search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > Manchester Metro Area

Manchester Metro Area For Manchester, Salford and the surrounding area.



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 24th, 2013, 12:20 AM   #741
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerbil View Post
Response to

Plans for LRFS: Britannia don't have any firm plans either, and furthermore, they haven't for the last 25 years.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Blight on the area: Piccadilly Place did well because it's on one of the main routes out of one of the most used stations outside of London. What about the buildings to the South of LRFS?

Risk to Building: Britannia's argument that the state of the building is fine is based on discrediting the man who did the survey. If a second person had done a survey, it would have taken time, and they would probably have discredited the new guy as well. All of this fits with Britannia's main desire: delay, delay, delay ...

Reason for the rejection: see para 298 of the final conclusion:

"... it appears that redevelopment of the LRFS, with the attendant regeneration benefits, would be more likely to come forward under Britannia's auspices than the Council's."

i.e. the inspectorate believed Britannia. This is incredible given that Britannia's claims as to their intentions seem to go up and down depending on the level of threat to their ownership of the building. In fact, now that the threat of the CPO has been lifted, and despite their claims that they would do something once that happened, they have in fact declared that the scheme is unviable and they will do nothing in the foreseeable future.

This is exactly as everyone predicted. Somehow the planning inspector was unable to see this.
So agree. If I could be bothered I'd pull out the biases in that report, but exhausted! Others will and are going to. Regardless if PixiePie is more inclined for unquestioning faith in authority than most, many don't! I think there might be a little evidence to the contrary!

>>>>>

Here's my letter just sent for the invite.

Dear Alex Langsam and Britannia Hotel Group,

Public Meeting: London Road Fire Station on Wednesday 27th February at 7pm
The Mechanics Institute, 103 Princess Street, Manchester, M1 6DD

Please find your invitation to attend this public meeting to present your position over your ownership, entering its twenty-seventh year, of the London Road Fire Station (At Risk 1998, Listed II* 1974). In encouraging your attendance at this open meeting, I hope all parties can have an open dialogue and achieve a way forward to protect this building. It is hoped we can accomplish a re-development that will make Manchester proud.

I hope you will accept this invitation for you or a spokesperson for Britannia Hotels to face your critics from the public, Manchester City Council, English Heritage, media and other key parties and speakers.

As a concerned member of the public, I hope you appreciate that, without your input, I can only proceed on the information which I have discovered and have been given by those willing to communicate with me. At present, I am inclined to trust the opinions of the people I have liaised with whose views are at odds with yours. They are highly respected in their professions. Of course, I know there are two sides to every story. That is why I feel it is essential that you answer my questions and, thereby, those of the citizens of Manchester. Please understand that this is a highly emotive issue. If you refuse to attend the meeting please at least consider providing a statement to be read at the meeting and responding to the minutes following the meeting.

One matter of particular concern is that the Compulsory Purchase Order report from November 2011 was based on the premise that redevelopment would be achieved by 2014. I understand that your argument for delaying re-development is based on changes in the economic climate. However, I cannot see how changes in the economic market were so prevalent in the three months after the Compulsory Purchase Order report was published in November 2011 that a drastic change in position by February 2012 was justified. In just three months, the promise to redevelop was retracted.

Please understand that change in position and commitment is something that rightfully raises questions and strong feelings. Indeed my passionate 'hyperbole', which you criticise and I admit to, is due to having seen the majestic building in question standing neglected the entire time I have lived in this city, since 1997. The petition alone reveals how distressing people find this situation. The situation is made worse by the fact that significant financial costs arising were paid from the Compulsory Purchase Order process, to your organisation by a city suffering budget cuts and austerity. As the petition shows, the public are critical of your position. They find the decline of an ‘At Risk’ heritage icon emotive, upsetting and damaging to the reputation of the City of Manchester.

The Compulsory Purchase Order report from November 2011 clearly asserts at point 275: “There seems to be no good reason why Britannia could not have pressed ahead with a hotel scheme at any time during its ownership”. I am in communication with Compulsory Purchase Order experts and heritage lobbyists, who are calling for reform to heritage legislation so that organisations not achieving redevelopment within a critical time frame face sanctions and have their ownership put out to tender.

