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

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

Birmingham Metro Area For Birmingham, Wolverhampton and the West Midlands.



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 21st, 2012, 09:35 AM   #61
woodhousen
Moderator
 
woodhousen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Leeds/Birmingham, UK
Posts: 11,308
Likes (Received): 100

from all this press it doesnt seem this will be happening overnight but it is still an exciting scheme in my mind
__________________
Simply BIRMINGHAM
woodhousen no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old February 21st, 2012, 10:36 PM   #62
Sandblast
Registered User
 
Sandblast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,699
Likes (Received): 250

I can be a bit thick sometimes .... am I right in assuming that 4 additional floors will be added to the top of the 19 storey No.1 Hagley Road ... or will the top 4 floors of the existing building become penthouse floors???
Sandblast no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2012, 10:47 PM   #63
sefton66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 8,558
Likes (Received): 488

The plans are for...

MINIMUM of 1 extra floor added onto the existing tower
MAXIMUM of 4 extra floors added onto the existing tower

MINIMUM new build to be 6 floors
MAXIMUM new build to be 14 floors

sefton66 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 21st, 2012, 10:53 PM   #64
Sandblast
Registered User
 
Sandblast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,699
Likes (Received): 250

Quote:
Originally Posted by sefton66 View Post
The plans are for...

MINIMUM of 1 extra floor added onto the existing tower
MAXIMUM of 4 extra floors added onto the existing tower

MINIMUM new build to be 6 floors
MAXIMUM new build to be 14 floors

Thanks sefton ... crystal clear now
Sandblast no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2012, 12:00 PM   #65
Ecological
BANNED
 
Ecological's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,518
Likes (Received): 15

The boost in height would be welcome on the skyline.

This area's bigger buildings need to sparkle a bit to lighten it up.

image hosted on flickr
Ecological no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2012, 12:52 PM   #66
sefton66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 8,558
Likes (Received): 488

and Auchinleck House will effectively have two floors added, One whole floor for the rooftop view restaurant with a mezzanine floor at the front of the building with a rooftop skybar That should look good at night with it all being floor to ceiling glass lit up
sefton66 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2012, 07:26 PM   #67
Sandblast
Registered User
 
Sandblast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,699
Likes (Received): 250

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecological View Post
The boost in height would be welcome on the skyline.


image hosted on flickr
Yes it would Ecological ... nice picture btw
Sandblast no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2012, 01:37 PM   #68
sefton66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 8,558
Likes (Received): 488

App has now been withdrawn,

Got an email saying it had been withdrawn and another saying further public consultation so I'm guessing we will see a redesign
sefton66 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 07:09 PM   #69
sefton66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 8,558
Likes (Received): 488

Quote:
Tower block development withdrawn
by Neil Elkes, Birmingham PostApr 12 2012

A planning application to transform a 20-storey city centre tower into apartments has been put on hold after developers were told to provide more affordable homes.

Developer Henderson Global wanted to add four storeys to the 1970s Metropolitan House which overlooks Five Ways island in Edgbaston and convert the offices into 182 flats with a restaurant, bar or gym on the ground floor.

The application included a new neighbouring building of up to 14 storeys to be used as a hotel or student hall of residence, with either a restaurant bar, gym or car showroom on the ground floor.

But the city council’s planning department was set to refuse the scheme because the developer had designated only two flats as “affordable” – available at 60 per cent of the market rate.


The planning application was withdrawn but now Global Henderson is in talks with the council and could resubmit the proposals in the near future.

Council policy states that at least 13 of the two bedroom apartments should be affordable, or offset with a £943,000 donation towards housing in the vicinity. The developer was only prepared to offer £150,000, which equates to two properties.

The company also failed to provide spin-off cash to improve the Chamberlain Gardens public open space as requested.

Planning officers are also concerned that plans for the four-storey extension, which would house penthouse apartments, do not include enough detail to ensure it complies with planning policies.

Metropolitan House, also known as 1 Hagley Road, was designed by famed Birmingham Library architect John Madin in the early 1970s.

Planning official Victoria Barnett said: “Suitable planning obligations to secure a financial contribution towards the affordable housing and public open space have not been proposed as part of this scheme and, as such, the proposal fails to meet with policies.

