are the same too.

I don't understand why BSC are even bothering with this trash.

That's the exact same setup that was submitted months ago after Canopus was binned. jrb, they are 32 and 30 floors(88m and 102m), not ontop of the hideous perimiter building. The architects are the same too.

I don't understand why BSC are even bothering with this trash.

Corrections accepted Caw!

The design must have changed! The plans were rejected last time because of the design, not the height! Lets wait and see! BSC would not resubmit without a radical design change! It would'nt make sense! They would be wasting their time and money again! Don't forget, CABE are involved aswell!

No its the same one. i.e. the second application submitted by BSC, architects being Arca again.

The reference number quoted by Super J today is 50729.

The reference number on the first page of this thread is 50729 which is the image I posted above.

Put 50729 into the planning application search on Salford City Council's website and see what comes up.

http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/planning/planninglist/planninglist-search.htm?col1=planning&ref=50729



Whatever, this is nothing really to get excited about as its an outline planning application only - in other words something just to establish the principal of the size and usage etc.

No its the same one. i.e. the second application submitted by BSC, architects being Arca again.

The reference number quoted by Super J today is 50729.

The reference number on the first page of this thread is 50729 which is the image I posted above.

Put 50729 into the planning application search on Salford City Council's website and see what comes up.

http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/planning/planninglist/planninglist-search.htm?col1=planning&ref=50729



Whatever, this is nothing really to get excited about as its an outline planning application only - in other words something just to establish the principal of the size and usage etc.

Fair enough Sleepy!

But the design will HAVE to change eventually!

I was around Greengate this afternoon, to see what going on , on the site next to Tempus, this is the site which the big tower is planned for, there is definatly something going on, diggers , container's on site, and some heavy machinery being delivered while i was there,,, what is going on ????

I was around Greengate this afternoon, to see what going on , on the site next to Tempus, this is the site which the big tower is planned for, there is definatly something going on, diggers , container's on site, and some heavy machinery being delivered while i was there,,, what is going on ????

Why did'nt you ask H? :)

I was feelin shy, but i'll build up some courage and ask tomorrow , just for you jerb :)

I went down to that site this afternoon to ask jrb , but hoarding's are now all the way around the site so i couldnt ask, anyway all the builder's have BSC on there back's , digger's all over the site now , something is definatly happening here,
Did BSC put another application in, or did they just leave it when the 60 storey got rejected ?

^ The rubbish on the first page of this thread and further up the page is what they submitted after Canopus was withdrawn. 30 storey and 32 storey. 88m and 102m. Only outline too.

The Salford site says the application is still waiting for a decision. I'm stumped.

Just what i thought matey, but like i say groudwork for something as started :)

Well the Canopus images have been taken down (and have been for a while) from BSC's homepage. What're the chances of them starting groundwork and that and applying retrospectively? BSC worry me though, I'm a bit scared about this.

Well the Canopus images have been taken down (and have been for a while) from BSC's homepage. What're the chances of them starting groundwork and that and applying retrospectively? BSC worry me though, I'm a bit scared about this.

I know what your saying about BSC, do you think that they have started groundwork knowing that they are going to get approval ?? 3PP seemed to do just that .

Taken down? As far as I can see, the thing is still on their projects list, and still has its microsite????? And it looks like the old Canopus.

http://www.bsc-group.net/

It just reminds me of one of the Barbican Towers in London but bigger. Not good.

That must be one of THE ugliest developments i've ever clapped eyes on!
Are they trying to be up and coming by reverting to 60's designs to be 'retro' or summat?!
They look moldy, depressing and U.G.L.Y (as Daphny & Celeste would say) already!

We need new laws bringing in to lock crackhead architects like this up...before it's too late! :ohno:

Is it me or is this now more than 30-storeys? (And yes I'm aware just how many times this design has changed)

It still shows the 60 storey monster on the website

Is it me or is this now more than 30-storeys? (And yes I'm aware just how many times this design has changed)


FFS.

This is all explained on the first page of the thread and then throughout the thread.

The Key Facts are:

* Outline planning permission for a 30 storey structure, 280 flats and 720 hotel rooms along with office and retail space, was granted in 2000 and renewed in 2004.
* Canopus will not be going ahead - the planning application was withdrawn.
* Oakglades three tower scheme - 30,24,17 floors, is still pending consideration. (Detailed application)
* BSC's double tower scheme - 30 and 32 floors is also pending consideration. (Outline application)

Which leads to the question...

Work on the Greengate site begins.

But why?

Last picture shows the Greengate site and Tempus in the background.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6771/picture3164pk.jpg

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/6886/picture3178qf.jpg

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/1375/picture3181yb.jpg

JRB - a while ago you said Salford were in discussions with developers, planners, architects etc about getting a tall tower built.

Well maybe Salford are sure they'll come up with something and have given BSC the nod to prepare the site - plumbing, electrics, strengthening the canal wall - to save a bit of time?

* Oakglades three tower scheme - 30,24,17 floors, is still pending consideration. (Detailed application)

Please no!

JRB - a while ago you said Salford were in discussions with developers, planners, architects etc about getting a tall tower built.

Well maybe Salford are sure they'll come up with something and have given BSC the nod to prepare the site - plumbing, electrics, strengthening the canal wall - to save a bit of time?


I'll make a phone call next week. Hopefully the planning officer hasn't finished for Christmas?
I can now see why they need a podium for the development though. Those arches would certainly obscure the view of potential residents who purchase apartments at the base of the tower.

They could stick a few floors of car park on the railway side.

A 10 storey podium is not necessary.

They could stick a few floors of car park on the railway side.

A 10 storey podium is not necessary.

To be honest Caw, I would rather have a podium, than a car park.

Perhaps knocking down the railway arches would solve Greengates problem? The raliway line isn't used any more either.

This would open up the whole Greenagte area in one go!

Smash!

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/2817/picture3046os.jpg

We shouldn't knock it down, we could regret in the future. If it's disused, what's to say it wouldn't help a Metrolink expansion budget by having an already made rail line out of the city?

