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

[Erebus555]

Originally Posted by djay

dental hospital is within a conservation area isn't it?

I think, but so is this. They're both pretty peripheral, and I'd expect the council with the dental hospital site to be a bit more lenient given that its a gateway site, and isn't exactly surrounded by stunning old architecture.

[djay]

Originally Posted by morestoreysplease

because he has an inconsistency that flows through this forum which involves demolishing perfectly decent functioning buildings instead of filling in the long-standing gaps / a fascinating and weird liking to a hideous idea for the coach station.....I could go on.

you are talking rubbish now! i believe you are older than me and thus more experienced than me and there for should realise that sites which are not developed and have been for a long period of time are like that because there is not the demand in that area. When there is demand (snowhill) it will be developed. I ask you to name me a site which has demand and is not developed in Birmingham city centre.

Originally Posted by Erebus555

I think, but so is this. They're both pretty peripheral, and I'd expect the council with the dental hospital site to be a bit more lenient given that its a gateway site, and isn't exactly surrounded by stunning old architecture.

to be quite honest the idea of gateways i think it slightly miss understood. for example, Joseph Chamberlain college is on a gateway but that is not tall, yet it announces a city centre. Hence why i believe the idea that a tall building on a gateway is a fallacy

[Erebus555]

Originally Posted by djay

to be quite honest the idea of gateways i think it slightly miss understood. for example, Joseph Chamberlain college is on a gateway but that is not tall, yet it announces a city centre. Hence why i believe the idea that a tall building on a gateway is a fallacy

True and views could differ very much - I mean we could get into pedantics as I think that the Joseph Chamberlain Circus site is not as much of a gateway site as the Dental Hospital. One's on the sandstone ridge, one isn't, etc etc.. I just think a tower is much more justifiable on the Dental Hospital site than in many other places in the city centre, and it could be more likely that it'll be more in the developer's interests to propose a tower. But only time will tell (and there's a lot of that to pass before we see what gets proposed on that site...).

[Erebus555]

Sorry for steering off topic! Anyway, I did a quick mockup to try and get my ideas across better. I didn't realise I was on an evaluation copy of Sketchup so I didn't have a lot of time to knock up a design I really wanted or could change as I went along.

Basically, two towers. Slimmer. Same sort of cladding system (the Manchester proposal and 1 Snowhill have got me liking slate a lot - maybe that for the cores?). I started messing about with the boxes, thinking about how to make them a little more attractive and break up my design a bit more as it was just two boxes essentially. The main elements of the function are still retained - including the roof terrace.

Not expecting you to like it (in fact I'm expecting a few lols more than anything) but you get the gist of what I was trying to explain a few days ago.

[morestoreysplease]

Originally Posted by djay

you are talking rubbish now! i believe you are older than me and thus more experienced than me and there for should realise that sites which are not developed and have been for a long period of time are like that because there is not the demand in that area. When there is demand (snowhill) it will be developed. I ask you to name me a site which has demand and is not developed in Birmingham city centre.

I agree but sites like Gt Charles St, Gun Quarter opp Lancaster, Suffolk St Q, Hill St / Severn St are all veeeeerrrrrrryyyyyy old plots! The Lancaster and Gt Charles sites have had lots of interest and I just happen to remember Erebus preferring them to rot for another long time because he didn't like the proposals. I'm sorry but all cities have good and bad blocks but the ideas for the above plots IMO have all been decent designs; I just want the city to be filled in because (as you say) I am older than you and am sick and tired of seeing the same old gaps year after year....
My point of Erebus' wanton demolition of decent blocks (Waterloo St, Gt Charles St etc) just makes me cringe because it's typical Birmingham - meaning to knock down and to never be finished.

[sefton66]

Djay what Bout eastside? That's in demand from hs2 but not developed

[Erebus555]

Originally Posted by morestoreysplease

I agree but sites like Gt Charles St, Gun Quarter opp Lancaster, Suffolk St Q, Hill St / Severn St are all veeeeerrrrrrryyyyyy old plots! The Lancaster and Gt Charles sites have had lots of interest and I just happen to remember Erebus preferring them to rot for another long time because he didn't like the proposals. I'm sorry but all cities have good and bad blocks but the ideas for the above plots IMO have all been decent designs; I just want the city to be filled in because (as you say) I am older than you and am sick and tired of seeing the same old gaps year after year....
My point of Erebus' wanton demolition of decent blocks (Waterloo St, Gt Charles St etc) just makes me cringe because it's typical Birmingham - meaning to knock down and to never be finished.