In the Compulsory Purchase Order report your witness Mr Quarme (at Point 89), “conceded that there was a clear 20 year period of lack of maintenance by Britannia”. I am an individual without legal expertise, position or wealth and I am struck by the extent of your self-acknowledged neglect. To my knowledge, you have not answered or publicly apologised in response to Sir Howard Bernstein’s fundamental point that twenty-seven years of ownership have resulted in little progress; a time-frame during which there have been three economic periods of boom and other businesses could have, and would have, thrived.

It is mine and others’ opinion that the way forward might be that you remain the leaseholder, seeking other private investments, forming a conglomerate. I wonder if you are aware of the wonderful RIBA Presidents Award Winning Student Dissertation on London Road Fire Station and its proposed uses? The lack of success in your redevelopment is clearly at odds with the creative potential for sensitive re-commissioning that is proposed therein.

In considering relinquishing your ownership, you might even focus on your considerable portfolio and allow new enterprises to have business, investment or even community involvement in various forms of funding options that would no longer require your exclusive private investment. Owning ‘At Risk’ heritage brings civic responsibilities and is a privilege, not a right. The Compulsory Purchase Order report from November 2011 is, as I am sure you know, being scrutinised by many people; legal, professional and the casual observer alike. It is one of notable controversy.

I am sure you wish to avoid being associated with setting a negative precedent for treasured national heritage being treated badly by corporations. Surely, it cannot hurt to consult with the public about their visions for this treasured building? I hope in choosing to attend this meeting you will assist by presenting your concerns and being receptive to others’ opinions of how this situation can move forward in a public forum, rather than in isolationism.

I have only just seen your press release today (21 January 2013) on www.britanniahotels.com. This is because someone within my petition group discovered it and sent it to me. I am disappointed I was not contacted sooner, since you are clearly aware of my campaign. I have never concealed my identity and am easy to contact should you have wished to clear up any misunderstanding or clarify your position. If you feel that there are facts that people – myself – are not in possession of, I am not unreasonable or dogmatic and would welcome your input. Likewise, I am not someone whom you would find it difficult to contact to discuss your concerns, although ultimately there may be significant perceptual differences of opinion, ethics and views on civic responsibilities.

This petition became personally important for me as a member of the public who, like so many others, sees this wonderful building each day and felt a civic duty to protest out of sheer frustration. I hope you agree something has to give and that there must be a way forward with or without your organisations’ ownership. Please attend so that you can express your views in a public forum as part of a productive mutual dialogue.

In anticipation of a swift response,

Yours sincerely,

Adam Prince
Petition Founder

Last edited by moveupandon; January 24th, 2013 at 12:43 AM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 24th, 2013, 09:26 AM   #742
Farsight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,503
Likes (Received): 652

Excellent stuff, Adam. One man can make a difference.
Farsight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 11:31 AM   #743
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Excellent stuff, Adam. One man can make a difference.
Hopefully bringing parties and public pressure and criticism together to the point of no escape, where woolly excuses and rhetoric as to why nothing has been achieved since 1986 is no longer viable.

(When you hear about a headless midget torso being dragged from the canal after a mysterious hit, you'll know it's me)!

Speakers being told to give 4- 5 min max speeches and then hopefully getting discussion facilitator or compare to do Question Time style panel, answering questions from attendees.

Hoping varied speakers,
MP, Councillors, English Heritage, Journalist/Historian confirmed.
Asked CPO expert, accomplished architect who has fought this sad case previously, a speaker from Manchester Chamber of Commerce.

and of-course statements from Planning Inspectorate, Pickles, Planning Minister and Shadow Planning Minister.

Hopefully will be filmed and make news & a good turn out might encourage journalists of documentary makers to take further. Trying to write little script for short 2-3 minute documentary to start with, as someone's kindly offered to help and voiceover.