Build around it, tart it up at street level, but don't get rid. Once it's gone, it'll be gone forever.

We shouldn't knock it down, we could regret in the future. If it's disused, what's to say it wouldn't help a Metrolink expansion budget by having an already made rail line out of the city?

Build around it, tart it up at street level, but don't get rid. Once it's gone, it'll be gone forever.

I'll second that.

Sorry guys .....

those arches are still used by trains coming into Victoria, so no chance for demolition. Only a short stretch of track is abandoned , on the side furthest away from town. The platforms this used to lead up to were built over by the MEN arena.

:)

Right boys, I'd say they are making a start on this one in advance of planning permission. It was a car park before right?

BSC don't seem to have detailed planning permission for anything. Nor have they apparently made an application for full permission to build anything.

Wasn't the podium something the planning commitee had no problem with though? I seem to remember somebody saying BSC needed to get the podium up and running before anything else to make funds for the tower element. It wouldn't surprise me if something's happened where BSC have been given permission for the residential podium, and this is what they're starting.

Who the fuck are the contractors for this and the other 2 BSC projects on the go (sarah and Issa quay). There are no obvious logo's or signs visable and the site cabins on the above pics suggest a very small outfit.

Worrying signs for me as I've already seen 2 small contractors go bump this year taking on jobs that are too big for them.

As Dandara, maybe they have taken the contracting in-house?

those arches are still used by trains coming into Victoria,

Why is it covered in grass?

Thats the Salford Central bound track isnt it?

Thats the Salford Central bound track isnt it?

Yep, all westbound trains leaving Victoria use that track.
At the MEN arena end for a short strecth the viaduct splits into two. The side furthest away from town is abandoned (& grass covered), the side nearest town still in use.

As Dandara, maybe they have taken the contracting in-house?

Doesn't it say on their website that within the group they have their own construction company? Wait a sec...

Yep, on the homepage... "Unlike other developers, we also have our own building company, BS Construction, which means we have total control over each project - and the quality of work - from the design and development stages, through to construction."

God help us!

BS Construction = BullShit construction :lol:

Doesn't it say on their website that within the group they have their own construction company? Wait a sec...

Yep, on the homepage... "Unlike other developers, we also have our own building company, BS Construction, which means we have total control over each project - and the quality of work - from the design and development stages, through to construction."

God help us!

Oh dear. I really think these jobs are too big for these people to handle.

BSC don't seem to have detailed planning permission for anything. Nor have they apparently made an application for full permission to build anything.

I can't speak for the other BSC developments but the one on Great Ancoats Street does have planning permission although they bought the site with this consent.

Wasn't the podium something the planning commitee had no problem with though? I seem to remember somebody saying BSC needed to get the podium up and running before anything else to make funds for the tower element. It wouldn't surprise me if something's happened where BSC have been given permission for the residential podium, and this is what they're starting.

I think the planning commitee hated the podium in fact. But yes, BSC were going to build the ~300 apartment podium first to finance the tower - but they have no permission for anything at all.

I can't speak for the other BSC developments but the one on Great Ancoats Street does have planning permission although they bought the site with this consent.

I meant it doesn't appear they have any kind of consent for just this site. Clearly their other sites at Great Ancoats St, Sarah Tower and Issa have full planning consent.

Aerial photo of the Greengate site.

http://www.aidan.co.uk/lg/SalCnstCisVw5Y01.jpg

Aerial photo of the Greengate site.

http://www.aidan.co.uk/lg/SalCnstCisVw5Y01.jpg

So the site with the yellow digger on is the main Greengate tower site, i always thought it was the site inbetween Abito and Spectrum,im really looking forward to seeing the proposals for these existing sites in this area.

Even if the large Greengate masterplan doesnt happen, this area is going to look very different in 5-10 years. Also, the nearby beach development will hopefully bring some life to the area.

I think that it's the beach that will not happen Mr Preston.

They have gained full approval for it, Urban Splash just got slagged off by everybody for not turning up at a Q&A meeting. We know they are a reliable developer. I'm positive that all the buildings will get built... my main concern is the beach itself.

I thought that the Beach had been changed for some kind of wildlife sanctuary type affair. Think I might have read it in the Advertiser or summat.

Then again, I could be talking out of my arse.

No I read the same Pricillia

Spoke to the planning officer today.

The current work has nothing to do with BSC, even if it is on the Greengate site. Apparently is an archaeological dig of some sort?

However, The Council, Cabe and English Heritage are still working with BSC and their architects on the BSC/Greengate design. :)

It looks like the skyscraper/tower is still a real possiblilty for the Greengate site. I know Salford Council really want a tower for this site. I bet Mr Issa does aswell! :)

I'm dissappointed now :cry:

Spoke to the planning officer today.

The current work has nothing to do with BSC, even if it is on the Greengate site. Apparently is an archaeological dig of some sort?

However, The Council, Cabe and English Heritage are still working with BSC and their architects on the BSC/Greengate design. :)

It looks like the skyscraper/tower is still a real possiblilty for the Greengate site. I know Salford Council really want a tower for this site. I bet Mr Issa does aswell! :)

Get either ISA or Fairhursts as the architects, and he can have his 60+ storey tower.

Whoops wrong thread!

'Don't shoot the messenger!'

I will reveal all in 1 hour. :)

im goin out in an hour reveal now or die...

it's been over an hour...

This always happens... :|

Lets have a guess, BSC have got their act together and come up with a PROPER landmark tower for this site with the help of a very familiar firm of local architects....I dunno just tell us!!

jrb with news on something? I hope its a 200 meter tower?

my bet is that it's all been cancelled and that BSC are going to build a 3 storey student accomodation building on the site.

The way he said ' Don't shoot the messenger ' doesn't look good....

He did finish with a smilie though so who knows.

oh, now he's gone offline! - hanging around for shite all!

face up to the music jrb, say what you have to say!

i'm gonna go watch corrie, which i missed half of :evil:

Hope he hurries up, I've had the shit and the shave, just a shower then I'm of out getting pissed.

