SkyscraperCity Forum banner

V Tower/Arena Central | Canc.

95K views 693 replies 88 participants last post by  woodhousen 
#1 ·
Is it about time the Council started to sort this mess out...

Now that New Street and the Library are being renovated/demolished, surely this is the largest blot on the landscape in the city centre.

Broad Street is on it's last legs, Brindley Place is still surviving but as an island amid the drabness and run down properties along that route, even the ICC and NIA are looking tired and grey.

http://www.civicarts.com/the-v-building.php

Also with the revised height limit for Regal of 200 metres, surely any prospective developer could now look at building higher than the 187 metre limit. People may argue that the failings of buildings such as Beetham have contributed to a perceived lack of interest from the public in high rise living, but when I viewed an apartment in Beetham there was no parking with it, and the apartments were tiny.

Come on BCC get this embarrassment sorted!
 
#166 ·
'Soon' in the article.. the Lumina article also alluded to something imminent and we have got nothing as yet.

Very interesting that there is movement for AC/V though, I await the app!

PS. A change in height from Alpha would be nice, pleasing on the eye. Around the 120-130m mark should achieve this.
 
#171 · (Edited)
I know it's easy to sit back here and say this however...

Anything less than was proposed with V-Tower will be a disgrace.

A great deal of time, money and thought went into the V concept, and this after several scale downs.

The people of Birmingham deserve a landmark iconic skyscraper in such a prime location, afterall, we are the second largest city in Britain.

We no longer have Regal at any substantial height, nor Colmore skyscraper. I honestly do not trust any future developer or 'rumour' of watch this space for a new tower elsewhere etc how many times have we heard this and it has been a way to simply create interest in a prime location (I also very much doubt Boerma Tower will happen at the original design and height).

If the developer and the council cannot push through a 150+ tower here after all that has gone before then it is most unlikely we will ever see this in the city during our life times and that I think is a great pity.

Whatever happened to the High Places document, and plans to create an attractive skyline to match Birmingham's ambitions on a global scale. At the very least the height should be maintained and the observation deck, and indeed the entire conept of this tower was to bring something to the people of Birmingham, all inclusive similar to the library, a meeting place and so on. Really not inspired by recent scaled back comments.

The Cube top floor, has obviously been run disastrously with MPW having scathing reviews from the very start and I can't see it improving till the awful concession has left the city.. yet everytime I visit it is either packed, or busy and people are prepared to pay extortionate prices just to enjoy the views (myself included). If a dog's ear of a place can remain this busy you have to ask yourself why? Because people want to eat and drink and look out over the city in a unique surrounding. The hotel always seems popular from people I speak with and the apartments seem popular too, so, surely this must be something any future developer of Arena Central would look at when considering a return.
 
#174 ·
Or... we have a developer building with confidence and ambition in a prime CBD location. The economy is on the up (apparently), housing market is rising again (apparently), Birmingham needs office space, the Cube is an example of how successful this could be as a mixed use scheme.

Birmingham is now a very popular tourist destination with a food scene to rival that of London and it's in the council's interest to create an iconic tall building as has been the case since 1998. Otherwise we may as well have had some mid rise structure built ten years ago.

I'd rather see the rest of the AC development rise to a high standard and this plot wait another 15 years (it's going to take years to build the other aspects anyway) if it means the city gets a skyscraper one day, because as I say, can't see it happening anywhere else in the city and there's plenty more mid rise construction going on to keep the city centre an exciting place to bring business to.
 
#188 ·
Yes, that was really sad, but then the original drawings were just an artists impression, the V-Tower was a fully designed skyscraper by a well respected architect. Which is why it's such a shame to be wasted. Anyway, we can argue the point whether this should be built or a mid rise apartment block but I'd rather put more effort into seeing what can be done in a positive way. Will find out the details who to write to for those that are interested. :)
 
#193 ·
Birmingham's 'up to date' development plan is in the final stages just to add so the council and planning has in mind pretty clearly what it expects and what it hopes to achieve. This has been the case for many years in fact.

I'm really struggling to see why people are jumping on Dandara's back. They have hardly developed anywhere outside the North West since the crash and now they are looking at developing a multi million pound development again in central Birmingham.

The original proposal was for 700 units and a fat 152m tower

Who knows. Maybe downsize they mean the tower will have 500 units, thinner and a 151m tower. Smaller but would that 1m still bother you>??