Will design a questionnaire for all attendee's (bring an pen!), so we can concretely analyse the opinions and ask Britannia to comment on this. And thinking a good end might be taking a few questions from that survey and doing a mock parliament with a select few questions, "those who think Britannia should relinquish their ownership of LRFS say aye". That (if news camera's make it), would send a clear message.

& of-course, dear sweet Britannia now have their invite!

If they come might be like a Springer show!

Last edited by moveupandon; January 24th, 2013 at 01:44 PM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 03:08 PM   #744
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

PS: Can't resist. Oh look an inspiring interview by a political hero and ally of the North! What extraordinary accuracy and an exceptional decision maker! (Cringe)!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtRoFn5FPkQ
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 01:55 PM   #745
nerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,608
Likes (Received): 1797

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiepie View Post
You're wrong on every point here. Have you actually read the CPO report?

MCC have a development partner: Argent. However, Argent have no firm plans for the redevelopment, no business plan, no proof of funding, no implementation agreement etc etc.

The CPO found that the building has not blighted the area. For example, it did not prevent the Piccadilly Place development for happening.

Although it's on the at risk register, it's only grade C and EH are thinking of downgrading it to a grade D, i.e. it's in poor repair but it being maintained, albeit in a reactive way, and is not in serious or quick decline.

The case did not, as you say, turn on whether Brittania was acting in good faith. There were several reasons why the CPO failed. Read the report.

I agree that Brittania appear to have gone back on promises and appear to be in no rush to develop the building but I honestly don't believe a 2nd CPO will succeed. It would, however, give Brittania the perfect excuse for further delaying the redevelopment as who would spend money on a building where there is a threat of CPO hanging over it?
I can see you have read the report PP; unfortunately, like a number of posters on this thread, you appear in parts to have confused the submissions to the inspector by the parties concerned, with the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector. Only paras 249 to 300 represent the inspector's findings.

On Argent's participation, the inspector notes the Argent statement of intent, but is not criticising lack of implementation agreement etc. The point at issue for the inspector is whether a hotel development of the building could be demonstrated to generate sufficient financial returns; for any developer, other than Britannia, to be able to attract external finance (para 270).

The inspector certainly did accept that the current state of the building blights the area (paras 272 - 274). Where the inspector differed from MCC was as to the 'urgency' of need for regeneration to proceed, not the principle that regeneration is necessary. The inspector accepted that the Britannia proposed scheme would most likely be the best option for getting regeneration happening (para 277).

The same arguments reappear in respect of the state of repair of the building, the inspector foundthat the building had deteriorated under Britannia's management, and that this deterioration was continuing. The inspector did not feel that MCC demonstrated that urgent action was necessary to safeguard the fabric of the building. (the point about EH considering downgrading the risk factor rating comes from Britannia's submission, and is in any case contingent of Britannia's scheme going ahead).

In my view the inspector serioiusly mistook the nature of MCC's (and EH's) concerns on this point; as his discussion focusses on the issue of whether the fabric of the buildng was in danger of becoming unsafe or suffer 'widespread structural failure'. He failed to take into account here that this is a Grade II* listed building; and so a CPO could be justified if the historic features of the building are under threat due to lack of maintenance (e.g. window frames, downpipes, interior woodwork, external ironwork). For instance, he notes (para 290) that the historic courtyard balconies are suffering corrosion, but says there was 'no evidence of structural movement'. The point is that in a grade II* listed building there should be no onging corrosion at all of the historic features; and any that was present should have been remedied.