Sorry about the delay.

Got talking today.(lets leave it at that)

Can't confirm this information is 100% accurate either.

I was told "the archaeologists are now off site and Work has commenced on BSC's Greengate proposal"

I asked about the height."the tower will be 40 storeys tall"

I asked what the tower looked like. "Can't describe it, but I've seen the plans/drawings"

"the archaeologists are now off site and Work has commenced on BSC's Greengate proposal"

That piece of information is the reason why I believe what I was told. Tim Hartley( Salford planning officer) told me about the archeology team a few months ago)

I think BSC, their architects, Salford City Council and Cabe have or are in the final stages of finalizing a design/proposal. While this is being finished BC construction are preparing the site.

Decide for yourself.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????/

Erm, no - I don't believe it. Why would they start work on something they haven't even finished designing let alone got planning permission for??

nice one jrb, my mate said to me the other day that site looked like it was being prepared, this confirms it I'd say

Who do you speak to at Salford Council, I found out last week that a bloke I know who works for them works or has something to do with planning, I should see him tonight so theres a chance that I may be able to glean some further info from him if I drop the right names.

Also ask about Chapel Wharf.

Sorry about the delay.

Got talking today.(lets leave it at that)

Can't confirm this information is 100% accurate either.

I was told "the archaeologists are now off site and Work has commenced on BSC's Greengate proposal"

I asked about the height."the tower will be 40 storeys tall"

I asked what the tower looked like. "Can't describe it, but I've seen the plans/drawings"



That piece of information is the reason why I believe what I was told. Tim Hartley( Salford planning officer) told me about the archeology team a few months ago)

I think BSC, their architects, Salford City Council and Cabe have or are in the final stages of finalizing a design/proposal. While this is being finished BC construction are preparing the site.

Decide for yourself.

Nothing unbelievable about that. A lot of developers/clients will proceed at risk so as to advance the program. However, they may get to the 39th storey and fail to get planning permission, in which case they would have to knock the fucker down.

It would get planning permission with ease if it were in Manchester, but you know how Salford council are like... bloody hell!

Erm, no - I don't believe it. Why would they start work on something they haven't even finished designing let alone got planning permission for??

I was told that the archaeologists have finished. (I knew about them.) That information is correct.

I asked for the height. The person couldn't tell me the exact height, so I asked them the height in storeys. I was told it was 40 storeys.

I ask for a description of the tower/design. The person couldn't describe it to me, but confirmed they had seen the designs/plans.

The site is a hive of activity. I have know doubt the site is being prepared for construction to begin.

Salford Council and Cabe are working with BSC and their architects on this proposal.(If there are any issues or problems they can be addressed straightaway) Salford Council have also stated that they want a tower on this site.

There will be a tower of some sorts on this site. :)

edit: woops forget that :runaway:

Sweeeeeeeeeet

is this the site immediately behind Bar Coco - which used to be Cathedral Arches.
Across the road from where the temp bus station was for a while.

Dam I wanted a 60 story tower.

Metro,,if u go through the tunnel that is facing the Exchange station (which is now closed) is the fisrt plot of land on your right, hope that helps :)

The bit encirculed by the roads at the top of the centre of the following...

http://www.google.co.uk/local?f=q&hl=en&q=manchester&ll=53.485352,-2.246329&spn=0.00279,0.010815

???

It would get planning permission with ease if it were in Manchester, but you know how Salford council are like... bloody hell!
Well this hasnt exactly been a smooth ride (assuming its over as jrb has said)
They've supposedly approved the also 40-storey Chapel Wharf just upstream as well.

Baffling. Surely a planning application should be resubmitted anytime soon if thats the case?

sweet, nice one jrb.

Thanks jrb. Sounds promising.

Accura, see the Chapel Wharf thread for the score there.

Nothing unbelievable about that. A lot of developers/clients will proceed at risk so as to advance the program. However, they may get to the 39th storey and fail to get planning permission, in which case they would have to knock the fucker down.

Something similar happened on 'Grand Designs' on C4. A couple with far too much money and not enough sense spent seven figures doing up a London apartment. Objections were raised at the planning stage because it was in a conservation area and they were using the wrong colour of brick. They built the whole thing anyway assuming they would later get planning permission.

They didn't. The whole thing had to be torn down. :rofl:

Anyway - 40 stories is better than a car park. I'm looking forward to the final design - hopefully it will be something a little different.

^^ Actually, they didn't have to knock it down. They painted to bricks to give the wall the desired distressing and the neighbours retracted their objection. It nearly went that far though. I know of jobs that have had to be partially demolished after construction because they went beyond the conditions of the planning permission.

Planning departments nowadays have neither the money or the resourses to fight such things.
A major developer would rather flout the terms of the planning application and perhaps pay a fine to ultimately get what they want than put up with costly delays at an early stage. A certain well known developer did this a couple of years back and just took a fine (which are usually relatively small). Demolition, especially of very big structures, is very rare.

I was chatting to Joe Martin the Salford Heritage officer the other day. He was mentioning that the Greengate site was the old Market place that Henry the something gave to salford back in the 12th century. He had reservations about putting a large tower on the site. He wanted a market type area that could attract markets like those seen in Albert Square over Christmas.
He was also saying that he didnt like the idea of Beetham going up, even though obviously he couldnt do anything about it. He was concerned it would ruin a world Heritage site plan they have, due to the fact the World Heritage people dont like towers.

Longford, would that have been Argent?

Longford, would that have been Argent?

No actually but now come to mention it......!?!

Joe Martin, Salford Heritage officer. Heritage people don't like towers.

