But watch out for those sneeky Brummies with their 200m V.ery T.all P.roposal and our Scouse cousins who probably have something up their sleeve (not stolen of course!) ;)

:lol:

swansea is coming up on the outside with rumours of a forty storey as well as as this.

http://www.meridianquay.com/meridianquay.html

....and the winner is...............Lumiere in Leeds. Construction News confirmed Carillion would be on site in November. Excavation works continue in earnest on site.

Its all exciting stuff here in Leeds with Lumiere and The Plaza on site with 3 towers over 100m.

Well as mentioned a couple of posts above, site clearence & construction for Piccadilly Tower will commence just 2 months afterwards, with the 188m tower as part of phase 1.

Now what takes longer, 2 towers simultaneously, or 1 on its own? ;)

Well as mentioned a couple of posts above, site clearence & construction for Piccadilly Tower will commence just 2 months afterwards, with the 188m tower as part of phase 1.

Now what takes longer, 2 towers simultaneously, or 1 on its own? ;)

Heh! Fingers crossed.. :cheers:

But you all smell and Birminghams towers have a rosy aroma so screw you all. :banana:

I'd say the next tower to hold the title will be Piccadilly/Eastgate. I think it will finish before Lumiere. After that, who knows? Possibly Shanghai Tower in Liverpool if it does go ahead, as it's supposed to be around 200m. Other than that one, I'm not sure.

eastgate will finish about 8 to 12 months after lumiere, site clearance, prep and foundations will set this beut about 8months + behind the start date of lumiere,

and carrillion are rumoured to be loking to get this project as well as lumiere not sure they will be able to have the 2 running at the same time, and they have not even signed the contract for eastgate another few months added on for that.....

lets get real i will eat my hat if east gate finishes before lumiere.......

The same Carillion and WSP teams (the same key individuals) that built Manchester Beetham (169m) moved directly onto the similar Lumiere Project (171m) to keep the relevant experience together and flowing. However, if they get the Eastgate Tower, they would need to get another team together and no doubt poach individuals for their experience gained.

Well as mentioned a couple of posts above, site clearence & construction for Piccadilly Tower will commence just 2 months afterwards, with the 188m tower as part of phase 1.

Now what takes longer, 2 towers simultaneously, or 1 on its own? ;)

Lumiere is ready to roll with cranes expected on site in early December, whereas you say your site clearance begins in Jan 08, that puts Lumiere many months ahead of Eastgate!!! Two towers may take a little longer but not around 6 months longer will it???
It may seem biaseed but the indicators are suggesting Lumiere at the moment!!!

It may seem biaseed but the indicators are suggesting Lumiere at the moment!!!

Let's hope so. Leeds is the only city out of England's big 4, not to have had the tallest outside London. It's time for your city to have it.

its going to be lumiere with out a doubt its months and months if not a years infront of eastgate..

people will be living in lumiere before eastgate is finished

its going to be lumiere with out a doubt its months and months if not a years infront of eastgate..

people will be living in lumiere before eastgate is finished

Well today marked the offical launch of the Lumiere project in Leeds. After 2 months of enabling works, a huge piling rig (one of two to be on site this week) has started work today surrounded by diggers etc.

Leeds has waited a long time for this project to put the city on the world stage in skyscraper developments, and we now eagerly await the first cranes on site some time in 2008.

Lumiere underway!
Published on 2007-12-11 by Skyscrapernews.com


Construction work has finally got underway with what is set to be the tallest UK building outside London, for a while at least.

After two months of site clearance of the old Royal Mail sorting office basements, piling and other large site plant are now arriving on site for Skanska to kick off with ground breaking this week.

Originally proposed in 2005, the twin tower scheme being developed jointly by KW Linfoot and Scarborough Development Group will house 650 apartments including some to be tailor designed for the over 55s age group in Tower 1, and 10,000sq m and a further 290 apartments in Tower 2, also a health centre and dentist as well as shops, cafes and restaurants, with a winter garden and piazza situated between the two towers.

Progress on the project to reach this important milestone has been relatively swift for an undertaking of this size; the neighbouring Criterion Place twin glass clad tower scheme which is similar in size and appearance and also designed by Ian Simpson Architects was announced some time before Lumiere, but is still loitering in the pre planning stage, while Linfoot have pushed Lumiere to achieve design, approval, launch to the residential market, site remediation and now the construction stage.

However, construction is due to be a lengthy process taking up to one year for Skanska to build the sub-structure and a further three years for Carillion to build and complete the towers.

When complete, the two towers will be the centrepiece of the Leeds skyline, actually being the tallest and second tallest buildings in Yorkshire, and their simple pallet of coloured glazing will create a striking but elegant pose above the streets in the now familiar Ian Simpson style.

..

what was the point

Whats the tallest building in london? and whats the hieght of the tallest building out side of london at the moment.

Thanks

Tallest building in London is One Canada square, and the tallest outside of London I think is Beetham in Manchester.

I have a friend who is a civil engineer in Leeds who recently dropped a hint to me that the city is rumoured to be planning an ambitious tower/hotel scraper scheme near the Inner Ring Road west entrance that will be 275 metres tall when completed (66 storeys high) which may well kill off all the provincial competition. Oh, and it's NOT going to be designed by Ian Simpson either.