“In addition, insufficient information has been submitted to enable a full assessment of the proposed tower extension.”

A spokeswoman for Global Henderson said: “We have withdrawn the plans, but are working with the planning department to find a way forward and expect to submit a new planning application in future.”

Read More http://www.birminghampost.net/news/w...#ixzz1rqZVbHgz
sefton66 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2012, 08:14 PM   #70
woodhousen
Moderator
 
woodhousen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Leeds/Birmingham, UK
Posts: 11,308
Likes (Received): 100

a case of watching this space for them to resubmit...
__________________
Simply BIRMINGHAM
woodhousen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 13th, 2012, 11:09 AM   #71
SuttonBluenose
All Hail Carl Chinn
 
SuttonBluenose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Pyongyang
Posts: 1,622
Likes (Received): 9

I guess the affordable statement is fair. This isn't the nicest part of town to walk around with the dodgy stuff that goes on there, so you can't expect people to pay over the odds.
__________________
"It is a well-provisioned ship, this on which we sail through space."

Henry George, Progress and Poverty (1879), Book IV Chapter II
SuttonBluenose no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2012, 12:47 PM   #72
Engels
Simples
 
Engels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 4,263
Likes (Received): 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuttonBluenose
I guess the affordable statement is fair. This isn't the nicest part of town to walk around with the dodgy stuff that goes on there, so you can't expect people to pay over the odds.
I'm not really convinced by the arguments that affordable housing in the form that BCC want it is really appropriate given the current state of the UK housing market. Housing is unaffordable because there its a shortage of supply (or an excess of demand).

That means we want to see developers build as many new properties as possible (in sustainable locations such as the city centre or near to local centres and public transport nodes). If we demand that they include subsidised housing then financially marginal schemes will not go ahead reducing the total number of homes built and simply further exacerbating the problem.

I think that the affordable homes obligation is an out dated policy that stopped making sense when the housing market ceased up. I was one of its biggest champions during the boom years as it was an effective tax on the excessive profits developers were making. Now they are not making massive profits and many have gone bust the tax is no longer justified.
__________________
You were born poor, naked and helpless. Everything in your life was given to you, the food you ate, the clothes you wore, the shelter you received. Most importantly of all you received an education.

You were given this because people loved you, because people you never knew worked to feed you and long before you were born people died to protect you and to give you the opportunities they never had.

Life doesn't owe you anything! YOU owe life!
Engels no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2012, 10:02 PM   #73
howester89
Registered User
 
howester89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Birmingham/Gloucestershire
Posts: 83
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Engels View Post
I'm not really convinced by the arguments that affordable housing in the form that BCC want it is really appropriate given the current state of the UK housing market. Housing is unaffordable because there its a shortage of supply (or an excess of demand).

That means we want to see developers build as many new properties as possible (in sustainable locations such as the city centre or near to local centres and public transport nodes). If we demand that they include subsidised housing then financially marginal schemes will not go ahead reducing the total number of homes built and simply further exacerbating the problem.

I think that the affordable homes obligation is an out dated policy that stopped making sense when the housing market ceased up. I was one of its biggest champions during the boom years as it was an effective tax on the excessive profits developers were making. Now they are not making massive profits and many have gone bust the tax is no longer justified.

Umm... do you think they were going to market this at the average first time buy etc? To me it seems they wanted to make a quick buck by trying to sell so-called high end apartments and didn't want to be bothered to provide affordable housing. Theres no cash in it for them. If you stop affordable housing policy then you would have even more problems of expensive housing! And then you would undoubtedly be complaining about that too!
howester89 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 12:17 AM   #74
Engels
Simples
 
Engels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 4,263
Likes (Received): 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by howester89

Umm... do you think they were going to market this at the average first time buy etc? To me it seems they wanted to make a quick buck by trying to sell so-called high end apartments and didn't want to be bothered to provide affordable housing. Theres no cash in it for them. If you stop affordable housing policy then you would have even more problems of expensive housing! And then you would undoubtedly be complaining about that too!
That is the line of thought that I am questioning. Its all about the basic relationship between supply and demand - somebody buying or renting an expensive £200k city centre apartment would mostly otherwise buy or rent elsewhere in Birmingham - probably a 3-4 bedroom house in the suburbs (or another city centre apartment) the property they don't buy is therefore sold cheaper and the effects trickle through the whole city property market reducing (cooling) sales price and rents.