Most people like a mixture of old and new. A rich tapestry. Old stone and mirror glass. They don't want their history swept away, but they don't want to live in a museum piece either. So what is it with these heritage types that they don't like modern stuff? Especially tall modern stuff? Are they locked in some time warp or something? Are they conservatives with a small c who just don't like change? Maybe, but one thing that comes over time and time again is that they're arrogant control freaks who want everybody else to get what they want. And if you don't agree with what they're shoving down your throat, you're just some ignorant oik to be dismissed. Their very arrogance means they lock themselves out of engagement, debate, and new ideas. It's that arrogance that leaves them stuck in the past.

Forgot to take a picture of the BSC site. Must have been over excited about the info. :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0322.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0333.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0344.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0388.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0399.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0400.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0411.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0422.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0533.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0433.jpg

Forgot to take a picture of the BSC site. Must have been over excited about the info. :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture0322.jpg

I am sorry Emma.

That bugs me that. I saw one today on Leyland Road. The methods of some advertisers are just sick.

I was chatting to Joe Martin the Salford Heritage officer the other day. He was mentioning that the Greengate site was the old Market place that Henry the something gave to salford back in the 12th century. He had reservations about putting a large tower on the site. He wanted a market type area that could attract markets like those seen in Albert Square over Christmas.
He was also saying that he didnt like the idea of Beetham going up, even though obviously he couldnt do anything about it. He was concerned it would ruin a world Heritage site plan they have, due to the fact the World Heritage people dont like towers.


How delusional! It never ceases to amaze me how bizarre some officials are. Greengate lost any historical interest about 150 years ago when the railways knocked down anything worthwhile. Trinity Church is the only thing in the area of any interest and unless it was a completely made up square out of Disneyland it could never be an Albert Sq. It's a car park for the city centre and de facto part of Manchester city centre. Indeed it's at the every core of Manchester and great place for a skyscraper or two to complement the rest of what is currently and will be built in the wider Victoria area. They would be harming the development of the whole of Central Manchester if they held up a modern scheme for this stupid idea. Every developer and anyone with a tenth of a brain knows this is central Manchester and has to marketed that way. Only the goofballs at Salford stupid council are obsessed with trying to differentiate it from the rest of central Manchester. These idiots are holding back the Manchester city region for their own nonsensical perverted reasons.

It's a car park for the city centre and de facto part of Manchester city centre.

Exactly, if Salford got their act together and worked with Manchester it would be positive for both cities, the sooner they realize this the better, and stop holding back something that will regenerate both cities.

I don't think Salford work against Manchester. Tim Hartley in the planning office was very good. I was really impressed. Remember Joe Martin is heritage officer, who isn't necessarily very representative.

Don't be silly you two. This is one person's opinion and Skymann quite rightly identified it as delusional. Don't go crazy with this whole anti-Salford sentiment. There are just as many on the Manchester side (including some on these forums, I have noticed) who are just as keen to differentiate the two.

Personally, I think the two councils can both be commended on their cooperation in many areas. Even the so called "battle" between Salford and Manchester (no battle at all, just a work of fiction created and blown out of all proportion by the MEN as usual) over the relocation of the BBC has seen both councils agree that the most important factor is that the move goes ahead at all, as both cities will benefit.

Well said Cilla.

Don't be silly you two. This is one person's opinion and Skymann quite rightly identified it as delusional. Don't go crazy with this whole anti-Salford sentiment. There are just as many on the Manchester side (including some on these forums, I have noticed) who are just as keen to differentiate the two.

Personally, I think the two councils can both be commended on their cooperation in many areas. Even the so called "battle" between Salford and Manchester (no battle at all, just a work of fiction created and blown out of all proportion by the MEN as usual) over the relocation of the BBC has seen both councils agree that the most important factor is that the move goes ahead at all, as both cities will benefit.

I'm not anti-Salford any more than I'm anti-Wythenshawe or anti-Stretford. What I think is uniquely bad for Manchester is that 2/3 of its actual suburbs are outside the municipal borough. I don't ever think of or accept that Salford is a city in any conventional sense. It's an integral part of Manchester. So I think it does Manchester a great deal of harm when some saddos in Salford pretend they are not Manchester. It's as ridiculous as the City of Westminster, or Tower Hamlets pretending they're not London. It's beyond bizarre. All this should have been sorted out about 200 years ago. In 1974, the least they could have done was include all of Manchester 1.3 million people under the one city council. Failing that it should have been West Manchester MBC (rather than the "new" Salford, where West Manchester suburbs like Swinton, Eccles and Worsley actual outnumber real Salford residents), South Manchester MBC instead of Trafford and East Manchester MBC instead of Tameside. You can be sure that Manchester certainly sees Salford as a suburb and know it's an important part of West Manchester and includes Manchester docklands so it's important to the whole of Manchester; it's some stupid Salford councillors and the odd silly old cunt that are anti-Manchester (anti the real world as far as I can see) and refuse to acknowledge what everyone else has never questioned i.e. Salford is part of Manchester. Plus the MEN want shooting for this Salford vs. Manchester shit. It's a non story and harms Manchester.

Divide and rule, skymann. Divide and rule.

Well said skymann. I'm not averse to the existence of the City of Salford, only reduced to the much smaller area originally granted by its charter, wherever that may be. It would be a quirky little anomaly like the Vatican City surrounded by Rome.

The divide and rule argument certainly has some credence with me. The original 1974 formation of metro counties saw only London and Manchester carved up in this way, and now only the myriad of London boroughs are seen to be belonging to just the one city. A coincidence? Or more of a convenience?

convenience!

This divide and rule can quickly have people at one another's throats. It's easy to get antagonistic. The other guys respond in kind, and before you know it you're not talking to one another. Then the divide and rule has done its job.

Skymann, I agree with your sentiment. But if you get annoyed about this stuff it plays right into their hands. I think it's best to park the wrongs of the past, and work together with continual reminders that United We Stand.

This divide and rule can quickly have people at one another's throats. It's easy to get antagonistic. The other guys respond in kind, and before you know it you're not talking to one another. Then the divide and rule has done its job.

Skymann, I agree with your sentiment. But if you get annoyed about this stuff it plays right into their hands. I think it's best to park the wrongs of the past, and work together with continual reminders that United We Stand.

