'Victoria Gate' retail development

[The Oil]

Here's some other views of the Lady Lane building the developers propose to demolish...

[LeedsLad]

It's my understanding that Milgarth police station was originally built as part of a previous masterplan for a shopping centre on the carpark behind, which never went ahead. And infact the original plan was that pedestrian entry to the police station would be through the shopping centre on the 3rd floor! They even built a doorway and a reception on the 3rd floor. When it was opened they had to build a new ground floor entry as the shopping centre never went ahead....

On another point, will this new development stretch so far as to make it a next-door neighbour to Leeds market? It would be good to see them linked in someway (perhaps the proposed new development at the market) so that shoppers could flow easily between the 2?

[Eastgatebuilding]

I am associated with a company that owns a substantially large building situated in the Eastgate development (not one of the developers!). I must say it's very interesting to read the views and opinions of those that post hear, especially those that are wishing a more sensitive approach to the scheme.

The reason I am posting is because there seems to be some confusion as to the reason why the developers are wanting to demolish virtually the entire area, and what is not being said in public although i'm sure a number of you have already figured it out. Despite the PR campaign that this is a mixed use development, in reality it's almost entirely retail driven. With that in mind it really all comes down to the CPO process.
One CPO is issued for the whole site (not for individual buildings) and elements can simply be left out that are to be retained (eg Listed buildings) because buildings that are not going to be knocked down have a good arguement not to be CPO'd. Therefore the more property that is to be demolished the more property will be subject to the CPO (or aquired via the threat of a CPO to Landowners through intimidation). My understanding directy from the LCC is that the freeholds will be transferred from them to the developers. Hence this is an opportunity for the developers to seize control of a massive third of the retail area of Leeds at a relatively cheap price. Additionally the LCC will be selling the land they own in the area at development value, unlike everyone else will be forced to. Lets remember that Town Centre Securities (the other developer is Hammersons) is a investment company not a development company, and already owns a substantial amount of property in Leeds (including the Merrion Centre).

The developers already have plans to carve up the site between them (north of Eastgate for Hammersons, south for TCS).
In the long term this is not a good thing for Leeds retail because it will create a monopoly of land in the city centre where there will be no competition between Landlords for retail tenants. The LCC are fully aware of this, yet various forces within will push forward with this scheme.

When it comes to which buildings will be retained, i'm afraid that the developers identified the buildings they wanted to keep a long time ago, and even the LCC's own SPD development doc included the words "The EXISTING listed buildings should be retained" (para 2.6) where existing actually means buildings listed prior to the document being adopted and does not cover buildings currently under consideration (eg the Eastgate bookends). That being said it will be difficult for them to knock down buildings that English Heritage recommend should be listed and retained. I can tell you that the developers already have a building lined up to be retained that is not listed as a token historic building to show how sensitive they are to the historic fabric (IMO), which interestingly does not effect their comprehensive redevelopment plans. No aspect of formal consultation has thus far altered their plans of which buildings are retained.

Whilst I acknowledge there are an huge number of other factors for demolition (access and layout etc) and while I do believe that redeveloping the area is a good thing, make no mistake this is mostly about two companies collecting a third of the city centre with a CPO process (which the developers are paying for entirely).

Just ask yourself this, as some have already said - why aren't they knocking down Millgarth Police station, the worst building there is? Are the LCC really up to a CPO/relocation fight with the police ?

Interestingly I think, in the end, this will all come down to an objectional hearing at the CPO and Planning Application stage (which will run in parallel to each other) where a decision will ultimately be made by an impartial Planning Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate. Even Listed buildings may not be protected as the LCC could have a go at getting Listed Building Demolition Consent confirmed from central government on the basis that the development will be in the public interest (creating new jobs etc).

[Leeds No.1]

That Lady Lane building planned to be demolished is a building I would much rather see retained than the Eastgate Buildings. I could see an excellent conversion of this building, and could be incorporated in the same way that the train building thing has been incorporated into the Wellington Place scheme.

[Rob]

Eastgatebuilding, thanks for the explanation.

I suspect LCC are thinking what I'm thinking ... there have been so many failed and abortive projects in this city, they want to make the way as smooth as possible for this large 'city changing' proposal. I recall they (LCC) got involved in the Trinty Qtr saga bending over backwards with trying to help out with CPOs of all the outstanding properties involved, and that one is still nowhere near starting yet, despite Leeds having the longest list of retailers in the UK waiting for a unit !