I hope that puts that overrated dump Manchester and its neverending self-reverential council well and truly in the shade! :)

What in Leeds, if so good luck Leeds, hope it goes threw.

Me too - if only so that the Mancs will get profoundly jealous. This whole interregional UK skyscraper building lark is becoming like so much macho cock waving of late hasnt it? :lol:

Well if your correct thats gonna piss the manc forumers off, and I guess the NOTTINGHAM situation does not help with there new proposal. And well they dont like us Brummys anyway so we just piss em off anyway, go Leeds.

275 :shocked: wow

That sounds odd to me, even London has had difficulty funding a tower over 275m, I just don't see how that would be viable in any other UK city.

The fact that even Nottingham (the second city of the Midlands) which has always had a rather reserved attitude to tall towers in the past, is getting in on the action and planning a 150m tower surely speaks volumes about how far our own city is now being left behind. And it's such an embarassing far cry from some years back when it was all over the news on Central TV about how Brum was going to see loads of tall towers to rival Frankfurt when the Arena Central scheme was first unveiled and planned as being taller than Canary Wharf. Seems like some sort of sick joke just to get all our hopes now I guess. :(

The Leeds scheme is certainly wildly ambitious. But then, considering how their own Criterion Place project has already seen a considerable height increase from 165m to 180m, I wouldn't put it past them to come up with this absolute eye-popper in time.

Yes other cities build taller, maybe Leeds will go for 275 metres, but lets be honest, Brum is not 'being left behind'. Cheer up matey. There's a lot going on this year. It's a great place, even if its highrises are not the biggest. 2008 cheer for ALL cities including your own Bob_Brum. :D

I have a friend who is a civil engineer in Leeds who recently dropped a hint to me that the city is rumoured to be planning an ambitious tower/hotel scraper scheme near the Inner Ring Road west entrance that will be 275 metres tall when completed (66 storeys high) which may well kill off all the provincial competition. Oh, and it's NOT going to be designed by Ian Simpson either.

I hope that puts that overrated dump Manchester and its neverending self-reverential council well and truly in the shade! :)

Wow

That'll be the Kirkstall project on here
http://www.westproperties.co.uk/projects.html

The site that you're talking about is the site that SOM architechts are currently on the drawing boards with. If we got a 275m skyscraper by SOM i think i might have a fit! Can't see it myself mind, its not the council that i think would stop it, they'd take any opportunity to shove something in the face of Manchester but i can't see how it would be feasable. I couldn't see a 275m appartment building in any uk regional city beng feasable.

Be great if there was 275m tower outside London. Could be Leeds - all power to them - but then could just as easily be something new (or re-designed) in Manch or another regional city.

Key factor is; how far behind rest of the world the UK is, be it London or the Provinces, for super-talls. Considering the UK is in the top ten of world economies it's pretty sad its so far behind many others in developing big towers.

Roll on 2008 and lets see if we cant pull some super-talls out of the cobwebs!

It seems its between Leeds and Manchester. Lumiere will almost certainly hold the title for a while. Eastgate may take it back, but if this 275m is true then theres not much competition...yet.

I have a friend who is a civil engineer in Leeds who recently dropped a hint to me that the city is rumoured to be planning an ambitious tower/hotel scraper scheme near the Inner Ring Road west entrance that will be 275 metres tall when completed (66 storeys high) which may well kill off all the provincial competition. Oh, and it's NOT going to be designed by Ian Simpson either.

I hope that puts that overrated dump Manchester and its neverending self-reverential council well and truly in the shade! :)

Shame it will never happen. Not for at least for a decade anyway.

I have a friend who is a civil engineer in Leeds who recently dropped a hint to me that the city is rumoured to be planning an ambitious tower/hotel scraper scheme near the Inner Ring Road west entrance that will be 275 metres tall when completed (66 storeys high) which may well kill off all the provincial competition. Oh, and it's NOT going to be designed by Ian Simpson either.

I hope that puts that overrated dump Manchester and its neverending self-reverential council well and truly in the shade! :)

errr ... I smell bullshit.

1) It would have to be Offices
2) There is'nt a market for a office tower that big anywhere outside London, especially for major developers to throw cash at in Britain at the moment.

Rather smelly indeed....however, Brum did have AC at 275m, but that was thanks to a rather large spire!

So far, it's definately Leeds, by a whopping 2m, however, I believe the Carpark where Piccadilly Tower will rise closes tomorrow...

Still think Liverpool will get the first 200m+ Skyscraper which is not a theme park.

I dont think a 275m skyscraper would fit into the leeds skyline, I dont think it would fit into any skyline in the UK, except from London. Unless it was surrounded by other highrises.

I'm smelling bullshit too.

However, I don't think it'd be too bad on the Leeds skyline. We've been building the midrise stuff for ages now, building up to having something on the skyline which is a real beacon and pinnacle to build towards and around. Lumiere is tall, yes. However, at its location it isn't going to be a pinnacle for the city. It's only a little taller than such as Bridgewater Place, Unite and others proposed. 275m would really stand out and be something to aim at, like CIS in Manchester, One Canada Square and the Liver Building.

Subliving.

Now come on, as much as us Mancs love our CIS, it ain't THAT iconic!!! :)

Now come on, as much as us Mancs love our CIS, it ain't THAT iconic!!! :)

It held the title for a long time though.

errr ... I smell bullshit.



1) It would have to be Offices

2) There is'nt a market for a office tower that big anywhere outside London, especially for major developers to throw cash at in Britain at the moment.


But...how can you be sure? Just incase you misread that for the record, he stated that it's mixed use as in hotel and resi and emphattically NOT offices.

No way can any regional city sustain an office building more than 35 storeys high at present - maybe manchester at a push - but nowhere else. Our own NatWest scheme may just be a proposal right now but who knows if its definite? Likewise, who can exactly say for definite whether Leeds may well see a tower of such rumoured height, seeing as it's already got something like eight 30+ storey resi schemes on the cards awaiting approval (plus two or even three that will be over 170m in height) which is somewhat more than even our own city has right now. As I said, unexpected surprises constantly keep coming through - and I am pretty sure that of the cities that may well spring such surprises in the future, my money is on either Leeds or Liverpool as both cities seem quite keen to wrestle some sort of prestige from it's neighbour Manchester when it comes to making grand architectural statements.

But...how can you be sure? Just incase you misread that for the record, he stated that it's mixed use as in hotel and resi and emphattically NOT offices.

No way can any regional city sustain an office building more than 35 storeys high at present - maybe manchester at a push - but nowhere else. Our own NatWest scheme may just be a proposal right now but who knows if its definite? Likewise, who can exactly say for definite whether Leeds may well see a tower of such rumoured height, seeing as it's already got something like eight 30+ storey resi schemes on the cards awaiting approval (plus two or even three that will be over 170m in height) which is somewhat more than even our own city has right now. As I said, unexpected surprises constantly keep coming through - and I am pretty sure that of the cities that may well spring such surprises in the future, my money is on either Leeds or Liverpool as both cities seem quite keen to wrestle some sort of prestige from it's neighbour Manchester when it comes to making grand architectural statements.

birmingham office demand and market if far better than manchesters... birmingham has a 165m (138m) tower, a 118m and a 110m office towers all proposed!

Yes, but, as with these other cities - they're merely 'proposed'! They may or may not happen or may be revised. Likewise the Leeds giant is just a rumour for now, but it certainly raises a few eyebrows. :)

other than hardmen square in manchester, im not aware of any other office buildings proposed this height!

a 66 storey mixed use tower would be 200m top's.

And as Woody says. Birminghams office market is considerably stronger then anywhere else at the moment.

a 66 storey mixed use tower would be 200m top's.



Well, lets not forget that London Bridge Tower is also mixed use and 66 storeys hight but it's well over 300m tall! :yes:

not sure, could easily be mancs, leeds, liverpool, or brum, all with an equal chance, and all for diferent reasons.

brum's office uptake anually is the same as leeds according the knight frank report, of which both are substantially lower than manchester. Also, total office space is highest in manchester.

so in terms of viability manchester is more viable for an office tall. liverpool could easily see a flagship highrise to centre stage the water front. leeds' resi market is apparantly a little flat, but the proposals keep coming forward, all consistently tall. So the game could be anyones..altho i hope its leeds of course lol :P

if anything, the fact that brum hasnt seen a proper skyscraper yet means there's a stronger chance that a proposal could suddeonly appear and that proposal being taller than leeds & mancs perhaps, whereas mancs has its eastgate tower and leeds has its lumiere, which means that wanton demand for a skyscraper has already been filled, so in this respect brum has the advantage here

good point wiggley but according to this report, prices of office space in birmingham are ahead of all other reagion cities!

http://www.knightfrank.com/ResearchReportDirPhase2/11175.pdf

aye, good point, altho conversley, and much more importantly, yields for city offices are lowest in Brum

http://www.knightfrank.co.uk/romp/2007.aspx

Please take into account the ammount of office space availiable. There's limited in Brum due to small numbers of developments until now. The reason why so many are being proposed and built. Its been a big problem within the city for a number of years.

aye, good point, altho conversley, and much more importantly, yields for city offices are lowest in Brum

http://www.knightfrank.co.uk/romp/2007.aspx

awwww wiggley, you dont remember your economic classes do you..... low yields are what investers want when building things like shops and offices.... and so in that table, birmingham has by far the strongest position with the highest rents and the lowest yield..... those are the conditions you want when building office developments!

I've always thought that any major talls in Glasgow would come from commercial developments given the booming hotel and office sector ( maybe 236 Broomielaw will be the first? ). The city has had excellent take-up over the last few years. The traditional financial district is virtually full now and the only was is up.

awwww wiggley, you dont remember your economic classes do you..... low yields are what investers want when building things like shops and offices.... and so in that table, birmingham has by far the strongest position with the highest rents and the lowest yield..... those are the conditions you want when building office developments!

Eh? When buying property for renting out, it's most favourable to buy property that costs the least but rents out for a lot, giving a high yield. Surely, when developers buy land, construct offices on it, then let out the whole building, they want exactly the same thing, land that produces the maximum yield, where the land is cheapest to buy, yet the offices built will yield a maximum return.

This is why cities where prices are low, and the development cycle is just starting, are hot spots for developers, as they have the highest yields. As the values of land increase in said city, the yield starts to drop, as the ratio of return to be made gets lower.

office yields dont work along those lines and i have no idea of the ins and outs for the sector, but i have just submitted a planning application for the largest single office building outside the capital..... No.1 Snow Hill PLaza in brum which is being built speculatly... in terms of office yields, the sign that investors look for (minding that investors are often pension funds and long terms investors alike) are low but consistant yields.... high yields like you say suggest a rapid increase in price, but that also marks instability in the market which investors in office developments dont like. this is not the case however for residential developments where houses are sold off by the developer for a quick buck, offices are long terms ionvestments....

if your argument was true, then the likes of aberdeen would be seeing huge office skyscrapers being developed, but you dont.. and the its no coincidence that the 2 largest cities in your list are the 2 with the highest rents and some of the lowest yields...

dont get me wrong, your logic is fine, but you lack the understanding of the office sector investments!

this is from the brum market activity report:

A well let office building represents a strong defensive investment but with net initial yields at 4.50% to 4.75%, the easy gains
of year-on-year yield compression have come to an end and performance will instead depend on rental
growth or asset management.

.......and doesnt that confirm what i was saying???? i dont get your point!

4.5% yields are the lowest we have seen for a very long time. 3 years ago, yields were as high as 7 or 8 % as the market was bouyant.

The paragraph basically says now that initial yields are as low as 4.50% to 4.75%, "the easy gains of year-on-year yield compression of the past have come to an end and performance will instead depend on rental growth or asset management."

this appears to be the opposite of what you were saying.

yes easy yields are hard to gain for people building offices in the hope to sell them on... but as i say, that is not wat office builders and investers of large office developments look for and they have no intention of selling them on to make a quick buck.. they look for high rents and lower but securer yields for their investors.... exactly what the paragraph says, a paragraph you have assumed is a bad thing... when really it is just stating that brum has gone from one area to another!

canary wharf has yields of 4.6% according to knight frank to prove my point.......

I'm still counting on a 201m Canopus Tower in Manchester ;)depends on the financial markets.the most developments are SHEFFIELD.LEEDS.GLASGOW.MANCHESTER.LIVERPOOL.BIRMINGHAM.These are the major city builds.http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/478SheffieldCityLoftsTowerInterview_pic1.jpgsheffield has some great new builds.averaging 32 36 floor counts.its about regeneration,quality,.this is city lofts SHEFFIELD 32 floors.

I have a friend who is a civil engineer in Leeds who recently dropped a hint to me that the city is rumoured to be planning an ambitious tower/hotel scraper scheme near the Inner Ring Road west entrance that will be 275 metres tall when completed (66 storeys high) which may well kill off all the provincial competition. Oh, and it's NOT going to be designed by Ian Simpson either.

I hope that puts that overrated dump Manchester and its neverending self-reverential council well and truly in the shade! :)you get my vote every time .manchester is a dump of 390,000 .small town beefed up by the smaller towns around it,which have no identity:cheers:

Why do you keep posting pics of city lofts Sosk? Its not exactly a new proposal.

I must wanr everyone Sosk is a bit odd, and seems incapable of putting images on seperate lines from text. I would say his heart is in the right place but he seems to have something against Manchester :dunno:

:cool:

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/4341/20080109132603lj1.jpg

Image taken by Metrolink.

Well, lets not forget that London Bridge Tower is also mixed use and 66 storeys hight but it's well over 300m tall! :yes:

LBT is 82 storeys.

There's now a digger at work at our Piccadilly Tower site... go to the Manchester Forum to find out the latest...

you get my vote every time .manchester is a dump of 390,000 .small town beefed up by the smaller towns around it,which have no identity:cheers:
And Sheffield would have a population of 350,000 or thereabouts had places like Dore, Totley, Beauchief, Meersbrook, Mosborough, Beighton, Frecheville, Jordanthorpe, Birley and Herdings been left in Derbyshire, like they used to be in the early 20th century - Beighton, Mosborough up to 1967, whilst Ecclesfield, Chapeltown, High Green, Oughtibridge, Bradfield, Thorpe Hesley and Stocksbridge were only incorporated into Sheffield in 1974. Here are maps of South Sheffield and North Derbyshire from 1904:

http://www.gleadless.net/pages/maps/1904.htm

http://www.gleadless.net/pages/maps/1904a.htm

Nice research there.
I think that the city with the tallest skyscraper outside of London will win.

Well thought out answer there Mercurius!

Btw, cabins are arriving on site at the 188m Piccadilly Tower site! :)

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee85/mancplanner_2007/Tower04.jpg

Let ground work commence! :D

This isn't really a debatable issue, is it? It's going to be Leeds for a short while (Lumiere), then Manchester (Piccadilly) , then Leeds again (Millgarth). Then maybe Manchester after that and maybe Leeds after that (If the rumours are true of this 200m+ tower by SOM)- for the forseeable future it just swings between the 2 cities.

Lumiere will hold the title for less than a year though.

This isn't really a debatable issue, is it? It's going to be Leeds for a short while (Lumiere), then Manchester (Piccadilly) , then Leeds again (Millgarth). Then maybe Manchester after that and maybe Leeds after that (If the rumours are true of this 200m+ tower by SOM)- for the forseeable future it just swings between the 2 cities.

Short sighted ignorance.

Short sighted ignorance.

Agreed, with Brums VTP 200 in planning, I reckon that will hold the title, possibly followed by Shanghai Tower in Liverpool.

As for Milgarth, that so far has just been a feasibility study and even then, there was no confirmed height, so obviously some forumer's made up a number to 'beat' 188m :lol:

Unless a serious proposal is made, I can't take the rumours seriously.

The only building actually put forward for planning to date which was over 200m was in Salford - the 201m design for the Canopus tower.

VTP is an observation tower and not a proper skyscraper. The BT Tower is a telecommunications tower. And the next one down, the first proper building, is just short of being a true skyscraper at 147m to the roof! So much for Birmingham's chances!

VTP is an observation tower and not a proper skyscraper. The BT Tower is a telecommunications tower. And the next one down, the first proper building, is just short of being a true skyscraper at 147m to the roof! So much for Birmingham's chances!

Ah, don't ruffle the Brummies, they have a facade overrun to 152m and we can't pretend it doesn't exist, else we'd have to admit Beetham is only 157m, not 169m, and you can't exactly miss the blade can you?!!

Well, it's scraping the barrel a bit.. ;)

The thing is though, 99% of people will never see the roof of V tower, so the facade overrun will lookk like where the building stops, so to their perspective, it will be 152m.

Try looking at Beetham from behind the blade, the building most definately doesn't stop at 157m! ;)

VTP is an observation tower and not a proper skyscraper. The BT Tower is a telecommunications tower. And the next one down, the first proper building, is just short of being a true skyscraper at 147m to the roof! So much for Birmingham's chances!

Its a theme park. And the strutural tip is still 200m tall. However. There are many sites around the city where feasability studies show 200m+ can be accomodated.

I think you will be suprised soon enough.

Oh and Liverpool! :)

Its a theme park. And the strutural tip is still 200m tall. However. There are many sites around the city where feasability studies show 200m+ can be accomodated.

I think you will be suprised soon enough.

The height of the top floor is 123m though. The rest is basically a fairground ride.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=5341

As I've said, the tallest actual building planned for Birmingham at the moment (the V) only just scrapes into real skyscraper territory.

Ok so even though on a single day only maybe 500 people will accomodate floors above 150m to 188m in say the Piccadily tower - for the whole year and more yet it's still more important then 1 million people going higher in 12 months on a Birmingham structure! Why do floors make it so important? Birminghams gyro ride will take a hundred people an hour up to height taller then anything outside London.

It's just one of these -

http://www.picturewales.co.uk/pics/large_images/2068.jpg

Stuck onto a 123m tall building.

So Birmingham's two tallest structures in the future will be a fairground ride and a telecomms tower. Not quite the same as proper skyscrapers - ie office and apartment blocks of 150m or more to the roof...

^^

103 Colmore Row (office) will be taller then BT.


As for Milgarth, that so far has just been a feasibility study and even then, there was no confirmed height, so obviously some forumer's made up a number to 'beat' 188m :lol:



:lol:

Some Leeds forumers talk out their arses. It's like when they claimed Lumiere was under construction 6 months before it actually began.

^^

103 Colmore Row (office) will be taller then BT.



:lol:

Some Leeds forumers talk out their arses. It's like when they claimed Lumiere was under construction 6 months before it actually began.

We started talking about it 6 months before construction started because there was 6 months of ground clearance to undertake... at least it is now happening. More than can be said for your skyscrapers.

Some Leeds forumers talk out their arses. It's like when they claimed Lumiere was under construction 6 months before it actually began.

Nobody really knew what was going on though. I've seen Manc posts saying "It's started" re Eastgate, yet they haven't even awarded a contract for construction, cleared the site, prepared the site or marketed the building

The Millgarth tower is council-owned land that will shortly be up for grabs, Kevin Linfoot has done feasibility studies for a 60 floor scraper on the site and has publicly claimed that his next project will be taller than Lumiere

He's a competitive person and will more than likely seek to trump the northern competition in addition to Lumiere. Why design something of 187m? (not that it bothers me or should bother anyone else, but there you go)

You won't see a proposal for the Milgarth site for some time and if Linfoot's the geezer developing it, I imagine he wouldn't want to announce anything that would take the shine away from his Lumiere, which won't be complete till about 2013

Lumiere is more-or-less sold out and barring a massive overrun in the budget, can already be considered a success of sorts

OK, Millgarth's not a concrete proposal, but I'd rather have Linfoot's word and evidence of him considering it than a pretty drawing

And anyway, with these things you always get the odd surprise. Lumiere has cracked on at a fair pace, I believe we first heard of it after the Mancs had heard of Eastgate? 3 years ago Criterion Place seemed more likely than Lumiere

SO we have Lumiere u/c, Criterion has been redesigned in order to be taller, Kevin Linfoot has all but said his next project will be circa 60 storeys at Millgarth and we had a Brummie forumer speaking quite convincingly of a rumoured 275m tower at the top of Wellington Street on a site earmarked for a tall yonks ago and in what is probably Leeds' most high profile gateway

That's one u/c, one firm proposal, a promise from a local developer with a track record of delivering skyscrapers quickly and a rumour from a benign forumer whose detailed account and impartiality gives it credibility.

Regarding the fin and blades thing, Manc Beetham looks every inch of it's 169m to me. Lumiere will look no taller I reckon, the roof tapers up at such an angle as would be indiscernable from most views, certainly at street level, and who notices 2m, it's not like it's stood side by side with Beetham

And VTP will still be a 200m thing, I don't see why you seek to impose rules and definitions on these things. Eastgate will be a 188m tower, VTP will be a 200m theme park thing, they both 'count', they're just both different, that's all

^^

Good post.

We started talking about it 6 months before construction started because there was 6 months of ground clearance to undertake... at least it is now happening. More than can be said for your skyscrapers.

Birmingham may well just get the tallest habitable building outside London.

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j129/van_heckler/Smilie.gif

^^ Still, it isn't a skyscraper. It's about as much a skyscraper as the CN Tower is. Lumiere, on the other hand, is a proper building.

I'm sure Birmingham's time will come. But for now, it looks like Leeds will be getting the tallest skyscraper. unless Eastgate retains the title for Manchester.

Jesus christ! whats the difference?

What building makes the biggest impact on Toronto's skyline? THE TALLEST FUCKING BUILDING AKA CN TOWER!

http://k43.pbase.com/o4/04/463304/1/66040842.c14ao9XM.P15109301510932.jpg

More people will venture higher on the V.T.P then they will at Lumiere. Im doing a wierd expression hear if only you could see. You seem to believe that habitable floors make a building more visable but unless V.T.P's gyro ride and the people inside it are see through then I cant see how you cannot count it as the tallest BUILDING outside London. :nuts:

Jesus christ! whats the difference?


Personally I can't see why it matters either,it'll become a Birmingham landmark and give it something that bit different.

We started talking about it 6 months before construction started because there was 6 months of ground clearance to undertake... at least it is now happening. More than can be said for your skyscrapers.

Explain please? I think there is an official city bashing thread isnt there? care to clear off? Proper discussion in this thread please.

Regarding the fin and blades thing, Manc Beetham looks every inch of it's 169m to me. Lumiere will look no taller I reckon, the roof tapers up at such an angle as would be indiscernable from most views, certainly at street level, and who notices 2m, it's not like it's stood side by side with Beetham

And VTP will still be a 200m thing, I don't see why you seek to impose rules and definitions on these things. Eastgate will be a 188m tower, VTP will be a 200m theme park thing, they both 'count', they're just both different, that's all

Well said. A lot of this is hypothetical anyway. As a building of say 150metres in one city may look bigger than a 170m tower in another city. Depending on the surroundings. However i do agree with your ending statement.

Jesus christ! whats the difference?

What building makes the biggest impact on Toronto's skyline? THE TALLEST FUCKING BUILDING AKA CN TOWER!

http://k43.pbase.com/o4/04/463304/1/66040842.c14ao9XM.P15109301510932.jpg

More people will venture higher on the V.T.P then they will at Lumiere. Im doing a wierd expression hear if only you could see. You seem to believe that habitable floors make a building more visable but unless V.T.P's gyro ride and the people inside it are see through then I cant see how you cannot count it as the tallest BUILDING outside London. :nuts:

What is the current tallest building outside of London? Unless I'm mistaken, it is Beetham Manchester. But there is a taller 'building' the Spinnaker Tower, in portsmouth. What is the tallest building in the world before Burj Dubai is finished? Taipei 101, despite the fact that the CN Tower is considerably taller. The fact is, VTP 200 is MUCH closer to the CN Tower and Spinnaker Tower than it is to a normal habitable building, like Lumiere, Eastgate, Taipei, Arena Tower or the Shard.

And Anyway, this is about the tallest skyscraper outside of London, and VTP/CN Tower/Spinnaker are definately not classed as skyscrapers, not in the traditional snese up held by most people anyway. There are no exact rules to define a skyscraper, but winning by twisting the 'rules' to suit your needs isn't really winning at all IMO.

Doesn't Birmingham have a plan for a really tall tower on the old fire station site? Who knows, that could end up being the tallest building outside London.

What is the current tallest building outside of London? Unless I'm mistaken, it is Beetham Manchester. But there is a taller 'building' the Spinnaker Tower, in portsmouth.

That's a good point. The current title holder - the city with the tallest building outside London - could be said to be Pompey with the 170m Spinnaker tower

I personally wouldn't include things like Emley Moor, they are not an active part of a skyline - But Spinnaker is, VTP will be, and that Toronto thing clearly is

So it WAS Manchester's title, then Birmingham's for a bit, then Manchester's for a bit, currently Pompey, then it should be Leeds for a bit, followed by Manc for a bit, followed by Birmingham

What is the current tallest building outside of London? Unless I'm mistaken, it is Beetham Manchester.

Yes you are mistaken. It is only the tallest HABITABLE building outside London.

But there is a taller 'building' the Spinnaker Tower, in portsmouth.

Exactly the tallest structure in a direct skyline within the UK excluding the capital.

What is the tallest building in the world before Burj Dubai is finished? Taipei 101, despite the fact that the CN Tower is considerably taller.

Again. This is where you are wrong. There is no clear defintion as to what the tallest buildings in the world are! It is not defined whether communication towers with observation galleries should be considered habitable buildings or whether only habitable height is considered.

The CN tower has always been considered to be the worlds tallest free standing structure until Burj over took it. If you ever visit you will notice the titles it holds within its foyer and its observation deck.


The fact is, VTP 200 is MUCH closer to the CN Tower and Spinnaker Tower than it is to a normal habitable building, like Lumiere, Eastgate, Taipei, Arena Tower or the Shard.

It is much closer to the CN Tower and Spinanker but that does'nt make it less visable on the skyline. Not to mention, V.T.P's so called MAXIMUM HABITABLE HEIGHT IS 190m. considerably taller then Portsmouths Spinnakers viewing platform.

And Anyway, this is about the tallest skyscraper outside of London, and VTP/CN Tower/Spinnaker are definately not classed as skyscrapers

No. But they are the tallest structures in thier city which make unmistakably bigger impact then half a dozen 20 storey 80m tall tower blocks.

not in the traditional snese up held by most people anyway.

Traditional sense are thoughts. THERE IS NO CLEAR DEFINTION. Its oppinions. And nobody ever denied the CN tower its place as the tallest structure in the world with an observation deck.

There are no exact rules to define a skyscraper, but winning by twisting the 'rules' to suit your needs isn't really winning at all IMO.

Twisting? ... Well surely if there is no exact rules to define a skyscraper how can we twist it! I suppose the guiness book of records twisted the CN towers credibility so everyone saw it as the worlds tallest structure. AS did everyone else in the world who also classified it during its record stint.

Doesn't Birmingham have a plan for a really tall tower on the old fire station site? Who knows, that could end up being the tallest building outside London.

Birmingham has plans for plenty of taller towers. That still doesnt discard the fact the V.T.P is currently the tallest structure planned for a city outside London.

VTP200's top floor moves up and down the tower. It reaches 190 metres (that's roof height) and then you can climb the final 10 metres yourself.

VTP200's top floor moves up and down the tower. It reaches 190 metres (that's roof height) and then you can climb the final 10 metres yourself.

And it's 200m tall and as much part of Birmingham's skyline as an office or apartment block

Well I think that the people who are saying it does not count as a building are jelous or retarded.

I personally wouldn't include things like Emley Moor, they are not an active part of a skyline - But Spinnaker is, VTP will be, and that Toronto thing clearly is
'That Toronto Thing'? You call yourself a skyscraper enthusiast?!

You call yourself a skyscraper enthusiast?!

No

lol, well if some of you people dont think that VTP will be a skyscraper please could you explain to me what it is then, because its not a theme park.

VTP stands for vertical theme park :lol:

VTP stands for vertical theme park :lol:

It stands for VerTiPlex. I love correcting you. It's become a regular thing.

:lol: :rofl:

clearly brummies have no sense of humour. Its called a joke . . . A bit like brum's tallest at 147m lol

clearly brummies have no sense of humour. Its called a joke . . . A bit like brum's tallest at 147m lol

Steady on - they haven't even got round to building that, let alone starting it...

at the very least Birminghams tallest scraper will be 1 meter taller than Nottinghams :)

"Tallest in the Midlands"... ;)

You two are like Badiel and Skinner.

Boring fuckers!

Our "tallest" is 152m and has been for 40 years :)

It's just one of these -

Stuck onto a 123m tall building.

So Birmingham's two tallest structures in the future will be a fairground ride and a telecomms tower. Not quite the same as proper skyscrapers - ie office and apartment blocks of 150m or more to the roof...

But it will make for one hell of an interesting and varied skyline :)

Depending on what Piccadilly Tower in Manchester ends up being, I think that Brum could end up with the 2 tallest buildings outside London - just depends on what comes out this year :)

lord, still rattlin bac ere lol

i cant beleive some of you are dissing birminghams buildings!

leeds for a start...ok you will have the lumiere but how out of place will it look in such a pethetic skyline, and as for manchester your hardly far in front of them, when you get a skyline like brums then u can make cockey remarks.

clearly brummies have no sense of humour. Its called a joke . . . A bit like brum's tallest at 147m lol

Not nesessarly...it was me who calculated the height using the scaled drawings.

I may have been a mm or 2 out ;) Equating to 2 or 3 meters?

i cant beleive some of you are dissing birminghams buildings!

leeds for a start...ok you will have the lumiere but how out of place will it look in such a pethetic skyline, and as for manchester your hardly far in front of them, when you get a skyline like brums then u can make cockey remarks.

Lets look at the facts flying tackle:

You slag off Leeds skyline, well compaired to Brum's, if you look at the top 5
complete or U/C buildings this is what you get:

Leeds

171m
113m
110m
103m (site some 30m above city centre core- equiverlent to 133m)
82m

Brum:

152m (not habitable building)
138m
122m
100m
90m

Manchester:

188m
157m (+fin)
118m
107m
90m

Neither Manchester or Leeds has a "pathetic" skyline compaired to Brum, and they are both setting the standards for skyscrapers with the 2 tallest buildings outside London currently under construction. When will we see Birmingham catching up?

^^

:llama:

I think you've read one too many of Wiggley's posts.

You slag off Leeds skyline, well compaired to Brum's, if you look at the top 5 complete or U/C buildings this is what you get:

What's that meant to prove? 4 of the one's you listed are holes in the ground. And since when has Eastgate been under construction? Does that mean V and VTP200 are as well? Besides, the total of Brum's top 5 is still greater then Leeds' and that's you missing out the tallest clock tower in the world. Not that it matters as 5 buildings are only a fraction of what makes up our skylines.

Neither Manchester or Leeds has a "pathetic" skyline compaired to Brum

Manchester's is ok. Leeds however >>> :lol:

Lets look at the facts flying tackle:

You slag off Leeds skyline, well compaired to Brum's, if you look at the top 5
complete or U/C buildings this is what you get:

Leeds

171m
113m
110m
103m (site some 30m above city centre core- equiverlent to 133m)
82m

Brum:

152m (not habitable building)
138m
122m
100m
90m

Manchester:

188m
157m (+fin)
118m
107m
90m

Neither Manchester or Leeds has a "pathetic" skyline compaired to Brum, and they are both setting the standards for skyscrapers with the 2 tallest buildings outside London currently under construction. When will we see Birmingham catching up?

Thats very true. Well said.

And im sorry for bringing Birmingham up in a bad light, but before even mentioning Birmingham in this thread, Van Heckler had privated me one hell of a childish provocative post completely out of the blue. Out of possibley sheer anguish and fustration, he even went thru the trouble of sending me a picture of lumiere next to VTP followed by lots of :banana: :banana: :banana: - which ironically made lumiere look much more imposing and bigger.

You slag off Leeds skyline, well compaired to Brum's, if you look at the top 5
complete or U/C buildings this is what you get:

Leeds

171m
113m
110m
103m (site some 30m above city centre core- equiverlent to 133m) Strange comment - Brums Sandstone ridge makes buildings appear taller than others, but it still doesnt add height to them;Brums high position above sea level = taller towers than anywhere else?
82m

Brum:

152m (not habitable building)
138m
122m
100m
90m

Manchester:

188m
157m (+fin)
118m
107m
90m

Neither Manchester or Leeds has a "pathetic" skyline compaired to Brum, and they are both setting the standards for skyscrapers with the 2 tallest buildings outside London currently under construction. When will we see Birmingham catching up?

^^

That's very true Michael. His logic would suggest a stump on top of Ben Nevis is the tallest building in the UK.


Van Heckler had privated me one hell of a childish provocative post completely out of the blue.

:rock:

I wouldn't call Leeds' skyline 'pathetic compared with Brum's', I'd say Brum's was 'less pathetic'

i got this spammed by VanHeckler about 30 times before i had even mentioned Birmingham on this thread


http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j129/van_heckler/Smilie.gif :banana::banana::banana::lol::lol::lol:


The funniest thing is, it shows how an ariel mast spire just doesnt compare to a proper skyscraper. Despite VTP being taller due to the long thin spine, Lumiere Leeds (or east gate manchester, or king edward tower liverpool )looks like the bigger more dominating building as your eyes focus down and rest on the top of the habitable portion of VTP rather than the thin spine part.

But its not taller. :bash:

Anyway V.T.P might struggle over the coming months. :(

Don't change tack Wiggley - either taller is better, or it isn't. Listing anyone's top five tallest doesn't describe the skyline, because if it is all lowrise with 5 talls then it doesn't look as good as a series of mid- and highrises, even if they tallest are shorter than a village with 5 skyscrapers.

Come on - play the game ;)

Promising, but a while off yet...

Lets hope Longy's right on this, if so, then this could be special.

On the site of the current Renaissance Hotel, bought by West Properties a few months ago. Demolition of the concrete monster should be in 2011.

Lies opposite No.1 Deansgate at the other end of Deansgate in relation to Beetham. An extremely prime location and we are expecting it to be a high quality scheme.

A mixed use scheme is planned incorporating 2 hotels apparently.

Goodbye to this:

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManUrbisNoDTriangleVw.jpg


To this?

I know a bit more about this but am sworn to secrecy.
Lets just say that if this gets built as planned its going to big...............................very big. :shifty:

:)

Big = tall or bulky?

could croydan be counted in this

no

Ooh er, how times change reading back through this thread! It was all so rosy!