What if the new tower is 130m but of better design than any other proposal outside London?? Would you be moaning then still?? :dunno:

Why don't we just wait and see. Think that's best.
 
#194 ·
Birmingham's 'up to date' development plan is in the final stages just to add so the council and planning has in mind pretty clearly what it expects and what it hopes to achieve. This has been the case for many years in fact.
Limited weight is attached to a plan that has not been examined. More weight is attributed to the NPPF in the planning balance in such cases. The fact that the plan has been in its final stages for many years is one of the reasons why limited weight is attached to a development plan which has not yet been though Examination in Public. That's not to say the Council do not know what it expects and hopes to achieve, it's just that these hopes and expectations will be challenged at appeal if a developer does not want to meet them if there are no adopted policies to back them up.
 
#196 · (Edited)
I was stating the planning policy situation of Birmingham City Council find themselves, adding that they do not have an adopted policy to refuse application for housing outside of the limited reasons in the NPPF to the statement Woody made which was correct...

My initial point was simply that due to the Council not having an adopted development plan (the UDP being adopted in 2005/6 and being 5 years old, thus considered out of date), the Council has very limited power to refuse applications for housing due to the provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework. That was all.

Your comment of "Birmingham's 'up to date' development plan is in the final stages just to add so the council and planning has in mind pretty clearly what it expects and what it hopes to achieve." I agreed with, but was making it clear that the plan has not been Examined in Public (which is when a planning inspector reviews the plan for soundness and not when the public is consulted on the document as stated in the last paragraph on this page http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/plan2031) and so the weight attached to the new policy in the Birmingham Development Plan is limited.

My point was thus, even if the Council and developers know what is expected, developers do not have to adhere to it until there is an adopted plan or substantial weight can be attached to it. This is usually after Examination in Public as the plan is adopted subject to the recommendation of the Inspector unless the plan has been thrown out.

If the Council try to force a developer to do anything outside of the NPPF without an adopted and upto date development plan, the developer can (and most likely will) appeal a decision. Additionally this could lead to the Council having to pay the costs of the appeal (sometimes in the region of 50-100K for a hearing or inquiry).

These are the planning facts. Not my opinion may i add.
 
#197 ·
The question posed still remains. Apart from all the speil which the majority of us already know. What was the point of half of the stuff you have just written?

Woody was indeed correct in the first instance? It seems as if all this was because you want us to know that you know your shit.

Birmingham's DP is still adhered to. The developers who own these sites will work collaboratively with the council to get what BCC want, however they will not build anything that is not beneficial to them as well.

That is all this is. I don't think anybody needed to bogged down with all that especially as it seems you were trying to use every big word in the English dictionary. It hurt my eyes and my head.
 
#198 ·
That is all this is. I don't think anybody needed to bogged down with all that especially as it seems you were trying to use every big word in the English dictionary. It hurt my eyes and my head.
Well I thought it was interesting. It's nice to have some contributions from people who actually know what they're talking about, especially when it comes to planning (which can come across as something of a dark art).
 
#199 · (Edited)
Birmingham, I have no idea what your issue is but you seem to have one regarding me.

My first comment quoting woody included 1 factual line, the rest was my experience as a Chartered Planner in similar situations. I only added this to inform people who may not know that the planning policy in this case is the National Planning Policy Framework because the Council do not have an up to plan. And as such developers are under no obligation to adhere to much of what is in the current out of date plan.

If I was not a planner I would have assumed the Policies in the 2005 Unitary Development Plan would be enough for the Council to refuse the development which at the current time it is not.

If individuals did not understand the point I was making, I will in future try to make it much easier to follow. If anyone disagrees with what I have written or the manner in which i have written it please PM me so I understand for next time. I was in no way showing off, i was just attempting to provide a different perspective from within the industry.

Daumal i appreciate that you found it interesting.
 
#202 ·
dear lord this conversation has spirrelled out of control a little bit...

BCC, Miller and Dandara have already invested a great deal into ensuring we get an iconic structure here which will benefit the whole city, so really, I'm questioning why you would be so against having something iconic and as regal as what was last planned? There are plenty of locations for mid rise apartment blocks in the city Woodhousen, but here? With so much potential for a developer, BCC and the city's image? Slightly puzzled.
when have i ever said i am against a tall building here? i would love an amazing skyscraper here, im just simply questioning your stance that birmingham "deserves" a tall building her and that the council should do everything in its power (financial or otherwise) to make sure of that...

at the end of the day, if there is a market, if it is viable, if it is realistic, it will happen! As other have pointed out, unless BCC have a controlling stake in the site, the only power of influence the council have is what is built in the city is the planning system, and in todays planning environment, BCC dont even have that much clout wither...

facts..