Exactly, a united Manchester of 1.3 million. They sorted out London in 1899 and 1966, Birmingham in 1913, Leeds and Sheffield in 1974, and I'm sure the Labour govt intends to sort out Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow in the next five years. All that each of these three great cities wants and needs is to have all their suburbs incorporated into the one municipality just like the other cities mentioned. It's the most natural thing in the world.

^ I suppose it will eventually have to happen but in the meantime it's not that big a deal is it?

The reason being, Manchester has always punched well above its weight anyway. On a national level it pretty well carries the banner for the 10 boroughs of GM. It's only at the local level that we seem to experience a bit of parochial nonsense.

And even that is diminishing more rapidly than you know.

I doubt there will be any changes to the metropolitan boroughs of Greater Manchester in the up-coming reform of local government, but there could be the creation of a Greater Manchester assembly - which would effectively re-create the county council that was abolished in 1986. Ditto for Merseyside.

Glasgow's situation is now in the hands of the Scottish Executive, who are also looking into reducing the number of councils. So that city too could get a single city-wide governance.

I'm not anti-Salford any more than I'm anti-Wythenshawe or anti-Stretford. What I think is uniquely bad for Manchester is that 2/3 of its actual suburbs are outside the municipal borough. I don't ever think of or accept that Salford is a city in any conventional sense. It's an integral part of Manchester. So I think it does Manchester a great deal of harm when some saddos in Salford pretend they are not Manchester. It's as ridiculous as the City of Westminster, or Tower Hamlets pretending they're not London. It's beyond bizarre. All this should have been sorted out about 200 years ago. In 1974, the least they could have done was include all of Manchester 1.3 million people under the one city council. Failing that it should have been West Manchester MBC (rather than the "new" Salford, where West Manchester suburbs like Swinton, Eccles and Worsley actual outnumber real Salford residents), South Manchester MBC instead of Trafford and East Manchester MBC instead of Tameside. You can be sure that Manchester certainly sees Salford as a suburb and know it's an important part of West Manchester and includes Manchester docklands so it's important to the whole of Manchester; it's some stupid Salford councillors and the odd silly old cunt that are anti-Manchester (anti the real world as far as I can see) and refuse to acknowledge what everyone else has never questioned i.e. Salford is part of Manchester. Plus the MEN want shooting for this Salford vs. Manchester shit. It's a non story and harms Manchester.


I agree totally. Well almost. You may notice that I do actually (and always have), listed my location as West Manchester and not Salford, or Worsley, or Walkden – all of which are technically correct.

My only area of contention with what you have said (well, really something you didn’t say) is that you only seem to be considering things from the Manchester point of view. :nono:

From a Salford perspective, I can tell you that not being recognised as part of Manchester by many in Manchester is just as bad as somebody in Manchester being told they can’t count Salford. Salford’s city centre is no more, so really Manchester is it. But we are told that is not our city centre because we are not part of Manchester. :(

I honestly don't think you'll find that any Salford councillors are anti-Manchester. In general they're all very keen to see Central Salford grow with the city centre and form an even larger portion of it.

All of this nonsense is wrong – I just want people to recognise that it’s not only wrong for (the city of) Manchester – it’s wrong for all of us.

Now let's all cheer up and get merry - it's Friday!! :drunk: :)

Can one of you guys try and get a pic or two of this Greengate site? Thanks andy

looking good

Here is how ridiculous this whole boundary thing is...

HMRC (former Inland Revenue) have to have a presence in every city. For Manchester they have Albert Bridge House, which is what, a couple of hundred yards from the Salford border. This is listed as "Manchester Area, Manchester". Salford also has an office. It is Trinity Bridge House and is a couple of hundred yards from Albert Bridge House. This is listed as "Chapel Wharf Area, Salford, Manchester". Because all of the work is done by "Manchester Area" due to the fact they are a couple of hundred yards apart the Salford office is almost 100% reliant on work shipped in from London!

The Manchester Area covers most of Manchester and Salford and is worked from Albert Bridge House. In this regard it is in fact ahead of the game in implementing the 'one city' approach we mostly ask for.

The two other main areas in Greater Manchester are East Lancashire (Bolton - also goes up as far as Pendle), and East Chesire (Stockport).

Trinity Bridge House/Chapel Wharf is mainly a specialist office dealing with complex cases and other specialisms. Run of the mill tax returns are not handled by Chapel Wharf.

The tax elemant is unimportant. I worked in Trinity Bridge house for two years; and it was a pleasure to ever deal with someone from the North-west. Most companies I dealt with were from Central London or 'everywhere'.
Only when the 582/ref companies were transfered to our office did we deal with local "Mancunian companies".
Incidently, The address for Trinity Bridge House is.

Trinity Bridge House
2 Dearman's Place
Cahpel Wharf
SALFORD
M3 5BS.

(At no point did Salford's main tax office advertise itself as a Manchester office. In fact, the Manchester area office's call centre is dealt with in ST Helens.)

The Manchester Area covers most of Manchester and Salford and is worked from Albert Bridge House. In this regard it is in fact ahead of the game in implementing the 'one city' approach we mostly ask for.

The two other main areas in Greater Manchester are East Lancashire (Bolton - also goes up as far as Pendle), and East Chesire (Stockport).

Trinity Bridge House/Chapel Wharf is mainly a specialist office dealing with complex cases and other specialisms. Run of the mill tax returns are not handled by Chapel Wharf.
Precisely my point. They HAVE to have a presence in each city by law. Because there is no work (because Manchester and Salford are one and the same) Chapel Wharf has to take on external work (Contact Centre Director's Office and Media Section for example). "East Cheshire" is in fact "East Cheshire and South Lancashire". :)

(At no point did Salford's main tax office advertise itself as a Manchester office. In fact, the Manchester area office's call centre is dealt with in ST Helens.)
Try looking on their intranet site. The Contact Centre is listed as Manchester Contact Centre, despite being in Chapel Wharf. The times they are a changing. :)

Incidentally, for those who care, apart from imported work, Chapel Wharf also deals with the work from the old offices at:
Manchester Castlefield
Manchester Deansgate
Manchester Irwell
Manchester Parsonage
Manchester Regent
Manchester Trinity

Incidentally, for those who care, apart from imported work, Chapel Wharf also deals with the work from the old offices at:
Manchester Castlefield
Manchester Deansgate
Manchester Irwell
Manchester Parsonage
Manchester Regent
Manchester Trinity


True, but the old Stretford area, Highland House, even Oldham area had dealings with these areas???