But, as I said, the key issue was whether Britannia's assurances could be trusted, and whether there could be any sort of Implementation Agreement required of Britannia (paras 278 to 288). As the final conclusions make clear in para 298, this is key. The inspector found, 'on the balance of probabilities', that the Britannia scheme (even though no binding comittment had been made) had a better chance of happening than a scheme following a CPO by MCC. But he avoided any conclusion on the 'issue of trust' (para 281). In effect, he passed the issue of Lansam's trustworthiness over to the Secretary of State.
__________________

High-Fi liked this post
nerd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 04:54 PM   #746
pixiepie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Salford
Posts: 234
Likes (Received): 44

Quote:
Originally Posted by nerd View Post
I can see you have read the report PP; unfortunately, like a number of posters on this thread, you appear in parts to have confused the submissions to the inspector by the parties concerned, with the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector. Only paras 249 to 300 represent the inspector's findings.
I don't think I have. In fact, it was me who pointed out to Adam that he was mis-quoting the CPO report. In any case, parts of the sections which are the case for each side do include actual facts. It's how the inspector interprets those facts that is the crux. But anyway, I'll leave it up to you how you interpret the report.

Just to show I'm not entirely making things up though, in para 273 the inspector says that he does not believe the state of the LRFS has put a break on regeneration of the area. Para 293 notes that the condition of the building is not as bad as has been made out by MCC and EH. These are kwy issues in deciding whether confirming the CPO would be in the public interest or not.

Paras 284-286 appear to be particularly important to me as if MCC had done more to sure up the agreement with Argent they may have had a chance of having the CPO confirmed (in my humble opinion) as they may have demonstrated they were more likely than Brittania to progress a scheme in a timely manner.

Hey ho. We'll never know.
pixiepie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2013, 05:55 PM   #747
nerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,608
Likes (Received): 1797

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiepie View Post
Just to show I'm not entirely making things up though, in para 273 the inspector says that he does not believe the state of the LRFS has put a break on regeneration of the area. Para 293 notes that the condition of the building is not as bad as has been made out by MCC and EH. These are kwy issues in deciding whether confirming the CPO would be in the public interest or not.
You are right PP to see these as important paras; but if you read them closely I think you will see that both are about the 'urgency' of the current situation; not about whether the current situation can be allowed to continue long-term.

Quote:
Paras 284-286 appear to be particularly important to me as if MCC had done more to sure up the agreement with Argent they may have had a chance of having the CPO confirmed (in my humble opinion) as they may have demonstrated they were more likely than Brittania to progress a scheme in a timely manner.
Maybe, though I think these paragraphs about the possible need for an Implementation Agreement between MCC and Argent are rather a flight of fancy on the behalf of the inspector. There is no 'issue of trust' between Argent and the Council, as there is between Britannia and the Council (para 281), because Argent are a reputable commercial business who have a track-record of delivering according to their undertakings to the best of their abilties; while Langsam has been a serial defaulter on every promise he as ever made.

I suspect much more determinative in the mind of the inspector was the Deloitte study reported in paras 268 to 270. This related to a previous scheme that would have planted a glass tower in the middle of the fire station courtyard (and was consequently known on all sides to have no possibility of getting EH support or listed building consent). Deloitte's report, finding that this abortion had only limited financial viability, should have been regarded in the light of its never being other than a delaying-tactic on Langsam's part; nevertheless the inspector clearly mis-understood it as having been commissioned in good faith.

Nevetheless, it does show that the MCC (and Argent) submissions were underdeveloped in failing to show how a boutique hotel in the London Road Fire Station ought to have been able make a much better rate of return than that to be expected by an operator as badly-managed and unethical as Britannia. Britannia's hotel business model is an outlier is almost all respects, dubiously legitimate, and ultimately surely unsustainable; but much more ought to have been made of how more conventional modes of hotel functioning (that don't systematically treat staff and guests like shit) can be demonstrated as having been highly successful in Manchester in recent years.

Last edited by nerd; January 26th, 2013 at 08:17 PM.
nerd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2013, 02:58 PM   #748
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

The recent news makes the #LRFS redevelopment even more important with two new stations proposed. Time for a business that can make this area great and add to it, not diminish it!

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....r-fast-1247837

20 years though! Better than nothing and all assuming smooth ride. Super smooth.

"The line will then enter a 7.5 mile tunnel under south Manchester, which will surface a short distance from the new station next to Manchester Piccadilly".

Will it be the resurrection of Mayfield? or a new build by there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manches...ailway_station

PS: Update, CPO expert & professor confirmed for LRFS meeting 27/2. Manchester Confidential article tomorrow.