- the High Places SPD is outdates and carries little to no weight. it is not enforcable in the current plannign system

- the birmingham local plan is not yet of a stage to bet adopted and as such only the NPPF (national planning policy) can be used to determine planning applications

- dandara are a private company capable of doing what ever they like with their land so long as in line with national planning policy

- BCC as a local body can not assist or involve themselves financially or otherwise in the the redevelopment of a private site outside of their control beyond the planning system, it would be illegal to do so.

at the end of the day, dandara are free to do what they wish, and until the planning system changes, there is nothing we can do about it. yes BCC can ingage in pre-application meetings with the developer and give them advice and to push the boundaries 9which i have no dout the council are doing) but if dandara want to take no notice of what BCC say and are happy their proposal conforms to national planning policy, there is nothing stopping dandara doing what they wish!
 
#203 ·
- BCC as a local body can not assist or involve themselves financially or otherwise in the the redevelopment of a private site outside of their control beyond the planning system, it would be illegal to do so.
I am surprised to hear this. So it would be illegal for BCC to say to Dandara.. "we really like what you're planning but as an important location in the city and with view of how much work we have done in the past on allowing a skyscraper to be built here, can we invest x amount into this project to take an additional x amount of floors at the top to include a viewing platform and skybar and share the returns, or even offer an incentive if you build to the original specs of V-Tower"? Could they not insist on a certain aspect such as height, surely if they can call in other building designs on appearance they can do the same here? Or have I been reading the forums wrong all these years. I'm not in planning so I honestly don't know, but what I do know is other cities such as Liverpool and Manchester have acquired skyscrapers above 150metres. The economy and housing market is on the up so surely a good time to make hey while the sun shines.
 
#208 ·
Tony, the circumstances are very specific for which the Council can get financially involved. The only circumstance that the loan has been used for is Edgbaston. But just because these things are on offer doesn't mean they can get the developer to do what they want. Even if a loan was offered that wouldn't aid the viability of the development and the Council couldn't dictate the development. Just like a Mortgage from the bank does not allow them to dictate what colour you decorate.

In this situation, it wouldn't be good for the Council to get financially involved (which i don't think they can anyway) in this scheme when they owe loads in relation to equal pay. The only incentives available are the ones from the LEP i think.
 
#213 ·
I see, let's say BCC loaned Dandara ten million quid and in the conditions of the load they said, you must increase the tower aspect of V Tower from 35 floors to 50 and include a viewing platform as we think it will increase the potential for return on the building and we will guarantee to rent the top five floors, and let's say Dandara agreed and signed. Would that be possible? Obviously this is totally hypothetical, just interesting to tap into your knowledge while you're here.
 
#209 ·
Can you imagine the scandal and press coverage if BCC were to fund what is essentially a private development in the hope that it might make them a profit five years down the line. Gambling with horrendously stretched public funds when even the banks aren't prepared to loan the cash? It would be political suicide.
 
#210 ·
I have enjoyed reading the exchanges from the past page and a half, but quite puzzled as to the personal references, hopefully it was a one off.

As a private venture, AC can hopefully now be financially viable as the economy improves, as I have stated before I only wish that a solid announcement on the plans for V Tower or its replacement is forthcoming. As a few have already said, this tower was a statement and the costs in getting it to the stages above must have been substantial.
 
#214 ·
If I remember correctly the original 245m (including the spire) tower plan was agreed by BCC and seemed to be settled when John Prescott called in the plans.
It appeared that Prescott didn't like the idea of a tower in Birmingham which would be the tallest in England.
He had it scaled back to 187m but the delay he'd caused was fatal.

I vaguely remember he did a similar thing with the Beetham Tower which he again had scaled back as too tall but was happy with Manchester's Beetham which was then taller than Brum's. :eek:hno:
 
#217 · (Edited)
I really like this tower. Birmingham really needs to raise its game. I know its all about costs but as Englands second city it needs an appropriate skyline to aspire to. As it stands Croydon is more impressive!
There are some good public buildings in Birmingham, neo classical and gothic revival, but nothing like Liverpool or Manchester.
I looked up the skyline of Birmingham online a while ago and thought actually that aint bad! Turned out it was a photo of Birmingham Alabama.
Im optimistic though with the new rail link etc.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top