Aha, I remember where this stems from now. I was of the opinion that the proposals for those sites were poor. Lancaster Gateway exhibited all the hall marks of another Orion, to me, and the Great Charles Street scheme did nothing for the area around it. I would much rather wait for a high quality scheme to come along than throw up something sub-standard there simply because it fills in the space. I'm not talking landmark architecture, just high quality architecture.

And the other Gt Charles Street one you talk of seems to have led to a misunderstanding. I remember you seemed ticked off that the council appeared to let a landowner look at ways of developing the site rather than the car park down the road, and I tried to explain the council had no power or say in whether a landowner can own a certain site (unless they were buying from council). I don't actively wish for that site to be cleared at all.

[GrAfiK_248]

@erebuss, i much prefer sticking with the right tower alone and the larger tower you have in your image a low to mid rise. however, we are unsure as to how many rooms are asked for in this proposal.

buts hats off to you for the tower on the right! its simple things like that! by decreasing the size of each of the boxes as they ascend just adds a little design initiative - much more softer and attractive to the eye take note K4 http://twitter.com/#!/k4architects btw, you got access to digimap i see!

[mikey23]

Originally Posted by joshwebb

Why? Because I'm eager for birmingham to stand out more n become more of a skyscraper city. I like talls, is that so wrong?

I can only echo what Djay and Erebus both said. The poor reputation of Birmingham today can be traced back to the poor architecture and planning decisions made in the 1960s, a period which saw a significant number of high rise buildings constructed with little consideration given to design. The commonly held view that Birmingham as a place has nothing of architectural merit will not be changed by chucking up as many 100 metre plus towers as possible, but by introducing standards of design which are, in the very least, aiming higher than a 'we should be grateful we're getting a tall building, that's all that matters' mentality. As a member of such a forum as this, it's safe to say I have an interest in skyscrapers. That said, if you built the world's tallest building which looked rubbish, the height would not come into it - it would look rubbish; good design should always trump a buildings height.

Similarly, I don't think there is anyone on this forum who doesn't want Birmingham to stand out. Given the opportunity I expound in great detail why Birmingham is a great place to all those who'll listen. But I want Birmingham to stand out for good reasons, not because we've got a couple of half-arsed designed towers.

Originally Posted by Walsh

Its tough to not be drawn towards height no matter what the quality. Especially when we look at major cities around the world which have world class skylines built up of mostly the equivalent in our tower blocks. Hong kong, new york to name a couple. There are so many major skylines that are built up with the shitest pieces of contruction but are very successful. Obviously these places are also riddled with world class buildings.

The issue here is however Birmingham will never be comparable to New York et al in terms of building density, so the talls we do build will stand out far more, and for far longer.

[woodhousen]

haha erebuss, going off topic to discuss a sketchup model... now that is my favourite type of distraction... ;o)

however, that said, i personally do not see a benefit of having two towers instead of one, and in form you propose it, i dont appreciate what the benefit would be from between having one or two towers.... there is still a broad effect, there is still likely wind and other environmental impacts..... and im sorry, but it wont happen, as two have two towers would mean two cores, a huge additional expense!!!

i do like sket up though :O)

[Erebus555]

Originally Posted by woodhousen

haha erebuss, going off topic to discuss a sketchup model... now that is my favourite type of distraction... ;o)

however, that said, i personally do not see a benefit of having two towers instead of one, and in form you propose it, i dont appreciate what the benefit would be from between having one or two towers.... there is still a broad effect, there is still likely wind and other environmental impacts..... and im sorry, but it wont happen, as two have two towers would mean two cores, a huge additional expense!!!

i do like sket up though :O)

I know you do like Sketchup.

The plan was to really break up the broad effect when viewed from Corporation Street and, less so, from a distance. However when coming up to Lancaster Flyover from the Expressway, the two would appear to merge into one - I quite liked the look of the one sleek tower from that angle.