True, but the old Stretford area, Highland House, even Oldham area had dealings with these areas???
Offices all over the country have dealings with companies in all kinds of places. The actual offices responsible for those areas, however, were merged into Chapel Wharf ("Salford Tax Office").

Offices all over the country have dealings with companies in all kinds of places. The actual offices responsible for those areas, however, were merged into Chapel Wharf ("Salford Tax Office").

If you work anywhere in the UK mainland for any of these companies - your tax office is Trinity Bridge House:

NatWest
Royal Bank of Scotland
Coutts
Lombard
Tesco Personal Finance
Angel Trains
Citizens Bank
Compass Property Group
Churchill
Direct Line

I wonder if all those posh city traders with thier big bonuses realise they pay all that tax to a place in Salford!

If you work anywhere in the UK mainland for any of these companies - your tax office is Trinity Bridge House:

NatWest
Royal Bank of Scotland
Coutts
Lombard
Tesco Personal Finance
Angel Trains
Citizens Bank
Compass Property Group
Churchill
Direct Line

I wonder if all those posh city traders with thier big bonuses realise they pay all that tax to a place in Salford!
Indeed, and most media companies are dealth with in TBH too. I think the fact that they had to fill a city's tax office with work they shipped in from elsewhere due to it's proximity to another large office is proof enough that Salford is merely a constituent part of Manchester.

Taken toady.

Pictures and information of the archaeological dig that took place on the Canopus site, posted on the wooden barriers.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture138.jpg

Whats going on?

No final design, no planning permission and probably no money, yet he's(Mr Issa) got workers and machines all over the Canopus site preparing it for construction. Either he's very confident or a fool. What's he up to?

Remember he is working with Cabe and Salford City Council on this proposal.

Canopus site today.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture139.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture142.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture143.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture141.jpg

thanks for the update jrb, Im confident something tall will eventually get built on the Canopus site, just feel it in me waters!

Do you know about Section 106?
I wont bore you with details but s106 allows councils to stipulate certain conditions with PP. This can be cold hard cash but it can also be such things as archeological studies. Salford probably put a s106 clause into the PP and once the study is done full permision will be granted.
Do know about this particualr scheme but i'm guessing thats what is happening here (its not uncommon).

They have got a crane (unassembled) and steel piles on that site. It's either storage for another development or they will be starting construction very soon. Thanks for the pics JRB.

Yeah - cheers JRb - didn't realise this was so close to Tempus - pinpoints the Greengate plot exactly.
Still a blinkin mystery though.

Just a bit of site clearing and concrete crushing. And it's not unusual to find a crane stored on a site like this. No big deal.

Anyone got any renders of the buildings thats going up here?

I don't think so Ozzy. There have been three designs, and some issues with all of them. The latest was for two rather concretey towers of circa thirty stories apiece on a big podium. I guess somebody could ring up Salford Planning and find out. jrb: have you covered this already?

CAW has a few of the different renders in post 15 of this thread on the first page, try not to be sick!!

I don't think so Ozzy. There have been three designs, and some issues with all of them. The latest was for two rather concretey towers of circa thirty stories apiece on a big podium. I guess somebody could ring up Salford Planning and find out. jrb: have you covered this already?
More like 5 designs ;)

Interesting article in tonights MEN about Greengate,,with a render of whats going where the Exchange bus station was,it also saying an application will be going in ,in a few weeks now Network Rail and Ask have done a deal

Could we be getting another business district? (CBD, Spinnigfields, Greenagte)

Cities reunited on landmark site

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/158.$plit/C_17_Articles_206941_BodyWeb_Detail_0_Image.jpg

FUTURE: An impression of Greengate viewed from the Manchester Cathedral direction.

THE legal agreement which will unlock the massive Greengate site next to Manchester Cathedral is just weeks away from completion.

Manchester-based developers Ask and Network Rail are close to signing the deal, which will combine their two sites to create a 3m sq ft development area. The site will reconnect Salford to Manchester city centre, creating a single business district larger than any outside London.

Ask's existing Greengate site in Salford will be combined with Network Rail's Exchange station site to form a £50m scheme just 100 yards from Harvey Nicholls and the cathedral.

The agreement between Ask and Network Rail creates a site already regarded by observers as one of the most attractive in the north west.

The first 1m sq ft phase will include 400,000 sq ft of offices, around 600,000 sq ft of new apartments and 30,000 sq ft of retail and leisure development.

An outline planning application for the first phase on the former Exchange station site - and a detailed application for a 130,000 sq ft office block - will be submitted to council planners next month.

The first phase will be aimed at attracting office occupiers from nationwide.

The site was shortlisted by the BBC, searching for a new Manchester studio complex, but was eventually rejected.

Kick-start

John Hughes, senior development executive at Ask, said: "The BBC's interest in the site gave development a kick-start. It demonstrated to everyone, including Network Rail, how significant Greengate and Exchange station could be, if combined, and it prompted us to accelerate work on the legal agreements."

The combination of the 1.5-acre Exchange station site with Ask's existing Greengate site means more than double the amount of new office space, apartments and hotels.

"This is such a fantastic location, at the historic meeting point between Manchester and Salford - it could be truly important for both cities," said Mr Hughes.

Greengate/Exchange Station.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/green1.jpg

http://www.askdevelopments.com/images/viewprojects/greengate4.jpg

Thanks jrb.