There are 1million people in Birmingham about 400,000 homes (guess) it is obviously part of a wider housing market but basically you have a limited supply of homes and a level of demand that is not unlimited - prices / rents are a factor of the limited supply - the more homes built the lower cost for everybody.

During the boom i supported such affordable housing policies because developers were throwing apartments up everywhere and it was an affective way to provide affordable housing. Now we have barely any new build apartments going up in the city - the market is under supplying what is needed - developers are not making money otherwise you would see housing developments come back into the city centre in reasonable numbers. I'm afraid it is wishful lazy thinking to assume that a developer is trying to 'make a quick buck' and 'cant be bothered' - property development is the opposite of making a quick buck - it ties capital and land up for years as it pushes through a bureaucratic and slow planning system and generally is not a quick process. The more hurdles we put in the way of property developers the less they will build - some of those hurdles are definitely necessary but when barely anything is coming through the system we have to question the system and which hurdles are most necessary.

I would argue that the planning system needs to get out of insisting on upfront developer contributions and from trying to always get 'the most cash out of the developers'. There is a need to move away from such regressive policies that make development more expensive (and reduces the viability of schemes) and concentrate on ensuring that what is built is of good quality. Affordable housing needs to be provided by the public sector through investing in private developments instead of taxing them. If we were in a different situation and had an excess of homes i would be arguing something different however we are not and i have changed my opinions to fit the facts rather than wishing it was the other way around.
__________________
You were born poor, naked and helpless. Everything in your life was given to you, the food you ate, the clothes you wore, the shelter you received. Most importantly of all you received an education.

You were given this because people loved you, because people you never knew worked to feed you and long before you were born people died to protect you and to give you the opportunities they never had.

Life doesn't owe you anything! YOU owe life!
Engels no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 11:23 AM   #75
woodhousen
Moderator
 
woodhousen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Leeds/Birmingham, UK
Posts: 11,308
Likes (Received): 100

Im sorry Engels but even though i work in the private sector, i really couldn’t disagree with you more.

Yes, the main thread of your posts is generally accurate. This is largely about supply and demand, and at the moment, demand seriously outweighs supply. Most city centre apartment markets are running at 95-98% occupancy at the moment meaning that there is very little on offer to those whishing to enter the rental market, and with the opportunities to gain a mortgage as low a theyve ever been, finding a property to buy is even worse.

Now, that said, there are still areas of most cities which suffer from low demand, and these are often the poorest and or rough areas. In birmingham i don’t know specifically where they will be but alas, every city has them. These will be the areas with the poorest housing stock, high crime, low levels of employment. Consequently, even though the country on the whole is in the grips of the biggest housing crisis in its history, every city (except in the south east) has empty houses. It is therefore not a simple as build ANY houses and this will help address the issue.

The reality is people have standards and expectations, and rightly so. Consequently, if flash city centres get amazing apartments building purely for the wealthy, what exactly does this achieve. Yes the wealthy get on to the housing ladder or climb the ladder potentially freeing up their existing homes, but is these people can afford to live in a city centre pad, they aren’t really going to be living/renting a place in a price range available to the poor or low income... so what has been achieved? The rich climb the ladder but the poor are still stuck... and then there are yet more empty houses which still don’t meet the needs of the poorest or most vulnerable.

Yes developers margins are pushed, but schemes wouldn’t be going ahead is there wasn’t a decent margin to be had. The reality is that people should get the idea out of their head that affordable housing contributions wasn’t a luxury of the boom years but is an ethical necessity during a housing crisis. If anything, affordable housing is less in demand during the boom years as people in the whole are generally more affluent. Shelter, a place to sleep, a home is not luxury purely for those who can afford it like a luxury product such as a car or holiday, but is a right. Consequently those who build homes and benefit financial from it (ie developers) should make a small contribution to the cause.

