Birmingham Central Fire Station redevelopment | Lancaster Circus | 29fl | 107.5m | Prop.

[sefton66]

Originally Posted by GrAfiK_248

this goes back to the committee again this thursday.

huh? I thought it had been rejected?

[GrAfiK_248]

Originally Posted by sefton66

huh? I thought it had been rejected?

Nope, it got deferred - don't read the Birmingham Mail.

They didn't make it fully clear at the meeting, but the planning officer now makes new report to recommend rejection.

I still don't fully understand the procedures

[mikey23]

Originally Posted by U475 Foxtrot

Obviously I'm being flippant but if the building is going to sit vacant for 5, 10 or whatever many years and can be replaced with a better building that's actually required and improves the public realm then I see no reason why it shouldn't at least be considered.

Originally Posted by woodhousen

but as you say, none of them were statutory listed and for a reason, especially with regard to island house and the library which english heritage have actively said they are not worth listing... consequently, when english heritage have said the fire station is worth of listing, you cant compare the two in the slightest...

fire station - is of local, regional and national architectural or historic significance

library, island house, hagley road properties - they may be old and they may be pretty (though one isnt) but they represent no architecture or historic qualities which make them worth listing!

this is simple!

Just to throw a few bits into the mix and play devils advocate for a moment - With regards Foxtrots point, eighteen months ago it looked highly unlikely the Grand Hotel would find a use/tenant, instead it being destined to rot, as it had done in the ten years prior to that. Would a proposal have been welcomed which provided the city with a new build, five star hotel on the Grand site? I readily admit there are significant differences between the Grand Hotel and the Fire Station, but I think the point I make is one worth considering.

With regards the points made by Woody, I think you put too much emphasis on nationally listed buildings and dismiss those which are locally listed. Again using the Grand Hotel as an example, it was only nationally listed in 2004, which is very recent when you consider the development history of Birmingham. Had it been demolished in the early 2000s would the argument, 'oh it's only locally listed so not really worth anything,' have stood up? I think not. You obviously don't think in such black and white terms, but I think it's important to make the point that the listing system, both locally and nationally, is complex, and because something is not nationally listed shouldn't mean it is without merit or worth.

A final point, you mention English Heritage actively suggest that selection of buildings aren't worth listing - they do however recommend the Library, believing it should be GII; DCMS are the ones to refuse its listing. See http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/a...ngham-library/

[woodhousen]

Originally Posted by mikey23

With regards the points made by Woody, I think you put too much emphasis on nationally listed buildings and dismiss those which are locally listed. Again using the Grand Hotel as an example, it was only nationally listed in 2004, which is very recent when you consider the development history of Birmingham. Had it been demolished in the early 2000s would the argument, 'oh it's only locally listed so not really worth anything,' have stood up? I think not. You obviously don't think in such black and white terms, but I think it's important to make the point that the listing system, both locally and nationally, is complex, and because something is not nationally listed shouldn't mean it is without merit or worth.

I think this point is moot to say the least. it isnt as if EH visit every city and list building they feel worthy, they only list building once an application has been put forward to list it... something which often occurs around the same tie that people suggest it be demolished or redevelopment.

It is therefor no surprise that the Grand was listed in 2004 as this was about the same sort of time that discussion started about possibly demolishing it...

i also never stated that if it isnt listed therefore it doesnt have merit, but what im stated is that if a building is listed then it DOES have merit of national importance... yes other building may have such merit too but have not been listed/protected because there has been no need to, but consequently you cant compare a listed building and a non listed building and treat them the same!

[Spread]

There is an article in BP today suggesting that this might become a budget hotel or a museum. However upon reading the article it appears this is complete rubbish as it turns out it is Aston University and one of the heritage bodies who are suggesting that this might be the best use for the site.

Presumably they will also be organising a whip round to bridge the enormous gap between what Watkins Jones paid for the site and the value produced by either of these alternative schemes?

I would love it if the BCC hadn't been stupid enough to suggest that a tall building would be suitable for this site. Without this Aston would probably have brought it and we wouldn't be in this mess now.

My guess is that we will get a better but still very substantial tower (hopefully taller and thinner) and that the chances of a museum are around zero (unless as an ancillary use).

[Spread]

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/w...medium=twitter

Bob Ghosh on Twitter: "Great idea, why didn't we think of it... publicly funded?"

[woodhousen]

i hate it when people make stories which they have no involvement or influence over.

its all very good that aston university and civic trust (neither of which have any statutory influence of power over the future use of the site) come up with some delightful ideas for the site which they then moot to the media who then lap i up and parcel it as a statement of fact!

i wonder what aston univerisity's response would be if Watkin jones had an article printed in the BP suggesting the university be turned into an urban zoo?!?!

and anyway.... all the proposed uses (other than the logical but currently unviable mixed use development) are totally unrealistic for the site. who would want to stay in a boutique hotel which has a flyover towering over it and is in somewhat of an isolated and currently unpleasant environment, and then secondly, a transport museum... this would be a little but more realistic if there was ever going to be any money made from the scheme... the cost associated with converting such a building for a use would be huge, but how would you pay it back?

am in still not convinced this is poor location for a tower. Yes this site was originally mooted for a tower during the clive 'i love towers' Dutton days, but i still think he was bank on the money. unless this adjacent flyover is to be flattened, this lovely historic building will never be given the priminance it diserves without some form of development which increases the sites presence is of a scale which can dmonate over the flyover...