^^ this sounds fantastic, thanks for the info jrb

soz guys wrong thread!

and again!

Remember this?

Boy, did it cause a reaction.

Do you still feel the same way about it?

I do. :)

http://www.prospectmagazine.com/uploads/news/firm_129

Is it back on the cards? Jrb, you're teasing us again surely?!

Yeah i hate it like marmite. Ewww it's anging!

Love it! Spill the beans!

I also like it,,if you look at this pic its not gonna look anything like this anyway,to the right where the yellow flower's are, that is where Abito is already being built,,this area is going to be very built up when the Greengate masterplan get's into full swing.

Come on jerb ,what have you found out :)

http://www.prospectmagazine.com/uploads/news/firm_129

Absolutely no way should that horrible shite be allowed to stain the skyline.

Salford binned that design once, why would they renege now?

i agree its hideous, a different design or the same one jrb? whats the news? if any?

http://www.prospectmagazine.com/uploads/news/firm_129

...looks like a 60s render of how buildings in the future would look!

fuck it, i'd rather have it than the twins.

http://www.askdevelopments.com/images/viewprojects/greengate4.jpg

looks prety damn good to me, but one thing that really strikes me when i look at this picture is how little is made of the ship canal. it's as if it's a mere inconvenience that gets in the way rather than a resource that could be developed into a usable feature of town. as far as i'm aware the mark addy is still the only place where you can go and get a bevvy on the canalside. anyone who's been up broad street in birmingham will have seen how they've got bars, shops, restaurants etc down by the canals and it looks great. i know the canal used to stink a bit in summer but hasn't it all been cleaned up?

Technically that is the River Irwell, not the Ship Canal.

Plus there is plenty of bars and pleasurely walks along canals at Piccadilly Basin, Castlefield, and ummm... Canal Street! Not to mention Salford Quays.

http://www.askdevelopments.com/images/viewprojects/greengate4.jpg

looks prety damn good to me, but one thing that really strikes me when i look at this picture is how little is made of the ship canal. it's as if it's a mere inconvenience that gets in the way rather than a resource that could be developed into a usable feature of town. as far as i'm aware the mark addy is still the only place where you can go and get a bevvy on the canalside. anyone who's been up broad street in birmingham will have seen how they've got bars, shops, restaurants etc down by the canals and it looks great. i know the canal used to stink a bit in summer but hasn't it all been cleaned up?

Good point pencil (......HB...? anyone? (sorry)) The rivers and canals are a feature that we should be making more of- the Brum example being a good one. The majority, if not all of us seem unhappy that there are not enough green spaces in the city, and whilst most areas that we feel could be exploited (Chancery Place as a good Accura example) are earmarked to be built on, the Rivers and canals, it seems are our best oppurtunity for open spaces to be created. How great would it be if you could walk/ run to Salford Uni, from Spinningfields, or the Quays, via the rivers/ canals with lots of mini squares along the way. (I know that lottery money has been applied for such a walkway- as prev posted by Jerv i think).

^^ Not me mate. Maybe jrb or sleepyone.

I love the brutal Canopus. So unique and distinctive. A powerful peice of architecture. Isn't that what some people on the other thread want?

Plus there is plenty of bars and pleasurely walks along canals at Piccadilly Basin, Castlefield, and ummm... Canal Street! Not to mention Salford Quays.

i'm talking about the bit in the picture, depending on where in town you live/work castlefield & canal street can be a bit far flung particularly if you're only on your lunch break. also the ones in birmingham are literally on the canal banks so you can virtually dangle your toes in the water whilst having a beer, that's the kind of thing i'd like to see in town here.

on a side issue my mate once jumped in the canal at the mark addy one hot summer's day and gashed his foot wide open on some glass at the bottom, poor bastard was on allsorts of antibiotics for weeks after and still got sick as a dog :hahaha:

Another peice of the Greengate jigsaw also gone in this week,,,anyone ?

Reference: 06/52400/FUL
Decision Level: COMM
Applicant name: M Keaveney
Ward: Irwell Riverside
Grid Reference: 383176 399049
Case Officer: Miss Sam Key
Telephone: 0161 779 4836
Location: Land On Corner Of Blackfriars Street Greengate West Salford
Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of multi-storey building (five to nine storey) comprising 61 apartments and one retail unit (Class A1) together with car parking at lower ground level with associated landscaping and new vehicular access

There is a rough looking warehouse and a car lot there now i seem to remember.

Its the corner plot behind the Renault garage on Blackfriars Street. Unfortunately, the images seem to indicate a stepped development which increases in height as you progress away from the junction it sits on, probably to appease the dwellers in the inapporpriate, suburban style homes just next to it. Bah!


**

Good news this...

Salford Innovation Forum Centre gets underway



20/03/2006


The Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA) has announced funding of up to £5.9 million for the development of the Salford Innovation Forum Centre.Work has now started on site for the centre, which has also received £3.4 million from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and £300,000 from Charlestown and Lower Kersal New Deal for Communities.

It will be based at the heart of the Salford Innovation Park, which encompasses the Salford University campus, a new secondary school, Salford College and the University Business Park, along with other businesses.

The project, which is led by Salford City Council, will develop 5,000 sqm of high quality, managed office space for knowledge-based business start-ups and SMEs, who will be supported by an advanced ICT network.

It is expected to create 55 new businesses, which will benefit from the transfer of technology from the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) based at the Innovation Park. It will also support the provision of training and provide space for business focussed education use by local schools and colleges.

Maurice Gubbins, NWDA Area Manager for Greater Manchester, said: "This key project is critical to the development of Manchester as a Knowledge Capital and will contribute towards the activities of the Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company.

"Greater Manchester has a leading reputation for innovation, creativity and knowledge and the Salford Innovation Forum will build on these strengths to create major new opportunities for both businesses and the local community."

Lord Sainsbury, Science Minister, added: "The Salford Innovation Forum Centre will help to create the right conditions for businesses in the North West to put innovation and creativity at the heart of their strategies for the future.