Rant over.... ill get off my soap box now!
__________________
Simply BIRMINGHAM
woodhousen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2012, 07:12 PM   #76
Engels
Simples
 
Engels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 4,263
Likes (Received): 35

Please stay on your soap box as it is a good debate.

Property is often described as a ladder. If you add in a rung near the top or in the middle then everybody below climbs up to take the vacated space freeing up a space below them – not just in buying property but in renting too. Yes this is a simplistic way of describing the property market but it is accurate enough to understand the basic concept. Additionally the market cost of rent for everyone is directly affected by supply and demand for housing so when you add 200 flats in a development to the city centre you lower the price all over the rest city – positively affecting the availability for those at the bottom.

Woody I don’t agree with what I consider a surprising attack on the quality of our poorest communities. I don’t see there is much wrong with the quality of the first rung of the ladder permanent accommodation – that’s what building standards are for and there are even higher standards required of landlords that protect people living I rented accommodation. As I understand the major problem is that there are a significantly large number of people who can’t even get onto the very bottom rung on the ladder – because they are living temporary accommodation / hostels etc. All these people qualify for housing benefit but aren’t being provided for because there are simply not enough properties physically available in either private or socially rented sector in large parts of the country. There is not a significant excess of permanent accommodation sitting idle in the West Midlands or most places outside the North of the country. The property crisis we have is of overcrowding and lack of supply in the parts of the country where people want o be – where the population is rising with families stuck in properties too small and poor single people stuck in hostels.

So the question comes which is better = a 200 bed apartment complex being built with no affordable housing or the same 200 bed apartment complex with 30 affordable housing places not being built at all because the developer can’t see a reasonable return? If you think it is the former then re-read my posts – if you are thinking ‘yes but’ then at least the discussion is getting somewhere. I’m arguing that the mechanism we used to deliver socially necessary housing needs to change because the market is failing – largely because we have put too many barriers in the way of developers actually making any money. We can’t pretend that we can go back to a time when small investors would pay £200-£250K up front and off plan for a smallish 2 bed apartment in the city – it is this excess which allowed developers to throw up apartments everywhere and for local and national government to cream off the excess profits to fulfil social housing needs. BCC at least to their credit have started building houses again as this is the necessary reaction to market failure – but it would be better if local authorities were investing by buying up a percentage of every medium to large development in the city at a rate set by an independent arbitrator who would consider the financial viability of the scheme.
__________________
You were born poor, naked and helpless. Everything in your life was given to you, the food you ate, the clothes you wore, the shelter you received. Most importantly of all you received an education.

You were given this because people loved you, because people you never knew worked to feed you and long before you were born people died to protect you and to give you the opportunities they never had.

Life doesn't owe you anything! YOU owe life!
Engels no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 09:27 PM   #77
sefton66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 8,558
Likes (Received): 488

Back in for planning, Tower looks the same, Hotel/student new build has changed slightly with the blank wall on the side facing this replaced with similar cladding/glazing to the front

Quote:
Application Details
Application Number 2012/03499/PA
Application Type Full Planning
Site Address Metropolitan House 1 Hagley Road Birmingham B16 8TG
Proposal 1) - Outline application with all matters reserved for a new building to provide up to 12,500sqm of either hotel or student accommodation. 2) - The change of use and extension of the existing Metropolitan House building to provide 182 residential flats both with the option for A1-A5, D1-D2 or a car showroom use at the Street/Podium level
sefton66 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 10:02 PM   #78
ReissOmari
Birmingham - #1
 
ReissOmari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 6,127
Likes (Received): 529

The Tesco building is going to look so out of place is this gets approved.

I still prefer the original building too
__________________
ReissOmari..

ReissOmari está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 10:29 PM   #79
sefton66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 8,558
Likes (Received): 488

well its only outline so it has the potential to chance. I quite like the proposal it has a hot sunny country appeal about it lol
sefton66 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2012, 12:12 AM   #80
joshwebb
Registered User
 
joshwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Birmingham/Crewe
Posts: 1,808
Likes (Received): 20

What will be the height?
__________________
0121
joshwebb 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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 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