Piccadilly Tower | Ducie Street | 188m | 58 floors

[Elizabeth Kinoke]

ahh... I guess the idea of a turbine of such size would create some real problems.

A point about that is that much of the dissapointment of people over the V Tower building is the original render of Arena Cnetral which so many people had imprinted on their minds was the same, it was just a render or visionary sketch with absolutely no chance of becoming reality, it was just to give an idea of height (that's what Miller explained), of all the buildings mooted for Manchester the Greengate proposal stood out as something quite unique.

What kind of height can we expect Piccadilly Tower to reach and what is the reality of this being built in the next 5 - 10 years?

cheers

[Chogmook]

As long as B4mmy keeps feeding us cheese, Piccadilly tower should hopefully reach its full height of 188m (over 600ft!) by 2010!

The current Greengate Twin Tower proposal will have an observation deck on the top floor of the taller tower (46th Floor, 163m High), which will be the tallest lookout point outside London i believe?

:EDIT - and the Greengate towers have just today secured £89m funding and if planning is approved, work will begin in the Autumn! A HUGE hole is already there, so it's already further along (at the moment) than the other twin towers of Lumiere in Leeds and Snow Hill in Brum!

See the Greengate thread for more!

[Elizabeth Kinoke]

cheers, sounds good.

[FLD]

Originally Posted by Martin G

Huge? Not really. Tall-ish, more like.





Correction = 147 metres - official final height.



Okay - digression over, now back to the original thread subject, if we may.

The refernece to Birmingham at the foot of all your posts is a distraction and an irrelevance in itself - why don't you remove it as it looks a bit silly on the Manchester forum!

[WeasteDevil]

Never understood this 188m lark, why not simply go the whole hog and add an extra 13m and become part of the 1/8th mile high club?

[Manc Guy]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth Kinoke

knowing Manchester they'll probably put a nightclub up there

[Martin G]

What I find so surprising about the Manchester proposals is that they seem to be adding more storeys onto them (five schemes and counting so far) and making them taller - unlike a certain building in Birmingham that EK and FLD rate so much, which seems to be shrinking by three metres each month if current accurate height calculations are anything to go by. Wouldn't everybody else agree that that is all a bit pathetic? And yes, my signature has been amended because it's the truth. And if EK and FLD are so correct in their beliefs then can they please tell me if - and where - Birmingham is going to get any taller tower proposals (concrete ones as opposed to fantasy ones) any time soon? I'd like to think not.

Just cos I keep going on about this one scheme contradicting the city's tall building aspirations, they feel the need to keep hurling insults at me at every available opportunity. It's not I who is being a troll when you honestly look at it that way - maybe that has slipped their minds?

I mean, this is a skyscraper forum after all. What many of us dearly love to see and read about! What is so wrong exactly about being passionate over TALL BUILDINGS and getting peeved when certain schemes end up selling us short? What is so wrong about stating on other threads that "yes, V Building is a pile of poo compared to the soaring heights that other buildings elsewhere are being designed to"? What is so wrong about having a strong opinion and steadfastly sticking to it? After all, aren't EK and FLD harbouring strong opinions as well - they constantly slag me off for having the nerve to keep repeating myself. The words Pot, Kettle and Black spring immediately to mind.

Don't be too cynical about Manchester's tall building aspirations either EK and FLD: it's pretty darned likely that several more tower schemes over 170m in height are about to be unveiled in this city. You may say that Brum has about a dozen 100m buildings planned, but then so has Manchester - and several more much much taller than these. And no, I'm not city-bashing either when I say this. MY only crime all this time has been to voice my extreme disillusionment about the disappointing height of what should have been Birmingham's "flagship" skyscraper scheme. No more, no less.

Eastgate might be slower at getting the go ahead, but I believe B4mmy when he reiterates that this one will almost certainly end up being built.

[Martin G]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth Kinoke

sorry Martin, I can see why you like to think you wind up many forumers on the Birmingham threads.