I don't personally expect the Civic Trust or other opposing parties will have much to worry about for many years yet, going by the current retail track record.

[Typhoo25]

As much as I would like to see some of the buildings retained, I would have to take the view of LCC and say that this is a 'nice to have' and is not nice enough to retain the buildings with the risk of everything else being undeveloped. The quicker this area is developed, the better. I would hope that public wranglings do not result in this being constantly put back as this is critical to the development of Leeds.

[SmartCity]

Good point Typhoo. Either way lets hope this gets off the ground soon.

[The Oil]

Originally Posted by Typhoo25

As much as I would like to see some of the buildings retained, I would have to take the view of LCC and say that this is a 'nice to have' and is not nice enough to retain the buildings with the risk of everything else being undeveloped. The quicker this area is developed, the better. I would hope that public wranglings do not result in this being constantly put back as this is critical to the development of Leeds.

And there lies the dilemma i suppose. There's no doubt that this scheme is critical to the future of Leeds but at what cost? It's difficult to be objective on here because we've all got an interest in the history and architecture of Leeds as well as all the current and future developments but we have to be realistic. I'd guess most people in Leeds wouldn't care if the Lady Lane buildings and the Chinatown buildings et al were trashed. I suspect reaction to the Eastgate blocks being demolished would be a bit different. They're much more visible and more impressive and feel like part of the fabric of Leeds.

Bottom line is what's best for the City? Giving the developers carte blanche to do what thay want or fighting for buildings that are largely anonymous to the public? Difficult....

[Simon22]

I'd rather keep the Lady Lane and Chinatown buildings! The Eastgate blocks are very bland IMO.

I can remember a visitor from London being completely underwhelmed by them!

[di Livio]

Originally Posted by Simon22

I can remember a visitor from London being completely underwhelmed by them!

Then again, when my sister came back over the xmas period, she commented on how impressive the whole Headrow scheme looked, including Eastgate.

I agree that most people in Leeds probably won't care about these buildings being demolished. I also agree that the scheme is critical to the development and success of the city over the next few years. However, i can't help feeling that if Farrell's had listened to the civic trust , and been a bit more respectful to the historic fabric of the city centre in the first place we wouldn't be in this mess, which looks like it may turn into a protracted and internecine dispute similar to the one surrounding the Trinity Quarter.

[Leedsfella]

I personally think they should keep the 'bookend' buildings, they travel all the way down the Headrow from The Light, im sure a developer could somehow include them in proposals for this development.

As for the Chinatown buildings, well I was under the impression the LCC were going to try make that a proper Chinatown, I guess not, which is somewhat dissapointing because Leeds needs a big International qtr.

The car park next to the market, well development cant start soon enough, its a tip, but to think that they will be building a state of the art shopping centre on it, and leaving probably the ugliest police station in the county right next to it... well it takes the piss. Police relocation is a must if this little area isnt going to have a ''WTF'' impression on people.

[aviator]

Originally Posted by Typhoo25

As much as I would like to see some of the buildings retained, I would have to take the view of LCC and say that this is a 'nice to have' and is not nice enough to retain the buildings with the risk of everything else being undeveloped. The quicker this area is developed, the better. I would hope that public wranglings do not result in this being constantly put back as this is critical to the development of Leeds.

I'm afraid I can't agree with point of view, though I suspect I'm in a minority. We don't know what discussions have taken place in the background but I think there are some fundamental issues here. One is about sustainability - you can't say you're committed to supporting sustainable development ( as the City Council does) and then agree to the demolition of perfectly serviceable buildings.

Another is about respect for context and history; buildings don't have to be Grade 1 listed to be of merit and worthy of retention. And we have some excellent examples of adaptation and successful blending of old and new with the Light, the Victoria Quarter and the Carriageworks.

Another is about balancing the desire to see developments take place with accommodating the demands of developers. The Civic Trust has already made the point that, demolish or not, this proposal includes next to no public green space. That's called greed and the desire to maximise profit at all costs.

