Leeds Building List

[Rob]

Originally Posted by heavymetalmayhem

Better quality cladding and balconies- is this not what transformed K2??

YEP has interesting form and shape but most people don't like it cos its concrete.

Anybody know the name of the new building on left side of Burley Street (end of Burley Road) as you approach Westgate roundabout? Anyway that building is a very basic rectangle box shape but the quality cladding makes it special.

Well, yes, cladding does have to be better than dirty concrete, I was originally saying that as long as it is reasonably smart and will stay clean for some years, then I'm not so bothered if its metal panels on high-rises, and some terracotta, brick or coloured render on mid-rises, a variety is good. Also, balconies look good, but no balconies is acceptable in some cheaper residentials.

[jimbo]

City Central is the old Wellesley Hotel which has the Nisa Metro and curry house on the ground floor;

City One is the Jan Fletcher proposal for Sweet Street out beyond Velocity and the new Bewley's Hotel; and

City Island is the curved one on Gotts Road with the stepped look.

It all a little confusing - looks like half these companies don't really have much of a scooby when it comes to naming things. Marvellous

[Rob]

There's also a West Central, Centre West, West One . . . who gets paid to think up these names.

[heavymetalmayhem]

Sorry- was confused by this:

Originally Posted by Rob

Major city centre schemes under construction:-

[SIZE=1]1 2 3 4

1 31 Bridgewater Place on Victoria Road apartments, offices 3
2 17 (12, 10 to follow) Centre West/City Central, Wellington St, apartments, office & hotel 2
3 16 Blue, Little Neville Street, apartments
4 14 Trinity 1, Neptune Street, apartments 1

[/IMG]

So is it Centre West?

Anyway nice curves!

[jimbo]

Rob

I suppose the old Royal Mail site should be named West Central (the bit currently under construction) and the Venture Tower (although its not been officially announced, only mentioned on a few press releases).

[di Livio]

I remember Carey Jones promising to clad the tower of West central in stone. Hmm, cut-backs i guess.

[jimbo]

Rob - bit of a cheeky request but wonder if you could post Mike68s city image from the Monksbridge Forge thread on the 1st page of the building list as it gives a great impression of how everything will fit.

[heavymetalmayhem]

Update on West Central:

[magicrealist]

Originally Posted by gleegieboy

Skyscrapers demand the highest quality, they'll be visible for miles. They are expensive to build anyway so the budget ought be there. You shouldn't be afraid to turn down poor quality schemes, it'll only encourage other's to lower their game and soak up demand for better schemes.

If the public's hostility to all things high rise can be turned around by a Criterion Place it can be as quickly undone.

Remember once built these things will be around for evermore.

gleegieboy: having enjoyed your - many - contributions on the glasGOw forum, I have to say you are absolutely right here. The built environment tends to stick around for a very long time, and while economic pressures can dictate the quality of finishes on buildings, once we are talking about skyscrapers of 30+ floors, then their impact is much greater.

It's all very well getting excited about yet another 30+ proposal, but unless they can be demonstrated to be contributing something worthwhile to the building landscape then the planners ought not to be afraid to take a pause.

An argument can be put forward that simply states ANY replacement for the current Monksbridge Forge site will be an improvement, and it would be tempting for planners to see ANY economic investment as a good thing - yes and no I guess.

Or perhaps Leeds is not sufficiently confident in itself to insist proposals are of a very high quality?

Interestingly, the proposal for Warehouse Hill (see here for the Civic Trust's view http://www.leedscivictrust.org.uk/ne...ouseHillsp.htm ) has been rejected a number of times due to planners being unhappy with the design and particularly it's height and density. But as mentioned in the article, if the council sold the land to developers with known building parameters and yet did not make clear what the parameters were before the developers purchased the land, then it's no wonder the final scheme is at odds with it's surroundings - the developers are ALWAYS in the business of making a return on their investment (see Freedom Tower, NYC debate as the largest and most public example of money vs emotion).

The question is: how do we as a city ensure that the economic drivers and emotional aesthetics come together for an outcome that satifies both?

[heavymetalmayhem]

Originally Posted by heavymetalmayhem

Noticed today the brickwork around the base of West Central, the curving in and out looks good- smooth!

Having now seen this in daylight it does create rather an inactive frontage and may be a bit bleak once scaffolding and hoardings are removed have to wait and see

[heavymetalmayhem]

Accross the road, yet another crane on its way!

[Leodis]

Originally Posted by magicrealist

Or perhaps Leeds is not sufficiently confident in itself to insist proposals are of a very high quality?..............The question is: how do we as a city ensure that the economic drivers and emotional aesthetics come together for an outcome that satifies both?