Why do you want to get back to the original thread all of a sudden, is it because you don't want people to ruin this thread.. what? someone ruining a thread that you are following?

I truly apologise to the decent Mancunian forumers here, Martin has all but ruined half a dozen threads in the Birmingham forum with his persistent wasp like irritation.. I would like to follow some of the Manchester schemes but I am actually put off most of the time by one main negative person, Martin.. you're the biggest thorn in Birmingham's side, and Manchester's for that matter, you are now openly ruining various threads by purposely stirring people up, I am no longer interested in your excuses for being such a bore, congratulations, you've finally succeeded in something.

I've been waiting to say something like this for ages now, so I may as well finally do so: you don't half write some drivel too sometimes EK. None of what you have written above is even grounded in truth at all - it's just YOUR [completely misguided] impression. It's almost bordering on paranoia. Get a grip. Thorn in Manchester's side? How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Stop talking crap.

[Manc Guy]

Originally Posted by Martin G

Don't be too cynical about Manchester's tall building aspirations either EK and FLD: it's pretty darned likely that several more tower schemes over 170m in height are about to be unveiled in this city. You may say that Brum has about a dozen 100m buildings planned, but then so has Manchester - and several more much much taller than these.

Really? Big!

[scproductions]

Originally Posted by Martin G

Don't be too cynical about Manchester's tall building aspirations either EK and FLD: it's pretty darned likely that several more tower schemes over 170m in height are about to be unveiled in this city. You may say that Brum has about a dozen 100m buildings planned, but then so has Manchester - and several more much much taller than these. And no, I'm not city-bashing either when I say this. MY only crime all this time has been to voice my extreme disillusionment about the disappointing height of what should have been Birmingham's "flagship" skyscraper scheme. No more, no less.

I dont actually think any buildings of this size will be unveiled for a while. considering manchester's economy is going down and due to the difficulties lauching other tall buildings (i.e. chapen wharf, greengate, eastgate, albany).

The idea of more 170+m towers being proposed is just wishful thinking to be honest.

you can say i'm wrong... but the fact no new 170+m buildings have been announced supports my point.

[Manc Guy]

Chapel Warf - developer issue
Greengate - Just failed a CABE review, but, SSC could still push ahead.
Eastgate - to start soon

The demand is obviously there! Its down to other issues altogether! Plainly.

[Chogmook]

The Future of Piccadilly

The Piccadilly Partnership Forum meeting in early July was an opportunity for city leaders to take the long view over this key city area


What is the future of the Piccadilly area? Should we be happy with the progress so far or keep pushing ahead with the changes and developments? Is this part of the city as diverse in businesses and people as we’d like?

Questions, questions, questions. But this is a good time to ask them. The Piccadilly Partnership area is maturing, there’s still work to do but it’s time for future strategies, for plugging the gaps not only in property but in everything from business variety to street furniture design. We need a bit of distance, perspective.

To this effect the Partnership held a special Forum meeting early in July. The main event was a debate made up of a panel of heavyweight council and business leaders. These included Sir Howard Bernstein, Chief Executive of Manchester City Council, property bosses David Partridge, Argent, Chris Oglesby, Bruntwood, Wayne Mellor, Inacity, Insider magazine Editor Michael Taylor, City Inn General Manager, David Toulson Burke and a muddy Mark Ruby, head honcho at Kro bars. Mark doesn’t usually turn-up to meetings but as he’d just high-tailed it from Glastonbury he was excused.

Chaired by Manchester Confidential Editor, tour guide and BBC Broadcaster, Jonathan Schofield, Sir Howard Bernstein kicked off by highlighting the strategic importance of Piccadilly in Manchester. He spoke of how in the early 1990s a debate on how to change the profile of the area by introducing high quality office buildings was the start of the change.

Michael Taylor described how the area has gone from strength to strength to become a gateway to the city. Wayne Mellor, Chairman of Inacity, went on to confirm his investment into Piccadilly. Kro boss, Mark Ruby, described how he’d followed up his successful Oxford Road operation to move into Piccadilly Gardens. At the time he’d though this was risk but now this was their most successful venue.