Do you really think developers with such a mentality are going to concern themselves with the quality of the design and build of what they're proposing? Just because Terry Farrell is producing the masterplan doesn't mean that he (or architects of comparable quality) will design the buildings that sit within the masterplan. As for this development being critical, I don't agree. There is a huge demand for retail space in the city and this isn't the only scheme on the go. The Trinity Quarter development, for example, has managed to clear the obstacles that were impeding it and there is the retail development planned for the Temple Mill. In addition, this was originally two separate proposals. I suspect that, if this one hit the buffers, TCS would go ahead with something like their original plan for the Harewood Quarter and let Hammersons fend for themselves. And if Hammersons walked, I believe other developers would jump in to fill the gap.

It's also worth remembering that it's 10 years since John Lewis first tried to establish themselves in Leeds. They were knocked back when the Leeds University plan to build a retail park on playing fields at Weetwood came to nothing. But here they are still, looking for premises in the city.

I really hope that the City Council has the courage to maintain the hard line with these developers and not let them drop into the heart of Leeds some mega shopping centre whose only virtue is the number of shops it offers.

[Leeds No.1]

Well, maybe the fact that there is hardly any green space in the development is proof that demand is so high. It's not like its impossible to put roof gardens on anyway. There are some buildings which I don't mind but I'd hate them to block the development. The Eastgate Buildings though- well they're pretty bland, they're OK but nothing I'd get excited about. I wouldn't mind if this development is very built up; Quarry Hill, right next door has some public spaces planned and it would be easier to incorporate them into that scheme. I must say though, it would be nice to have a large green space right in the heart of the city.

[aviator]

Originally Posted by Leeds No.1

Well, maybe the fact that there is hardly any green space in the development is proof that demand is so high. It's not like its impossible to put roof gardens on anyway. There are some buildings which I don't mind but I'd hate them to block the development. The Eastgate Buildings though- well they're pretty bland, they're OK but nothing I'd get excited about. I wouldn't mind if this development is very built up; Quarry Hill, right next door has some public spaces planned and it would be easier to incorporate them into that scheme. I must say though, it would be nice to have a large green space right in the heart of the city.

What on earth are you talking about? Roof gardens are fine but, by their nature will only be accessible to residents or tenatnts of the building where they're located. So, what about the thousands of people milling about at ground level? A development of that size and scale without a decent amount of quality open space will be oppressive beyond measure.

Oh and, by the way, the Quarry Hill proposals have themselves been under severe criticism for the lack of public space they plan!

[Leeds No.1]

Yeah I kno. Roof Gardens- well why couldn't they be open to the public- if people can get up to the roof levels of car parks why not gardens. People don't think it could be done coz its not the common thing that is done, people don't think radically enough

[daveylad2]

I hope this building is a keeper.


Actually apart from the vicar lane frontage the rest of this building along the Eastgate side is devoid of much detail.

I hope TCS/Hammersons can at least make a compromise and include this and
the 'bookends' into the scheme. I can live without the Lyons building and most of the others. If they can't reach a compromise and the whole lot has to go, then I'd rather not have the development, fuck em. I don't think it will be Leeds's loss in the long run. Losing historic buildings will be a much bigger loss, especially in about 10 years when the development loses it's gloss and it starts to look like complete tat.
I think we have lost too much over the years to let much more of the city's historic fabric meet with a wrecking ball.
I'm sure there must have been a similar situation 1978? when the Bond Street Centre (Leeds Shopping Plaza) replaced a massive chunk of the city. At the time it must have seemed like a great idea for a shiny and new modern mall to replace grotty old buildings. What are peoples opinions of those so called grotty and old buildings now we have seen similar buildings on Boar lane cleaned up?

[SmartCity]

I just hope the new stuff is going to be of high quality.

[di Livio]

Originally Posted by aviator

Do you really think developers with such a mentality are going to concern themselves with the quality of the design and build of what they're proposing? Just because Terry Farrell is producing the masterplan doesn't mean that he (or architects of comparable quality) will design the buildings that sit within the masterplan.

True, we've had three masterplans for the scheme so far, but we still don't have any idea what the development will look like from ground-level.

Leslie Stephen are the other architects involved with the scheme.

[di Livio]

Originally Posted by di Livio

Leslie Stephen are the other architects involved with the scheme.

Leslie Stephen, Virginia Woolf's Dad? That can't be right.
It could be Leslie Joseph... but that's another can of worms altogether.

[Even Flow]

So, here we are in March, supposedly time of the planning appication. Does anyone think we will actually hear any news about this, or are the civic trusts objections actually being taken into account by the developer, causing further delays?