The building is indeed listed and should be protected as such, but its setting certainly isnt listed and with a 1960's flyover bounding one side and relatively cheap looking student towers dominating the other, i really dont see how another tower (so long as it is of a suitable quality) cant be the appropriate form of development on the site.

does anyone want to right a letter to the BP to draw attention to the fact aston university are doing nothing productive with this story?

[Spread]

I wasn't actually saying I object to a tower on the site, rather that BCC should never have suggested it was appropriate when their planners are now saying that the principle of a tower no matter how good is unacceptable.

[woodhousen]

no the planners arent saying that, the planners and planning officer reccomended this application be approved... it is the planning committee, an elected body of councillors who know nothing about planning that keep refusing it!

[Spread]

To add insult to injury if Watkin's appeal it will be the very officers who recommended approval who would have to fight the case and justify the decision to refuse!

[sefton66]

Aston uni have set up an email for people to suggest options for the site, I wonder if they'd publish the number of comments supporting student accommodation here?

[woodhousen]

well i dont really know how that concept works to be honest... i think it totally demends on the type of hearing... if its just written representations, then maybe only the applicant needs to imput in the scheme... the council perspective of this would already be documented through minutes and reports...

but if it were to be a hearing, then i have no idea how this would work.

however, as a general rule of thumb, applications which go against officer reccomendations often win on appeal unless there has been major objections against it.. i dont know where this project would fit into this spectrum!

[sefton66]

Here's the article spread was talking of

New hopes for future of Birmingham Central Fire Station
By Jon GriffinMay 24 2012

BIRMINGHAM’S disused Central Fire Station could be brought back to life as a transport museum or luxury hotel after controversial plans for a 23-storey skyscraper were rejected.

Bupa: 2012's Best Health Insurer - Get a Quote
A new range of alternative proposals for the listed site at Lancaster Circus have been mooted following a study by Aston University, which opposed the student accommodation skyscraper.

A third set of proposals for the site, dubbed the ‘Tombstone’ by opponents, were thrown out by city councillors last week despite a six-storey reduction in height by developers Watkin Jones.

Both Aston University and Birmingham Civic Society said ‘potential better uses’ should now be found for the prime city centre building, which has been empty for more than five years.

A public survey by the university produced a range of ideas for the site, including a mixed use development of flats, retail and heritage, transport museum with a glass roof or a boutique hotel.

Aston University Vice-Chancellor Prof Julia King said: “We are very grateful that our elected councillors have stopped a bad proposal in its tracks. We hope Watkin Jones will now see sense and realise how strong the opposition to their Tombstone Tower block actually is.

“Many people have a view about what the fire station should become, and we think it is important that these views are debated and considered. That is why we are working with the Birmingham Civic Society to try and capture these ideas.

“Just email futurefirestation@aston.ac.uk and we will make sure your voice is heard as the debate continues.”

Paul Lister, chairman of Birmingham Civic Society’s planning committee, said: “We recognise that this is an important listed building that needs to find a new role, preferably with active frontages and public access to the previously private central drillyard.”

He said the skyscraper plan would impact on the area ‘in a negative way’.

Read More http://www.birminghammail.net/news/t...#ixzz1vmHEUerK

[Spread]

If this went to Appeal would most likely be as a public Inquiry given the level of public interest and the scale of the scheme. Written reps and informal hearings tend to be for smaller schemes but I am aware that PINS are pushing more appeals down the written reps and informal hearing routes due to pressures on the system.

[GrAfiK_248]

Originally Posted by Spread

when their planners are now saying that the principle of a tower no matter how good is unacceptable.

How on earth did get to that opinion!?

They actually believe the tower is not good enough and should go back to the drawing board.

[Spread]

At last week’s meeting, planning committee member Barry Henley (Lab, Brandwood) attacked the principle of placing a giant block in the middle of a listed landmark, adding: “The idea is bad, it cannot be improved upon.”



Read More http://www.birminghampost.net/news/w...#ixzz1voMUIqle

[GrAfiK_248]

Originally Posted by Spread

At last week’s meeting, planning committee member Barry Henley (Lab, Brandwood) attacked the principle of placing a giant block in the middle of a listed landmark, adding: “The idea is bad, it cannot be improved upon.”



Read More http://www.birminghampost.net/news/w...#ixzz1voMUIqle

Oh of course, he speaks for everyone! When in fact there's many other committee members that have different views.

[nigeman]

I know there's a flyover in front of it now, but who knows in 5 years there could be a plan to level it making the frontage visible again.
I am in favour of a well designed eye catching towe,(still love the original glass pyramid designed by Broadway Malayan).
That said is it too outlandish for Watkins Jones to "think outside the box" and with some thought, look at with a 4 star hotel incorporating a high glazed roof over the courtyard turned into a winter garden with bars and a restaurant.
The German hotel group mooted for the Grand, might be interested

[mikey23]

Small update on this one - the idea of a tower has now been scrapped.

[djay]

thats good as their design was rubbish, i think a tower in this location is acceptable but it would need to be seperate to the firestation, standing alone with some kind of glass link or something. no space for that though