Meanwhile Chris Oglesby, Chief Executive of Bruntwood, confirmed his commitment to the area by describing how the new arcade from Piccadilly Gardens to York Street will give the area an opportunity to become more individual by allowing for more independent retailers to move in.

Heated exchanges were made over the future of Piccadilly Gardens and the former London Road Fire Station.

David Partridge, highlighted that more cultural and artistic events will help the Gardens become part of the civic life of the city. Earlier in a separate presentation Adam Thornton from HKR Architects had discussed the idea of introducing pod style market stalls into the area. Whether lawns are a good solution for the gardens was debated and it was generally agreed they should stay. Everybody agreed that the Gardens were still a work in progress, that security and maintenance issues still had to be addressed and that occasionally it wasn’t particularly family friendly.

The Fire Station was the hot topic of the evening. The largest historic building in the city centre left to be renovated, the present owners, Britannia Hotels came in for criticism for sitting on the site and letting it deteriorate. David Partridge expressed a degree of sympathy but felt now that the time was right for this showcase of terracotta from the 1890s to be reintegrated into the city with an active life. Sir Howard Bernstein, in a moment of candour, even stuck his neck out so far as to say that: “I’d be disappointed if we didn’t have a planning application deposited within the next couple of months.” You read it here, the clock’s ticking Sir Howard.

The over-all feeling was that Piccadilly should prosper. As Chris Oglesby said “Manchester needs a strong Piccadilly and Piccadilly needs a strong partnership.” It sure does but it can’t be done piecemeal. If this is to become ‘the heart’ of the city then there’s still a long way to go. This is not just a matter of bricks and mortar and property, as always it’s about people: the people who live and work here and the people who visit. For instance will people inside the Partnership continue to work together, and will people outside the Partnership one day see Piccadilly as a cohesive city quarter? Are we doing enough to ensure that the traditional smaller businesses in the area survive and prosper – as one question from the floor asked? Are we confident that we can deliver a coordinated art and public realm programme?

Questions, questions, questions. The debate ended as it started. But this in itself displays the progress that has been made over the last few years. Piccadilly is firmly on the agenda, critical to the long-term success of the city. And cities are restless places, constant change is central to every one of them, and the more dynamic they are, usually the more success they achieve. And there is no more dynamic and varied an area as Piccadilly in the UK. Many thanks to City Inn and The Hub for sponsoring the event. If you are interested in becoming a partner,click here to join us.

http://www.piccadillymanchester.com/..._of_Piccadilly

[skyhigh247]

Has there been any start date issued by the firm behind this yet, or is it just the usual hopeful start dates that have come and gone like in the past?

[STUBBY]

Originally Posted by skyhigh247

Has there been any start date issued by the firm behind this yet, or is it just the usual hopeful start dates that have come and gone like in the past?

Is this building ideally suited to cyberspace on the basis that it is a virtual building rather than the real thing and likely to remain so?

[Manc Guy]

No, its for skyscraper nerds who cant take "its going ahead" for an answer three to four fooking thousand times!

[macc]

There's a license application for the 'undercroft car park' on store street. Is this where the warehouse project had their do a couple of months back? Its temporary, 28/09/2007 to 03/01/2008 so sounds like they're planning to head back there. The 6:30am weekend closing time certainly suggests its them.

Is this on the Piccadilly tower site, or next to it? Just wondering if it has effect on the devlopment.

[Manc Guy]

Theres one underneath the site, thats been there for ages. Has it changed?

[macc]

I know the one you mean. I think this is different though. 4th one downon here:
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/licensi...citycentre.htm

[The Longford]

I think the Warehouse Project are planning a New Year event there - which certainly puts back the start date of construction.
It seems bloody Dave Vincent (of the WP) might know more about the timetable of construction that we do. I vaguely know him but am loathed to talk to him.

[Gavin]

The Warehouse project is under the old railway alignment. It is not on land which will be occupied by Eastgate tower.