Bio informed us the other day that Snowhill had recieved planning permission. I dont think anyone really knows what the scheme looks like, it was once rumoured Ballymore recruited SOM to design a skyscraper to rival Arena Central but that didnt exactly come of ;)

This should start construction this year, whatever it looks like - any info post it here. Its a massive scheme for Birmingham and its continued progressive improvement.

http://www.geograph.co.uk/photos/00/25/002523_71594f44.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/574No.2SnowhillPlaza_pic1.jpg

It is only outline PP but this means hopefully we will start to see the designs coming through....

Seems quite exciting...But whatever it may be..It won't rival the gem of the Victorian Snow Hill...
I mean it makes sence to make this station bigger with the expasion of the metro looming.

Seems quite exciting...But whatever it may be..It won't rival the gem of the Victorian Snow Hill...
I mean it makes sence to make this station bigger with the expasion of the metro looming.

Usherling,remember that the extension of the Metro will involve its removal from Snow Hill Station.A viaduct will take the present line from St Pauls to the Snow Hill area but it will be placed outside,thus freeing up another platform for trains.

This is what Ballymore have said in their press releases:

The scheme will include two 11-storey office blocks, 200 apartments located in a 15-storey block and 4,645 square metres of retail development. There will also be a number of bars and restaurants constructed on the site.

Just saw a figure of over 720 000 sq ft. Pretty big :)

awmm man i want something tall here 15 storeys??? thats just poor

Disspointing but if done right should be fantastic.

A v tall has been all but ruled out here because it is on the edge of the city centre and would skew the skyline, and with the historic JQ adjacent it might be frowned upon.

That said, it could be done, it is just whether Ballymore have the will to do it. It would make sense as it would have its own tram and train stop, thus mitigating transport effects (as would the current design).

Looking at Ballymore's portfolio, they seem to produce high-quality (if a little unimaginative) buildings so it will be most welcome in a sector that is suffering low grade A levels. Hopefully they will go with SOM rather than Sidell as they are more exciting :)

bio i dont know how you can say that about the skyline..... this site contained 2 locations highlighted by the council as an excellent place for skyscrapers. its not the fact that mid rises are being built here, that is not a problem...... ib a few years the area will be brilliant dance and commercial...should feel great. hwoever, i cant help but think it may have been a wasted opportunity.

....however, id rarther have no tower than have nothing!

Can they knock down that god awful multi-storey car park above the station while they're at it?

bio i dont know how you can say that about the skyline..... this site contained 2 locations highlighted by the council as an excellent place for skyscrapers. its not the fact that mid rises are being built here, that is not a problem...... ib a few years the area will be brilliant dance and commercial...should feel great. hwoever, i cant help but think it may have been a wasted opportunity.

....however, id rarther have no tower than have nothing!

Eh? :)

Don't get me wrong - I would love to see a skyscraper here, but the Civic Society would go crazy if a skyscraper was proposed that would overshadow parts of the JQ & St Chad's Cathedral - that's all. Developers might be frightened off by this. When I said ruled out, I meant from a developer point of view, not the council.

lol....i hate typing quickly

Nacho..Thankz I didn't know that.... Well I retract my statement...

I would like a mid-rise in this area...But if a massive skyscraper was here it would have to be amazing and beautiful and also blend in with the historic architecture in this area...

This is really disappointing. More mid-rise mediocrity I'm afraid. If the council has marked this area for high rise development then they should throw this out and insist the developer builds tall. I know we can't compete with London for high rise proposals but we are now being left behind by Manchester and even Leeds. Image sometimes is everything, and in a few short years Birmingham will look provincial compared to these two cities if we're not careful. Someone needs to pull their finger out...

There is no need to worry about this site - and although it is not high-rise I doubt whether this will be mediocre as Ballymore have a good reputation and Birmingham tenents are demand higher and higher grade office space.

I am inclined to agree that the council should encourage the developers to build tall, but the High Places document was only a guide and not Gospel.

We won't look provincial MD72 - we have some great projects in the pipeline and a fair few over 100m tall :)

and in the long run, is it not fair to say that by encouraging more and bigger companies to the city in forms of large office blocks..... the more money and people move to the city......=more residents

im just happy this aint low rise!

We won't look provincial MD72 - we have some great projects in the pipeline and a fair few over 100m tall.

That may be the case, but while we're planning at around the 100m mark their proposals are near to, or over 150m. We are seriously lagging behind and that doesn't bode well for the future. If this were a Brum v Manc boxing match on current proposals this would be a Manc TKO. Didn't the council on the orginal AC plan make the developers go back to the drawing board to build much taller? Why can't the same happen here?

Seriously, which city will have the most impressive sky line in a few years? While we plan midget scrapers they are going the whole hog and leaving us in their wake. They will project a far more progressive image than we will and that surely can't be a good thing.

well somethng to take comfort in, is that alot of our proposals are upto the limit and some passed.......ie HCT and MG.......suggests they would have built taller if they counld

True, but there is only BST where the developers have had the guts to ignore the CAA limit in their proposal. As with everything Birmingham it's always a compromise and no one seems to have the balls to go out on a limb to try to get something through that would be inspirational. We'll never have anything like Manchester's Beetham or Eastgate here. Instead we continually get cop outs like this - 15 storeys for Gods sake - build it in Walsall in that case!!

I doubt we'll ever go much passed 120m. BST will get chopped and AC will be the mother of all disappointments. We're now the third city and will remain so while we put up with third rate proposals and constant scaling back of ambitious schemes.

Birmigham, motto: "No corner left uncut..."

True, but there is only BST where the developers have had the guts to ignore the CAA limit in their proposal. As with everything Birmingham it's always a compromise and no one seems to have the balls to go out on a limb to try to get something through that would be inspirational. We'll never have anything like Manchester's Beetham or Eastgate here. Instead we continually get cop outs like this - 15 storeys for Gods sake - build it in Walsall in that case!!

I doubt we'll ever go much passed 120m. BST will get chopped and AC will be the mother of all disappointments. We're now the third city and will remain so while we put up with third rate proposals and constant scaling back of ambitious schemes.

Birmigham, motto: "No corner left uncut..."

Oh dear :doh: We've got another one ... I wouldnt exactly call this bad would you?

AC - 150m+?
BT Tower - 152m
BST - 134m
HCT - 122m
MG - 110m
NS 1 - 100m+
NS 2 - 100m+
Alpha - 100m
CPG - 100m (spire)

I'd like to be optimistic but past experience shows that it's generally wasted.

AC - has been the longest running farce since The Mousetrap. It will prbably end up marginally taller that HCT.
HCT - chopped form 600ft to 400ft
NS1 & 2 - nothing concrete as yet
MG - Still no hotel on board so may be substantially shorter
BST - at the mercy of the CAA (and look what they did to HCT!)
Alpha - built so probably safe :)

We've got nothing to compare to Manchester's Beetham or Eastgate and nothing in the pipeline that will either. We've missed the boat...

We have missed nothing. If anything HCT was the beggining of something special. Since HCT has gone up Birmingham has been in the press an awful lot. Not only that but since its been under contrsution the council have organised a conference on skyscrapers in the city asking developers and architects from Chicago to help highlight how Birmingham can become a major world city.

BST and AC given permission this year or the latter to begin construction will give many developers hope. I expect 2007 to be Birminghams year. We shall gradually get to see towers of significant height being proposed more often then we do today.

5 a year over 100m - would do me, I know that much.

I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong on this, but the CAA is seriously hampering us. Developers on the whole shy away from breaching the ruling so we're going to end up with a very stunted skyline. Let's face it any schemes proposed will generally make the same amount of money be they in Brum, Manchester or Leeds. The latter two are pain free options compared to us.

If the original design for Beetham had been approved it would now have been at full height and things would be very different. As it is, Beetham being hacked down was a watershed and I do believe the boat has sailed without us...

good god MD72

not only do u think that BST is goung to be chopped becasue its been in planning for 5 months....but u think because we have not got as many skyscrapers as manchester then we're not important......manchester have always had taller building than us...

...totally fucking pathetic and i cant stand it anymore..if it sooo bad here piss off...however, ur in the birmingham/west mindlands for areason.....get used to it

Come on boys, let's not get too worked up!
I too, get so annoyed by Brum's Fathers not reaching high enough and lacking ambition, but then you look at what we've achieved over the last 40 years and there's no reason why our renaissance won't continue. Let's face it, Brum sometimes does pull some crackers out of its sleeves.

...totally fucking pathetic and i cant stand it anymore..if it sooo bad here piss off...however, ur in the birmingham/west mindlands for areason.....get used to it

A bit unneccesary that...