Last edited by moveupandon; January 28th, 2013 at 03:23 PM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2013, 05:07 PM   #749
nerd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,608
Likes (Received): 1797

Quote:
Originally Posted by moveupandon View Post
The recent news makes the #LRFS redevelopment even more important with two new stations proposed. Time for a business that can make this area great and add to it, not diminish it!

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....r-fast-1247837

20 years though! Better than nothing and all assuming smooth ride. Super smooth.

"The line will then enter a 7.5 mile tunnel under south Manchester, which will surface a short distance from the new station next to Manchester Piccadilly".

Will it be the resurrection of Mayfield? or a new build by there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manches...ailway_station

PS: Update, CPO expert & professor confirmed for LRFS meeting 27/2. Manchester Confidential article tomorrow.
New station will be to the north of, and alongside the existing one - extending up to Store Street.

I agree that it potentially makes a hotel on the LRFS site more of a viable proposition; as well as probably making it much easier for a developer to attract external finance. Which can be linked back into the inspector's recommendation against the CPO, where he expressed strong doubts as to whether Argent (or any other alternative developer) would be able to find funds for a hotel scheme in the building.

But then again, HS2 is still a long way off.
nerd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2013, 09:26 PM   #750
Nathan Dawz
Registered User
 
Nathan Dawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 4,031
Likes (Received): 2432

Quote:
Originally Posted by moveupandon View Post
The recent news makes the #LRFS redevelopment even more important with two new stations proposed. Time for a business that can make this area great and add to it, not diminish it!
The big question, will LRFS will be sorted by 2032? It's a tough call!
Nathan Dawz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 10:47 AM   #751
pixel2006
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 286
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Dawz View Post
The big question, will LRFS will be sorted by 2032? It's a tough call!
Very funny
pixel2006 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 09:22 PM   #752
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Dawz View Post
The big question, will LRFS will be sorted by 2032? It's a tough call!

I know! 2032 it'll be dust....

But Simon Binns high up in MEN tweeted this:

simonbinns ‏@simonbinns
Look out for a story about a prominent Manchester building that's up for sale in the morning. Yours for £45m.
Retweeted by Man-Fire-Station-CPO

Am I being paranoid or is it #LRFS?

My reply to this cryptic teaser:

@simonbinns Not #LRFS? If it is #Manchester City Council must get to the High Court and sue, sue, sue!

We'll see tomorrow! If it is, this story has more twists and turns than Alton Towers. & if it is, wow, MCC needs the best solicitors in the land!!!!!

(It probably isn't but cryptic mystery til then)!

Last edited by moveupandon; January 29th, 2013 at 09:39 PM.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 10:15 PM   #753
js1000
Registered User
 
js1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Mcr / Lon / Sheff
Posts: 2,795
Likes (Received): 1276

Quote:
Originally Posted by moveupandon View Post
I know! 2032 it'll be dust....

But Simon Binns high up in MEN tweeted this:

simonbinns ‏@simonbinns
Look out for a story about a prominent Manchester building that's up for sale in the morning. Yours for £45m.
Retweeted by Man-Fire-Station-CPO

Am I being paranoid or is it #LRFS?

My reply to this cryptic teaser:

@simonbinns Not #LRFS? If it is #Manchester City Council must get to the High Court and sue, sue, sue!

We'll see tomorrow! If it is, this story has more twists and turns than Alton Towers. & if it is, wow, MCC needs the best solicitors in the land!!!!!

(It probably isn't but cryptic mystery til then)!
A prominent Manchester building up for sale - £45m tag? I wouldn't hold your breath - I have a feeling it may be a Bruntwood office. They're in a bit of debt at the moment - 200m+ I believe.

Maybe City Tower? Bought for £65 million in 2003 - £45 million at the moment seems about right considering the downturn.
__________________
"You design for the present, with an awareness of the past, for a future which is essentially unknown."
js1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 10:45 PM   #754
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

Quote:
Originally Posted by js1000 View Post
A prominent Manchester building up for sale - £45m tag? I wouldn't hold your breath - I have a feeling it may be a Bruntwood office. They're in a bit of debt at the moment - 200m+ I believe.