"It's an excellent example of how innovation can play a pivotal role in helping to develop a competitive edge in an increasingly competitive economy."

Salford City Council leader Cllr John Merry, commented: "This development will form a critical part of Salford Innovation Park, creating jobs and bringing more new investment to the city. We aim to make sure this project helps us play our part to the full in the development of the Manchester Knowledge Capital project, creating more first class business services for local firms."

The Greengate masterplan is coming together.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/100_0691.jpg

Spectrum
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/100_0687.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/100_0688.jpg

Abito
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/100_0689.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/100_0690.jpg

Not to mention our mystery development on the BSC site which jrb said was 40-storeys ;)

Funny you mentioned that site Accy,,,there digging a bit deeper :)

The west side of Manchester is just one big building site.

Great pics there highriser.

Spectrum is making a real impact on the skyline.

I'm sorry - I am totally lost - is this thing gonna happen?

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/1600/greengate7ns.jpg

No one here has any idea! That's the mystery...

though if they do go for those plans - wow!

No one here has any idea! That's the mystery...

though if they do go for those plans - wow!

BSC still have a microsite for the Canopus (http://www.canopusgreengate.co.uk/) - although I suppose that doesn't really count for anything.

The first 7 (blue) renders don't look like the exact same design as the last (colour) render do they?

What the hell i thought this tower was dead?

The tower is nice, the cladding looks abit poor i don't know!

its nasty! Hope they build a tower on that site but not the one in those renders/drawings YUCK!

Wow.

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/1600/greengate7ns.jpg

Not perfect, but a pat here and a tweak there, and this could be really something. I've only seen the bottom right picture before, the others offer possibilities. Lose the sail on top, do something with that overhang and podium, and we could be cooking on gas.

It makes a good change from square blocks. I think this has some great potential.

I can't see them at one point being told to fuck off because the design was poor, and then being told come back, everything else is even shitter, so we'll have it!

If it is going to go ahead at the same scale, they must have changed the design and taken CABE and SCC's serious concerns into account.

Hmmn. Eyes narrow. Maybe this isn't a serious design, because that cantilever is just too drastic. The leftmost fifty feet is being held up by air. Structural engineer!

Not a problem but they would need some serious outrigger trusses or spine wall.

Why have these images been resurrected? This scheme has, quite rightly, long since been rightly consigned to the trash can... hasn't it?

Why have these images been resurrected? This scheme has, quite rightly, long since been rightly consigned to the trash can... hasn't it?

That's what everyone thought until JRB made a "comment" a few pages back (post 200).

Remember this?

Boy, did it cause a reaction.

Do you still feel the same way about it?

I do. :)

http://www.prospectmagazine.com/uploads/news/firm_129

Shit stirrer! :)

Why have these images been resurrected? This scheme has, quite rightly, long since been rightly consigned to the trash can... hasn't it?

We all have reoccurring nightmares Sleepy.

I'm in town on Thursday or Friday of this week, I'll ask a few questions and take a few pics.

I'll have to watch out for the over eager Albanian security guard though.

"Down boy!"

The mystery deepens.

Machinery, holes and now a car park.

That's right! Half the site is now a f***ing car park! £3 a day!

What the F*** is going on? :dunno:

Today.

Tried to ask the lad painting the car park fence what was going on, but he couldn't understand me or speak English. That's BSC for you. :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture060.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture061.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture062.jpg

Did some fishing today.

The site is being prepared, apparently?

The BSC construction workers are digging a hole large enough and deep enough for the foundations.

As for the building design/height? The workers didn't know, or wouldn't say.

Pics from today.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture042.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture036.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture038.jpg

I'm trying to remember what was on that site? It looks like there was a pretty substantial building there at some point. Is this the site where there has been some industrial archaeology been done?
Big job eh?

I'm trying to remember what was on that site? It looks like there was a pretty substantial building there at some point. Is this the site where there has been some industrial archaeological been done?
Big job eh?

That's correct Mr Longford. They recently finished an archaeological dig on the said site.

That's correct Mr Longford. They recently finished an archaeological dig on the said site.

Another archaeological dig? As well as the Time-Team one up the road?

What's that building in the background with the bold blue stripe? It looks great!

Thats former Highland House lo-fi now apartments and a Travel Lodge.
Thanks for that jjb - be interested to know what the diggers found (or what they were looking for).
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/garybaldy/highland1.jpg

This has got to be my favourite project at the moment. I cant help but love a good mystery.

Re: Highland House - Cheers Longford.
I can remember collecting bus numbers (there you go - I've said it again) in Victoria bus station years ago just gazing in awe at that building.

Accura: First Longy puts inappropriate ones in, then you leave them out!

Thats former Highland House lo-fi now apartments and a Travel Lodge.
Thanks for that jjb - be interested to know what the diggers found (or what they were looking for).
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/garybaldy/highland1.jpg
I've been up that. I still have the pics from last year.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/Manc%20pics/2005_0117Manchester0007copyright.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/Manc%20pics/2005_0117Manchester0005copyright.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/Manc%20pics/2005_0117Manchester0004copyright.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/Manc%20pics/2005_0117Manchester0003copyright.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/Manc%20pics/2005_0117Manchester0002copyright.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/Manc%20pics/2005_0117Manchester0001copyright.jpg

One of my best friends lived up there but she hated it, great for town but the flat was a dump, the lifts and hot water were always broken and the sound proofing was the worst I have ever experienced. Saying that the views were cracking and I think the building itself looks nice.

Reduce and redesign the podium and tweak the facade and I'd happily have this tower.. theres worse things that could be built, and its better than the other proposal for the site..

Deeper and Deeper :)

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/100_0761.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/ANTEATPETE/100_0760.jpg

Oh!!! I'm just loving this!!!!!!!!!!!

It would be wrongful for a skyscraper to start here before Albany or Eastgate, lol... Manc gonna be scary when we have all these 100m+ towers going up at the same time