And I'm aware of the expense of having 2 cores instead of one but it's alright to dream a bit...

[Walsh]

erebus your sketch up model is exactly how i was going to re model it.
i thought exactly the same to keep the higher tower with the main stairwell feature and spire. Taking off the cantilever boxes for a more slimmer appeal leaving the lover tower with one side of the boxes.

agreed

[Walsh]

i would have twisted the one tower too so the smaller face on at the side elevation of the taller

[Erebus555]

Originally Posted by Walsh

erebus your sketch up model is exactly how i was going to re model it.
i thought exactly the same to keep the higher tower with the main stairwell feature and spire. Taking off the cantilever boxes for a more slimmer appeal leaving the lover tower with one side of the boxes.

agreed

I was going to add the cantilevered boxes to the taller tower to see how it looked but the software failed.

Originally Posted by Walsh

i would have twisted the one tower too so the smaller face on at the side elevation of the taller

If I understand you correctly, I thought of a similar thing last night. Something like Broadcasting Place in Leeds where the top half sort of fractures from the bottom.


I think my aim is just boiling down to wanting a much more pleasing view from Old Square and a bit more of a complimentary impact on the skyline. As far as the cladding goes, I have no problem with it - mainly because I can't work out what its going to look like. It looks bluey grey on the renders but it looks earthy in the planning app...

[djay]

Originally Posted by sefton66

Djay what Bout eastside? That's in demand from hs2 but not developed

lol eastside started off so good, then they built masshouse, then they downgraded the park (biggest mistake as it told every developer they could downgrade their buildings if they had an excuse), built a business park building for a school, built one shameful student halls and a fantastic one and now we are getting an etap hotel and a field for the next 30 years...

Originally Posted by morestoreysplease

I agree but sites like Gt Charles St, Gun Quarter opp Lancaster, Suffolk St Q, Hill St / Severn St are all veeeeerrrrrrryyyyyy old plots! The Lancaster and Gt Charles sites have had lots of interest and I just happen to remember Erebus preferring them to rot for another long time because he didn't like the proposals. I'm sorry but all cities have good and bad blocks but the ideas for the above plots IMO have all been decent designs; I just want the city to be filled in because (as you say) I am older than you and am sick and tired of seeing the same old gaps year after year....
My point of Erebus' wanton demolition of decent blocks (Waterloo St, Gt Charles St etc) just makes me cringe because it's typical Birmingham - meaning to knock down and to never be finished.

I dont agree with just filling sites for the sake of filling a site, when you do that you get hagley road morrisons. All i ask is good quality architecture, urban design and place making. I am yet to see any proposal in birmingham which i can say offers this IMO. Having lived in manchester i feel like new proposals there overwhelmingly offer a sense of place, here in this city they dont even do that... they are little more than commercial sheds. Those that do have rubbish urban design and public realm, or poor quality architecture. It is as if we have a masterplan and collaboratively decide to disregard it and build whatever as long as the sums add up.

[rafter1]

I do like this building, design and height, and I particularly like the look of the roof garden. I think that this building, judging by the general reliability of construction of student accomodation, has a good chance of going ahead, and according to the Birmingham Mail this is set for completion in 2013, so, construction needs to start in the near future.

[Brum X]

Some stuff going up in Manchester is also shite to be honest, like there 107 metre student tower, looks like a grubby tower even before its built. And half of media city will look sooo outdated in 20 years time.
Everything cant be perfect you know.

[Brum X]

Some people on this forum expect every thing in this city to be 10/10 perfect every time and im afraid that will never happen, In Birmingham, In Manchester and nor in London.

[Brum X]

However its getting people talking and thats GOOD

[djay]

Originally Posted by Brum X

Some stuff going up in Manchester is also shite to be honest, like there 107 metre student tower, looks like a grubby tower even before its built. And half of media city will look sooo outdated in 20 years time.
Everything cant be perfect you know.

yes i acknowledge this too, but that does not mean we shouldn't be looking to build better in Birmingham. I actually don't have to much of a problem with media city, you need to visit it to see how good it actually is even if the buildings will date the overall area is near Brindley place quality same with spinning fields