Regal Tower | Broad Street | 56fl | 201m | App.

[Bureau des etrangers]

Originally Posted by joshwebb

what are all those red dots on it?

Christmas decorations

[Brums'grove]

Originally Posted by Erebus555

That diagram is for March 21st, I believe. Brum'sgrove just conveniently cut that bit off the top.

Yeah i print screened it as it wouldnt let me copy the image directly from the planning app, unfortunately i just happened to cut off the top and really should of added the date into the post.

[Brum X]

Regal Tower, Birmingham
DESIGNERS are hailing proposals to build Brum’s tallest building as “exciting and iconic” in defiance of objections from architects and conservationists.

Peter Weatherhead from DTZ, told the council’s planning committee the whopping 56-storey tower would be a “significant and memorable addition” to the city.

A planning application for the 200-metre-high skyscraper was submitted by Regal Property Group last October, who believe it will complement Beetham Tower and the Rotunda.

The proposals followed earlier approval for an 11-storey building at the junction of Broad Street and Oozells Street in the city centre.

Since then, the plans have been extended to include a 289-bedroom hotel, residential apartments, conference facilities and a sky bar offering guests a panoramic view of Birmingham.

If permission is granted, there will also be a four-storey-high podium next to the tower, housing a ballroom and retail unit.

Mr Weatherhead said the tower was planned “in accordance with the council’s policy on tall buildings” and was the result of three years preparatory work.

He said the project, which included a £250,000 public transport contribution, would create 300 construction jobs per year – over the three-year estimated time of completion and up to 400 jobs in the completed tower.

But CABE, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, has criticised the size of the site on a small piece of land as “unrealistic” and said it would loom over Brindley Place. It has urged councillors not to grant approval and for architects to rethink the design.

Further objections were raised by the Victorian Society which stated the building would “completely dominate” the surrounding area and overpower two listed buildings nearby.

And some councillors raised concerns over the limited parking spaces that would be provided at the tower. Only 29 spaces will be built in an underground parking area.

Public consultations are still underway with local businesses and residents.

[xtef]

'Public consultations are still underway with local businesses and residents'
Does anyone know of any forthcoming such events?
Is it too late to write to the planning committee?
Thanks

[woodhousen]

as i said earlier, you are perfectly within your rights and allowed to submit comments to the council up until the day the planning committee meet and make the final decission

[Typhoon2000]

Originally Posted by KHvillan

St Philips is a fine square, as is Oozells.

I can sympathise with Cabes concerns about shadowing. On a related subject the Cube looks like it will overshadow the bars/restuarants at the Mailbox which would be a major blow in the summer months.

Which was my main initial objection to it. Much as I like Regal and it's design, the area they have chosen is totally in approprate and should be moved to the Fiveways area.

I have a feeling that many who bought homes to actually live in Holliday Wharf well before the Cube went up were probably a bit annoyed at the fact that most of their sunlight will be blocked from the south, particularly in the winter months where the sun is at it's lowest. In general, I still feel that the Cube is far to dominant for this area.

I will be registering my objection with the Council shortly on it's location but in terms of the design there is no objection whatsoever.

[U475 Foxtrot]

Could the little cut through next door to old Orleans be downgraded from a road and turned into a small pedestrianised square?

[Brum X]

I will be registering my approval for this scheme, i think its in a good location.

[Soul_13]

Brilliant project in a brilliant location can't wait till construction starts....

[city living]

Originally Posted by Typhoon2000

I have a feeling that many who bought homes to actually live in Holliday Wharf well before the Cube went up were probably a bit annoyed at the fact that most of their sunlight will be blocked from the south, particularly in the winter months where the sun is at it's lowest. In general, I still feel that the Cube is far to dominant for this area.

They would have bought with there eyes wide open as a the soliciters would have done a search and told them about any plans.
Maybe washington whalf is old enough though for many of the owners not to have been informed.

[nigeman]

Thank God New York City's forefathers didn't have an hang up on the "shadow effect" of each and every skyscraper they approved, or else New York wouldn't be the New York we all love. Similarly Chicago and all the other cities that we aspire to on this site..... If its tall its going to create a shadow over something no matter where you place it !!
I actually like walking or sitting in the shadow of the Empire State in New York, its part of its character and what it does to its surroundings, helping make it a landmark. Please lets not get hung up on the "freaking" shadow Regal may cause. If built it will block the sun for a while over my apartment, which will probably remind me to look up at it and marvel at Brum's first true skyscraper.
The site is fine and I've listed my support, I would like to see it joined by BST and a trio by redeveloping the Novotel site, creating a focus of several buildings as well as Regal

[Chalcedony]

I don't think it is a hang up over the shadow effect just a recognition that it will have an impact on what is a limited resource in Birmingham, public space. Birmingham is a city that has not been sensitive to preserving or creating this areas in the past. New York and Chicago have planned for this/been blessed with it naturally.

The problem is believing this is the only reason people may have for objecting to this building. It is actually one of a number. Each reason in itself is not huge but they come together to make a case for this not being the best location for such a building. I don't think it will be a total tragedy if this is built and if it gets the go ahead I'll be hoping it is as superb as many think, I would prefer, though, that Birmingham's tallest building could not feel so shoe-horned in to a space and could offer more to the surrounding space.

[build_higher]

Public Space is in no way a limited resource in Birmingham. Right from the ICC down to St Martins there are vast swathes of it. Now some of these spaces could do with some improvement to bring them up to the standard of Brindleyplace, but to say that they're a limited resource is just wrong....and as the shadow diagrams showed, the shadowing of Brindleyplace is not that great. Much of the square is already overshadowed by the existing buildings & most of the time the impact of this tower would be minimal...and this tower HAS been designed to be sensitive in this respect to the surrounding areas.

[Chalcedony]

Quality public space is very limited. Low quality public space is of no use - it is just waste.

But as I tried to say, this is only one part of the case against. Support for or against the tower should consider all of the reasons and not focus only on this shadowing aspect. I tend to agree with CABE on a number of points regarding this. I disagree with it being a problem being able to see a skyscraper from a conservation area but otherwise I tend to agree.

So, personally I feel the case against just about overcomes my desire for a new skyscraper. I want Birmingham's tallest building to be of a fantastic architecture - this is striking only because Birmingham has so few skyscrapers, in any other city it would be average- with a ground level area that reflects that you are in the proximity of such an important building. It just doesn't have the space to make a positive contribution to the street level and Birmingham's tallest building should.

[joshwebb]

yeah but does anyone really think the council will care about a shadow?

[SimonTheSoundMan]

You would be amazed. Brindley Place could pressure BCC into rejecting it, they are also the type to moan.

I do think that there is a likely chance Regal should go through permission just fine, especially as they have changed the designs to please some of the criticisms.

[Biosonic]

It's too big not to go through (with conditions) IMO - the council will want to be seen to assist development, not hinder it.

[Nacho]

I can't see it getting rejected .However , and I imagine most of us feel the same ,the problem is getting it built .

[woodhousen]

exactly

[Engels]

Originally Posted by Chalcedony

But as I tried to say, this is only one part of the case against. Support for or against the tower should consider all of the reasons and not focus only on this shadowing aspect. I tend to agree with CABE on a number of points regarding this. I disagree with it being a problem being able to see a skyscraper from a conservation area but otherwise I tend to agree.
.

So aside from the shadowing affects (which after studying the diagrams i personally consider to be minor) what is this considerable body of evidence that leads you to believe this should be rejected. Bullet points will do.