Don't you get irritated by the fact that Brum often seems the snatch diasater from the jaws of triumph? Everyone seems pretty pleased that we're getting some 100m proposals when elsewhere they are talking about similar proposals filling the gaps between their real skyscrapers. Christ we're looking forward to a skyline full of Alpha Towers. The real disappointment is that at Snowhill the rumour was an AC beater - that's now become two eleven storey and a fifteen storey tower. Whoopee fucking do... Where's the ambition in that? Mediocre, short arsed bollocks seems to be the order of the day here.

There hasn't been one tall proposal in Brum that has really come to fruition. I'm just getting pissed off with being short changed all the while...

Let's not lose sight that it is not the size of a building that makes a city a success but what's in it. For me this looks a real quality development, it may not be a 'tall' but it certainly isn't a 'small'. If it attracts business, employment and quality city living then I'm all for it. There are plenty of areas left where we can build tall. Interesting article in todays Post I think around how Birmingham is the only 'non-capital' city in the worlds top 30 destinations for expensive offices.

On one hand this may look and sound good but bear in mind that the rent at Brindly Place drove away Vodafone. If schemes such as this, Masshouse et all attract the likes of Vodafone and more back I'll be happy.

Equally, remember our most notable recent builds are not high rise but Selfridges makes a hell of an impact upon our skyline as will the Cube. If the design of this scheme is good enough it will stand out from the M6 as another part of the attractive skyline jigsaw.

Bigger ain't always better!!

A bit unneccesary that...

Don't you get irritated by the fact that Brum often seems the snatch diasater from the jaws of triumph? Everyone seems pretty pleased that we're getting some 100m proposals when elsewhere they are talking about similar proposals filling the gaps between their real skyscrapers. Christ we're looking forward to a skyline full of Alpha Towers. The real disappointment is that at Snowhill the rumour was an AC beater - that's now become two eleven storey and a fifteen storey tower. Whoopee fucking do... Where's the ambition in that? Mediocre, short arsed bollocks seems to be the order of the day here.

There hasn't been one tall proposal in Brum that has really come to fruition. I'm just getting pissed off with being short changed all the while...

im sorry if it comes across as harsh but the one thing you ahave overloked and also what morestoreys states, you totally overlooking and undermining EVERYTHING birmingham has achieved.

Birmingham has now become one of the BEST shopping locations in the uUK and Europe......manchester and leeds may have scrapers but there no match for us ther

we have the two largest speculative office schemes outside london (masshouse and post mail) again, skyscrapers aint help manc and leeds get that)

this time last year, the 134m BST didn't exists, the 110m martineau galls tower didnt exist, nor new street towers......how dear you say that things are going slow.

if the only good thin you have to do is look at what other cities are doing and not take ito any account what we ourselves have achieved, why should i take notice and accept what you say....all of a sudden we dont have as much towers as others, but we;ve achieved things that only the other could dream of...but that aint good enough......... ???

Wow it's nice to see some passion and civic pride gentlemen but cool it slightly.

Relax, ok!

So Manchester has a taller Betham ok but our BT Tower is just as tall.
They have some flashy proposals too, so do we.

Point being though we have so many more exisiting tall buildings in our city centre than they do, and they are much better clustered as well as being on a ridge so provding a better skyline.

We have lots going on and remember this isn't a sprint, it's a marathon of which we have been in the lead since the 60's and with the amount of space to redevelop left in Brum i don't se us runing out of Building plots soon

Exactly, lets not forget Birmingham has more room then many major cities in the UK to expand. Not only that but there are dozens of massive plots whcih havent even been masterplanned.

Lets not forget - the chance to have 9-11 towers of 100m in a CITY CENTER is more then most can match - a top 15 in european standards.

I'm not denigrating Birmingham - far from it as I think it's a great place. I'd just like two or three huge proprosals that would scream look at us. Something that would tell the world what an ambitious and progressive place we really are. Sadly at the moment they don't seem to be forthcoming and patience isn't one of my virtues...

Welcome hammer! :wave:

MD - we share your frustrations but there is no need for alarm. Schemes that breach the CAA limit would have been thrown out straight away if they were not considering their options.

As for Snowhill - a developer may have toyed with the idea of putting a tower there, and that probably happens with every parcel of land in the city centre. The problem with forums like these is that we get wind of this early on and when we find out the developer is going with a perfectly respectable mid-rise office block we get disappointed.

Ask the man in the street what he thinks of the plans for Snowhill and he will think they're great! And glad that the land is finally being used and an arse-end of town is getting some much-needed attention :)

As for the CAA ruling. If they clamp down and say "nothing over 247m ASL" (or whatever it is) then we will have to live with it. I would rather have a city of 20-30 HCT's than a city of 5 HCT's and 1 200m monster.

But I think they might relax things a little more now... BIA want a good city centre so we shall see.

i understand your frustration at a seeming lack of progress and slowness in getting new things built, but just coz it is slow doesnt mean that isnt gonna happen


i am frustrated sometimes but i just choose not to post. I am just waiting for the day when i click on to this thread and see the final design and starting date for AC and BST etc

I am not too sure when we are expecting these for, whether its in next few weeks or next few months - but just gotta be patient

i will reserve my judgment of these new buildings till we see the final plans and construction starting

I'm not denigrating Birmingham - far from it as I think it's a great place. I'd just like two or three huge proprosals that would scream look at us. Something that would tell the world what an ambitious and progressive place we really are. Sadly at the moment they don't seem to be forthcoming and patience isn't one of my virtues...

Umm two or three huge proposals?

Surely Masshouse, Park Central, City Park Gate, Bull Ring, AC, Martineau Galleries, Curzon Park, Irish Quarter, SnowHill, Warwick Bar, New Street are all pretty massive developments.

They dont have to be tall to be recognised. Id rather have these developments with 10 signifacnt towers in then 10 single towers.

In that lot you have a

* 7, 50-80m towers
* 60 and 100m towers
* 1, 90m Tower
* A new Brum tallest tower (150m?)
* 60 and 110m tower
* Dozen 50-80m towers
* 3, 50m towers
* 1, 60m tower
* 2, 100m+ towers and 1 smaller tower

Now in those 10 developments we have 32 possibly 33 buildings with a possibility of another substantial tower at Arena Central over 50m.

Bio - many thanks!

The work at Snow Hill next to the viaduct that is currently underway, does anyone have a render of what this will look like ?

BC - thanks for the breakdown. I'm not saying there is nothing happening in Brum because that's clearly not the case. I had a wander around town the other night and Masshouse and Post and Mail (personally I wasn't that sad to see the old Post and Mail go) are huge schemes and will add greatly to the fabric of the city. I just feel there isn't anything at the moment that has a real 'wow' factor to it. I really hope BST is approved as it is and that AC can surprise us. I'd just like to see two or three schemes in the 150m-180m mark that would compliment what's on the board at the moment. I genuinely believe that if the CAA hadn't interfered with HCT that would have happended by now. Hopefully BST if approved can act as a catalyst...

Bio - many thanks!

The work at Snow Hill next to the viaduct that is currently underway, does anyone have a render of what this will look like ?

The work that is currentlu going on is actually a second entrance to snow hill station being built. I don't think anyone knows what it's going to look like, but i doubt it'll be at all impressive.

Jolon - cheers for the info.

MD72 - For all that is going on in Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool or anywhere else, there are (for me) only 2 modern buildings in UK cities that have a real 'wow' factor amongst the general public, these are the gerkhin and our very own Selfridges. I'm absolutley confident that the Cube will add to this so we certainly have the 'wow' factor and will be getting more 'wows' soon.

Not saying that other cities don't have buildings u/c or planned that will have a simlar 'wow' factor but we got em and are getting em.

Keep the old chin up and rest assured we will get some tall buildings to add to our skyline soon.

MD72 is my new friend. His recent postings may seem "pessimistic" to many here but, like me, he's just being cautious about all this hyperbole and as ever has probably seen enough disappointments and let-downs in recent years to not get carried away with all these fantastic new "wonder schemes" in the city that will in all likelihood not materialise for ages yet - especially when faced with the constant fannying about, climbdowns, cop outs, compromises, and general backpedalling and pontificating that we have seen Brum excel at - in some instances - for the last six to eight years or so. I'd say there is nothing wrong with being realistic to the point of - yes - negativity in the light of what is going on here and he has every reason (as I do myself) to be pissed off and frustrated and exasperated at the lack of TRUE CONVICTION in these so-called proposals - none of which have actually convinced us are going to really see the light of day. I too am pissed off that the Snow Hill plans are yet more crappy mid-rise blocks which will have absolutely no effect on the skyline there when we could kill for a nice tall landmark structure here.
Let's face it, due to the damage having being done by the CAA, Brum is really playing safe - it's going to be the safest-playing city of all the big five in terms of building tall - even when there IS a market for it. Whilst other British cities are planning tall and getting their schemes off the ground, I presume Brum is now lying low and waiting for the next moment when another terrorist attack to a tall building somewhere in the UK / Europe will finally give them the best knee-jerk reason/excuse there ever will be to completely abandon ANY hope of building more than 20 storeys - it seems they're heading that way at any rate. Fucking bollocks.

Martin G - the major disappointment for me about Snow Hill is that they're not even approaching the CAA limit with this scheme. Whilst we've not seen any plans or renders this strikes me as ultra cautious. I'm sure we could have had something approching the 110m mark here whilst still not falling foul of the CAA - the developer hasnt even had the courage to go that far. As it is I fear more mid rise boxes. Again it's another scheme that will just blend in and makes little if any statement. I just want something proposed that's bold, and a developer with the courage of their convictions to push the scheme through and get it built.

Is there no one who will challenge the CAA? Beetham have said they could probably have got HCT through at full height but they bottled it. That set the tone and I feel that any chance of any real talls went with it.

If it is going to be tall, I would hope it is an awe-inspiring building...Not just something Wow...But a new huge Landmark for Brum...But to do that it doesn't ncessarily need to be tall..Look at Selfridges and the Cube....

Selfridges is great and is just right for it's location usher. I'll probably get flamed for this but the Cube I'm really not struck by to be honest. It looks messy, squat and the crown at the top looks almost like an after thought. There was a slender tower that was reject for the sight that looked very elegant and I would have preferred that to be honest. I'm all for making a statement but I'm not sure what the Cube is saying...

Anyway back on topic - this was an ideal place for a land mark tower. We're getting yet more mid rises - the developer has completely bottled it as far as I can see. This is real missed opportunity and I hate to say that that's becoming a fairly common theme in these parts...

Is there no one who will challenge the CAA? Beetham have said they could probably have got HCT through at full height but they bottled it. That set the tone and I feel that any chance of any real talls went with it.

Umm well both Miller and Richardsons are currently challenging it MD72, not only that but the council has expressed doubts with the CAA about being cautious in building heights in the city as have the goverment. By July I have no doubt whatsoever that the 247m height limit will be a blast from the past.

P.S You're right however, if 9/11 hadnt happened Birmingham would more then likely of been having proposals left right and center.

We would've had a 600ft and 800ft both under construction as we speak and God knows how many others would have been proposed. But still, Were gradually building up we have loads of 200ft towers, loads of 300ft towers, we got our first 400ft tower weve got 1 500ft tower now, Ill be quite happy to see another 1 each in the final two categorys before the year is out.

Martin G - the major disappointment for me about Snow Hill is that they're not even approaching the CAA limit with this scheme. Whilst we've not seen any plans or renders this strikes me as ultra cautious. I'm sure we could have had something approching the 110m mark here whilst still not falling foul of the CAA - the developer hasnt even had the courage to go that far. As it is I fear more mid rise boxes. Again it's another scheme that will just blend in and makes little if any statement. I just want something proposed that's bold, and a developer with the courage of their convictions to push the scheme through and get it built.

Is there no one who will challenge the CAA? Beetham have said they could probably have got HCT through at full height but they bottled it. That set the tone and I feel that any chance of any real talls went with it.

I fully agree with you - no risks are being taken here - everybody is playing safe now in the light of the pathetic CAA ruling - as if every developer is afraid of treading on their toes and incurring their wrath. So far we have had a staggering ONE proposal for a structure that will encroach / challenge it - the BST scheme (but even here we're not 100% certain of the credibility of this one as it's - once again - shrouded in the same "will-it-or-won't-it?" scenario we've resignedly come to expect each time with ANY new Brum scheme that is plannd to be tall.), and ONE that is so full of cobwebs now it's due a visit from the Time Team.......but where are the other audacious landmark projects like the ones we're seeing in Leeds, Liverpool, et al..... Nowhere! That's where! All we're getting, is, as you've correctly pointed out, more mundane and boring as fuck mid-rise boxes and substandard cop-outs like this....all of which are leading me to suspect once and for all - with some justification - that Brum is just playing safe and throwing down the gauntlet for skyscraper projects to the cities in the north and northwest.

Remember that really annoying teasing newspaper article in the Birmingham Post a year or so ago which showed a "possible" proposal - okay pipedream more like - for the Post and Mail replacement which consisted of two towers - a dusk shot showing the towers illuminated, one taller than the other and the highest being something like 135 m high? Why bother coming up with fantasy impressions like that at all if they're clearly not going to ever happen? All that does is (and we know this all too clearly) instil false hopes in us who would dearly love to see something like that go up there.....it's just a joke really.

So yup - "bottling it" is indeed the correct phrase. These developers are all running away from the challenge instead if meeting it head on and coming up with some awesome solutions. They'll just keep churning out the same tired excuses. Fucking lightweights.

Originally posted by Martin G
So yup - "bottling it" is indeed the correct phrase. These developers are all running away from the challenge instead if meeting it head on and coming up with some awesome solutions. They'll just keep churning out the same tired excuses. Fucking lightweights.

That's precisely how I see it - there are no developers out there with the balls to challenge this idiotic CAA ruling. Bacially they are all prepared to play safe, churn out boring mid rises and take the money and run...

Orignally posted by Birminghamculture
Umm well both Miller and Richardsons are currently challenging it MD72, not only that but the council has expressed doubts with the CAA about being cautious in building heights in the city as have the goverment. By July I have no doubt whatsoever that the 247m height limit will be a blast from the past.

I hope you're right BC then at last we may see some progress. Where did you come by this info about the CAA?

"that's precisely how I see it - there are no developers out there with the balls to challenge this idiotic CAA ruling. Bacially they are all prepared to play safe, churn out boring mid rises and take the money and run..."

they run a business not a chairty shop

They do indeed - that's why if left in the hands of business you'll always end up with the lowest common denominator. However, there is a market there for towers otherwise there would be no HCT or Orion. Sometimes developers just need a nudge. Snowhill was designated as a site for tall buildings therefore the council could reject this and say they want something more. Pity is I can't see our council providing that impetus.

I'd understand your frustration if we didn't have BST.

But Richardson's are challenging the C.A.A. !!!

Wait and see what happens

Well, yes, it would be a shame not to fulfill real potential of this site, but compared to what is there now and what has been there for years... i.e. NOTHING, apart from a squalid car park, any development would be welcome!! The whole of snow Hill needs sorting out, it just looks almost forgotten... also that row of ex-shops next to it needs sorting soon too, it looks a bit of an eyesore, and almost makes Lloyd House look nice, which is saying something!!

I do agree with what a lot of people have said previously on here, the redevelopment of the station inthe 1980's, although better than nothing, was a real lost opportunity, and with that car park, it almost resembles a mini new street!! Also, I can't believe they have spent all that money doing up the entrance / square on colmore row, and still left that boarded up thing on it!!!

I personally would prefer the site to lay fallow a while longer and for us to get a really outstnding land mark here. It's been empty for a long time and I'd leave it that way until something comes along that really fulfills the potetial there is here....

BC - thanks for the breakdown. I'm not saying there is nothing happening in Brum because that's clearly not the case. I had a wander around town the other night and Masshouse and Post and Mail (personally I wasn't that sad to see the old Post and Mail go) are huge schemes and will add greatly to the fabric of the city. I just feel there isn't anything at the moment that has a real 'wow' factor to it. I really hope BST is approved as it is and that AC can surprise us. I'd just like to see two or three schemes in the 150m-180m mark that would compliment what's on the board at the moment. I genuinely believe that if the CAA hadn't interfered with HCT that would have happended by now. Hopefully BST if approved can act as a catalyst...

You got me thinking there MD. The fabric of the city is being upgraded, so in future (and we could be talking 5-10 years down the line) the desire to build skyscrapers could be much higher (provided no terrorist attacks etc) and possibly more likely to happen as space in the city centre runs out.

I too would like to see 150m plus (although I tend not to share the hysteria of Martin ;) ) and in the fullness of time they will come through. The CAA ruling is being challenged on 2 counts (BST - the planning application has been lodged, and AC is in negotiation with airport) but you have to remember companies do not have money to throw around, so to work-up a scheme just to have it cut back is a waste of money. They are being cautious. That said, we know we can build HCT so why aren't we proposing more?

Originally posted by Biosonic

I too would like to see 150m plus (although I tend not to share the hysteria of Martin ) and in the fullness of time they will come through. The CAA ruling is being challenged on 2 counts (BST - the planning application has been lodged, and AC is in negotiation with airport) but you have to remember companies do not have money to throw around, so to work-up a scheme just to have it cut back is a waste of money. They are being cautious. That said, we know we can build HCT so why aren't we proposing more?

That's my thinking on this - they've not even approached the CAA limit. The outline for the scheme seems cautious to the point of timidity. I didn't expect anything that would breach the limit but I did think we'd get something close to it. It just seems such a wasted opportunity...

I think the size of the buildings are different now, the figure of 2 11 storey buildings and 1 15 storey tower has been around for a while, if you look at the Ballymore site the size of the scheme has increased, it states that it is a 800,000 sq ft scheme and 200 residential units. I'm sure this said 720,000 sq ft bot too long ago. Not a major increase but every little helps.

I would expect there to be something tallish given Ballymore's recent developments but then it seems things are a little bit different in Brum.

What stupid pricks. Any fool can see that if you combine the three buildings and stack the 15 storey tower on top of the two 11 storey ones you then get one nice, sleek, kinky and sexy 37 storey monster, don't you? And the floor space will be EXACTLY THE SAME TOO!..... Typically these developers are blinkered fucking morons..... talk about a fucking PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR A LANDMARK BUILDING STARING THEM RIGHT IN THE FUCKING FACE. Fuckwits. :rant:

I think structural engineers may question that. You cnat just stack building on top of each other - building high is more expensive.

Im struggling to understand how so many people are disappointed by plans we havent yet seen.

Perhaps it's the complete lack of ambition. More boring mid-rises when the site could potentially be so much better. It's pretty insipid stuff from the outline we've heard...

I think structural engineers may question that. You cnat just stack building on top of each other - building high is more expensive.

Im struggling to understand how so many people are disappointed by plans we havent yet seen.

:lol:

Good point!

When the full planning application is submitted we can comment and say about the council's hotspot for a tower etc etc.

It is a large site so Ballymore could pop a tower at the top end of the site and have smaller blocks lower down...

ahhh but yes, bio you have overlooked something, ths fprum is full to the brim of pesermists

I always thought that it'd be great to develop the site by building progressively higher the further you went DOWN the slope. The buildings would get much taller towards the bottom even relative to each other and then you could have a landmark tower at the bottom end.

It sounds a nice idea Engels but I doubt it could happen that way as you have some older buildings at the bottom of the hill which would clash with a tower. Also the highrise city centre would come to an abrupt stop if you built the tower there - the general wisdom is that buildings should graduate down from tall to lowrise.

I think a tower at the top of the hill would make the best impact - the neighbouring buildings lend themselves to this :)

Woody - some would say the pessimists are realists - I am inclined to agree nothing particularly tall will be built here...

you say that bio but the when they were looking for the site of the city convention centre (the one now in centenary sq), the proposals for that site was for a 30 floor tower at the bottom of the hill with the rest of the site made up with the convention centre.... it was so popular that they were going to build it anyway....... but the recession in the 90's put the end to that proposal

I'm glad they didn't - bad location for the ICC and IMO a tower there woulf overshadow the cathedral etc.

Interesting stuff though - thanks Woody :)

It sounds a nice idea Engels but I doubt it could happen that way as you have some older buildings at the bottom of the hill which would clash with a tower. Also the highrise city centre would come to an abrupt stop if you built the tower there - the general wisdom is that buildings should graduate down from tall to lowrise.


Hmm i know but who likes to obay convention.. was really thinking only doing it as far down the snow hill carpark site and ending at the ring road. There is another site they are currently building the new snowhill entrance on the opposit side of the road that you might've been thinking of.

The buildings you refer to are only 2-story so anything will look big in comparison

The new plans havent even been released. Those images have been on that site for over 2 years now.

Dont fret people, it wont be spectaular in height, but I can see one sizeable Block, Tower? in it.

Somebody wrote a letter in the Post saying they'd like the Boulton, Watt and er the other! statue to be placed in the new square at the front entrance to Snow Hill. What a great idea - what are your thoughts? Shall we start a petition? The only worry is the weight and being on top of the tunnel (like Centenary Square is over the Wolvo line) might make it a problem.

I thought that would be a good place for it too.

the tunnel does not pass under the square outside snow hill and the tunnel curves to the north of the sq