That's a good question but I think there's an assumption we make that good quality design equals expensive build, and that assumption needs to be challenged. People often comment on here on the perceived ubiquity of terracotta, for example. The real issue, however, is the design behind the terracotta. Look at the Metropole Hotel or Quebec's Hotel to see what you can do when you use that material imaginatively. Then look at the old GRE building that stood near the station (it's now demolished, thank God). That was expensively clad in stone and it still looked bloody awful. Why? Because it was a crap design!

Nor are we necessarily talking about using the handful of nationally-known big name architects. There are plenty of practices out there which can produce interesting, original designs if they only get the chance. Cuthbert Brodrick was completely unknown when he designed the Town Hall, and look what a showstopper that building is. I think the real issue is the one you highlight, that the city planners need the confidence to insist on a high quality of design, and be prepared to hold out for what the city needs. If some development proposals go belly up, so what? Someone else will come along with another set of plans.

I remember the Norman Foster plans for the site off Sovereign Street. They were OK, I suppose, but nothing special and the plans fell through. What do we have for the same site now? Criterion Place! Enough said.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by jimbo

Rob - bit of a cheeky request but wonder if you could post Mike68s city image from the Monksbridge Forge thread on the 1st page of the building list as it gives a great impression of how everything will fit.

Done. ( assuming Mike68 doesn't mind )

[Rob]

Originally Posted by heavymetalmayhem

Accross the road, yet another crane on its way!

Had a look at this site this morning, and the steel beams are visible, with more steel columns being installed. With it being at such an advanced stage now, I assume the crane will go up this weekend (weather permitting).

[Leeds No.1]

Whats this crane for?

[Rob]

For this -

(Found a bigger picture)

The start of which is visible growing out the hole in the photo.

[daveylad2]

It's a nice building that, I wasn't sure what development that was either, so cheers.

[gleegie]

I like to keep up to date with all the UK cities, just rarely post.

Re: the quality issue. It's a tough call, there's always going to be that temptation for developers to maximise profit but, equally, call their bluff and you could be left with wasteground.

I know its difficult to quantify "good architecture" and that the best architecture tends to split opinion but quality materials and finish are more likely found dressing good architecture

I think the key is consistency, if developments making use of stone and glass, developments which were defiantly "modern", "contemporary" NOT pastiche, could be "fast tracked" or even just looked at in a more favourable light, the incentive would be there to raise standards. I know it sounds absurd but at present planning applications seem determined primarily by height and/or the level of nimbyism. How many top class schemes have you seen cancelled because they're "too tall" or toned down because they "don't fit in"? How many banal schemes have slipped through the net because they were so dull noone could be bothered to complain?

I know that's what happens in Glasgow. Elphinstone Place despite being an irrefutably quality building was subjected to years of in depth criticism and delay and in principle that might even be fine, until you see dross like "Mizu" (which I'm too embarassed to even show you) creeping through the back door. Equally the RFACFS (our local heritage body), seem to draw great delight savaging everything and anything by gm+ad (our foremost architectural practice). The Sentinel office block at 10 floors was deemed too tall for Glasgow's CBD. It was recommended for refusal despite utilising the latest LED technology to allow it to "glow" and alter colour chameleon like AND it was built using the finest quality glass and stone! Then on the other side of the coin we have disasters like Jury's Inn, which I understand is as bad as your own, squatting like some terracotta turd on the Clyde waterfront, nobody seemed capable of stopping it.

It would be nice to see Carey Jones or some other local practice on here though, for most practices I'm guessing their sole experience of the public is restricted to obstinate, intransigent old fools. Though from personal experience I note most architects don't take too kindly to criticism! I know none of us are architecturally qualified but I'd like to think we don't need seven years study to recognise a stinker!

[Talisker]

I completely echo you concerns gleegie, and the problem is overly apparent in newcastle (I have sent letters raising the issue with local planers and councillors). Buildings must be considered on their individual merit, not on arbitrary rules governing height. Thank god that philosophy hasn't been applied in the past, lest we wouldn't have st.pauls, the eifil tower, or even the tyne bridge,

Leeds is enjoying the benefits of not having a beautiful natural setting and having plenty of areas ripe for development that aren't close to historic old buildings. The NIMBYs just don't get a look-in in leeds and the city is booming as a result.

[magicrealist]

Originally Posted by gleegieboy

...Then on the other side of the coin we have disasters like Jury's Inn, which I understand is as bad as your own, squatting like some terracotta turd on the Clyde waterfront, nobody seemed capable of stopping it.

Class gleegie man, class.

Unfortunately, this is what it looks like:





Terracotta, mustard brick and banana-milkshake-yellow render - Jury's yet again adopts the mantra: every expense spared.