Maybe City Tower? Bought for £65 million in 2003 - £45 million at the moment seems about right considering the downturn.
Yeah I think City Tower... the repainting seems on slow, slow slow down. And to make a tiny slither of grass (under the small pretense of urban green, cough). In the recession I wonder will they get their asking price or will there be cheeky offers?!

Still reveal MEN tomorrow.

You're right, doubt #LRFS in it current condition worth £45m and such a decision would be like signing a legal death warrant.
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 10:49 PM   #755
Cobbydaler
Registered User
 
Cobbydaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Detroit, Manchester
Posts: 378
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by moveupandon View Post
Yeah I think City Tower... the repainting seems on slow, slow slow down. And to make a tiny slither of grass (under the small pretense of urban green, cough). In the recession I wonder will they get their asking price or will there be cheeky offers?!

Still reveal MEN tomorrow.

You're right, doubt #LRFS in it current condition worth £45m and such a decision would be like signing a legal death warrant.
Aren't you mixing Manchester One (Portland Tower) with City Tower?

__________________
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, but millions of electrons were terribly inconvenienced...

Last edited by Cobbydaler; January 29th, 2013 at 10:59 PM.
Cobbydaler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 10:49 PM   #756
flange
Registered User
 
flange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 14,677
Likes (Received): 2676

Quote:
Originally Posted by moveupandon View Post
I know! 2032 it'll be dust....

But Simon Binns high up in MEN tweeted this:

simonbinns ‏@simonbinns
Look out for a story about a prominent Manchester building that's up for sale in the morning. Yours for £45m.
Retweeted by Man-Fire-Station-CPO

Am I being paranoid or is it #LRFS?

My reply to this cryptic teaser:

@simonbinns Not #LRFS? If it is #Manchester City Council must get to the High Court and sue, sue, sue!

We'll see tomorrow! If it is, this story has more twists and turns than Alton Towers. & if it is, wow, MCC needs the best solicitors in the land!!!!!

(It probably isn't but cryptic mystery til then)!
It's not going to be the Fire Station.

Quote:
@simonbinns

The building is NOT the fire station by the way. Doubt its worth half of £45m.
It will probably be revealed in Estates Gazette seeing as Binns works for them and not the M.E.N
flange no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 11:02 PM   #757
moveupandon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,164
Likes (Received): 861

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobbydaler View Post
Aren't you mixing Manchester One (Portland Tower) with City Tower?

YES! too much wine!
moveupandon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2013, 11:05 PM   #758
Cobbydaler
Registered User
 
Cobbydaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Detroit, Manchester
Posts: 378
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by moveupandon View Post
YES! too much wine!
I'm trying to catch up...
__________________
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, but millions of electrons were terribly inconvenienced...
Cobbydaler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013, 09:41 AM   #759
hulmeman2
Registered User
 
hulmeman2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,569
Likes (Received): 606

Quote:
Originally Posted by js1000 View Post
A prominent Manchester building up for sale - £45m tag? I wouldn't hold your breath - I have a feeling it may be a Bruntwood office. They're in a bit of debt at the moment - 200m+ I believe.

Maybe City Tower? Bought for £65 million in 2003 - £45 million at the moment seems about right considering the downturn.
Twitter @simonbinns

Quote:
simonbinns ‏@simonbinns
So, seeing as we're not all sticking to the 9am embargo; the Royal Exchange building in Manchester is up for sale for £45m. Prupim selling.

Last edited by hulmeman2; January 30th, 2013 at 09:52 AM.
hulmeman2 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2013, 10:47 AM   #760
tellmeastorey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 159
Likes (Received): 36

I don't work for the MEN.

Sorry to let you all down on the fire station, although as I've said before, once the council let slip that it had put £5m aside for another CPO attempt, Langsam will sit and wait for the phone to ring.
tellmeastorey no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu