Baskerville Wharf | Former Flapper & Firkin | Kingston Row | Residential | 4/3fl | Prop. - Page 6 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

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

Birmingham Metro Area Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton and the West Midlands


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old October 11th, 2019, 12:28 PM   #101
jezc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 120
Likes (Received): 277

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
That is interesting because as you say, a developer wouldn't do that without planning permission as they would be relinquishing an income. I'd image that if the developer is willing to do that, the Flapper must not be making them much money anyway.

Do we know if the developer is the owner of the Flapper?


The difficulty is that a local cultural listing would have no standing in law so it wouldn't protect anything.

If you want to protect places like this the only method available to the community that i am aware of is to get it listed as an asset of community value. However, there isn't anyone who has done that for this site so it can't be that important to the community you could argue.

Of course, the developer could include a pub unit in the development. It's unlikely to retain the same 'charm' as the flapper though due to incompatibility of uses.
Yes @djay the developer owns the pub and his argument (or the one advanced yesterday) is that the pub needs refurbing, isn't viable and therefore he'll break the lease between himself and the landlady and shut the pub. He wouldn't need planning permission to do this and I'm guessing he'd leave it empty for a period of time and then come back with his plans. There is a lot of local resident support for the pub to remain open, even from those who don't use it. I've suggested an Asset of Community Value could be an option but (and I'd need to look into this) the building would have to be about to be sold or up for sale first and that's not the case here.
I'm pragmatic about this as I realise you can't keep every building and developments will always happen, especially in a city. But @bhamjim I find your remarks condescending and lacking in empathy. The Flapper has been a community pub (residents, visitors, music lovers, canal users, walkers/cyclists) for fifty years. It means something to a lot of people. It's a third space. It's one of few city centre places with an outdoor space. It's a place where different communities comingle. It has important musical history, heritage and culture attached to it and is a place of significant intangible heritage for a wide range of people.
If Birmingham is serious about being a city for everyone it has to cater for everyone. Removing a cultural asset (and it is a cultural asset) is a backwards step. Cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Sheffield, Cardiff, Leeds, London, Brighton and others are all supporting their music industry sector through developing strategies and policies to nurture, protect and grow their sector. But is you want hard economics then the Midlands music sector has an annual GVA of £230m and supports 6600 jobs and music tourism (going to gigs) in the West Midlands support 3,400 jobs with a £271m spend. The Flapper is a crucial part of this music ecology. It's worth protecting.
__________________

leonigmig, Blunther liked this post
jezc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 11th, 2019, 12:53 PM   #102
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 15,204
Likes (Received): 2703

Quote:
Originally Posted by jezc View Post
Yes @djay the developer owns the pub and his argument (or the one advanced yesterday) is that the pub needs refurbing, isn't viable and therefore he'll break the lease between himself and the landlady and shut the pub. He wouldn't need planning permission to do this and I'm guessing he'd leave it empty for a period of time and then come back with his plans. There is a lot of local resident support for the pub to remain open, even from those who don't use it. I've suggested an Asset of Community Value could be an option but (and I'd need to look into this) the building would have to be about to be sold or up for sale first and that's not the case here.
I'm pragmatic about this as I realise you can't keep every building and developments will always happen, especially in a city. But @bhamjim I find your remarks condescending and lacking in empathy. The Flapper has been a community pub (residents, visitors, music lovers, canal users, walkers/cyclists) for fifty years. It means something to a lot of people. It's a third space. It's one of few city centre places with an outdoor space. It's a place where different communities comingle. It has important musical history, heritage and culture attached to it and is a place of significant intangible heritage for a wide range of people.
If Birmingham is serious about being a city for everyone it has to cater for everyone. Removing a cultural asset (and it is a cultural asset) is a backwards step. Cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Sheffield, Cardiff, Leeds, London, Brighton and others are all supporting their music industry sector through developing strategies and policies to nurture, protect and grow their sector. But is you want hard economics then the Midlands music sector has an annual GVA of £230m and supports 6600 jobs and music tourism (going to gigs) in the West Midlands support 3,400 jobs with a £271m spend. The Flapper is a crucial part of this music ecology. It's worth protecting.
Indeed, it is only for buildings that are to be sold. However, that would be a step to demonstrate that the building and use have value to the community rather than the abstract and largely un-measurable cultural asset tag that has been attached.

For instance, anything can be a cultural asset, the old bullring was a cultural asset for instance. You can go even further an suggest that Digbeth as a whole is a cultural asset or even the entire JQ.

With regard to your comment to Brumjim, cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Sheffield, Cardiff, Leeds, London, Brighton have all lost important music venues so they are in no way immune from something like this. The Astoira in London, Hacienda in Manchester, Blind Tiger in Brighton, The Dutchess in Lees, Picture House in Edinburgh to name a few.

However, whilst you say populist phrases like "If Birmingham is serious about being a city for everyone it has to cater for everyone. Removing a cultural asset (and it is a cultural asset) is a backwards step." you are, unfortunately, seriously light in suggesting what can actually be done legally to stop the owner developing the site in a compliant way. That's not to say i don't agree with the principle that the Government needs to do more to protect assets like this.
__________________

If I ain't the one I'm the prototype

jezc liked this post
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 01:08 PM   #103
Blunther
Kebab Licker
 
Blunther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Stirchley, Brumtown
Posts: 3,099
Likes (Received): 82

Quote:
Originally Posted by BhamJim View Post
I think to suggest the replacing of this pub with an apartment block (and associated facilities) is stoking the fire that burns away our entire alternative culture, is perhaps a bit melodramatic. It's simply the ongoing changing face of our city, for the better.
Indeed. I never suggested that losing one pub is burning away the entire alternative culture, but it's not just one pub when you look at some of the old haunts lost for Martineau Galleries. Is it really changing the face of the city for the better? Is a paltry block of 27 flats really going to improve the urban fabric more than a popular, almost legendary little boozer? Is anyone other than the 40-50 people that live in these flats even going to know what they're called? I doubt it.

Quote:
I fully agree with taking the time to assess all the options and ensure mistakes of yesteryear aren't repeated. Island House is an unforgivable recent mistake that springs to mind. But this, and all the places you mentioned above are not the Old Market Hall or the Snow Hill station facade or the original library. They are not the Town Hall, the Cathedral or even the Custard Factory and the heart of bohemian Digbeth.
If all we aim to protect is cathedrals and the town hall then that's a pretty low bar. I reckon more people go to the Flapper than either of the cathedrals anyway And what's the use of a city if it just keeps killing popular places for the sake of a few flats? This isn't the first time. It started way back with the Fiddle and Bone, and is happening more and more in Digbeth with people moving in then moaning about the noise.

Quote:
There are plenty of pubs and other buildings that are worth keeping of course, I don't advocate the wiping out of everything as we move forward, and thankfully neither do the people that matter. The fact HS2 will not only keep, but embrace and improve the Woodman, the Eagle and Tun and the Curzon Street Hall is wonderful IMO, but yeah, the Fox and Grapes had to go.

I'm sure that there are people who were aggrieved when the Brindley Place development began, or Royal Mail workers who were turfed out of the Mailbox and sent to Newtown, there were regulars in The Bridge at the old New Street Station, I wonder if they enjoy a pint in All Bar One as much. But really, overall, these areas have been improved beyond all expectations and it's my opinion that Baskerville Wharf and the surrounding area can be another city gem, but to be so it wont include the Flapper.
Yeah, I know what you mean. But this isn't Brindleyplace which I think we can all agree is a net benefit. This isn't HS2 which brings billions to the region. This is a 3-4 storey block of 27 flats. That isn't going to improve life for the citizens of Birmingham any more than me getting my loft converted would do.

If this was a wholesale redevelopment of Baskerville Wharf, maybe replacing the tower blocks, opening up the canal so it's accessible from Centenary Square, and bringing loads of new facilities to all the residents of Birmingham then you'd go 'yeah, shame about the Flapper but cities change, that's progress'. But this isn't that. It's twenty seven poky apartments.
__________________

BhamJim, jezc liked this post
Blunther no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 11th, 2019, 01:10 PM   #104
Blunther
Kebab Licker
 
Blunther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Stirchley, Brumtown
Posts: 3,099
Likes (Received): 82

Quote:
Originally Posted by jezc View Post
Yes @djay the developer owns the pub and his argument (or the one advanced yesterday) is that the pub needs refurbing, isn't viable and therefore he'll break the lease between himself and the landlady and shut the pub. He wouldn't need planning permission to do this and I'm guessing he'd leave it empty for a period of time and then come back with his plans. There is a lot of local resident support for the pub to remain open, even from those who don't use it. I've suggested an Asset of Community Value could be an option but (and I'd need to look into this) the building would have to be about to be sold or up for sale first and that's not the case here.
I'm pragmatic about this as I realise you can't keep every building and developments will always happen, especially in a city. But @bhamjim I find your remarks condescending and lacking in empathy. The Flapper has been a community pub (residents, visitors, music lovers, canal users, walkers/cyclists) for fifty years. It means something to a lot of people. It's a third space. It's one of few city centre places with an outdoor space. It's a place where different communities comingle. It has important musical history, heritage and culture attached to it and is a place of significant intangible heritage for a wide range of people.
If Birmingham is serious about being a city for everyone it has to cater for everyone. Removing a cultural asset (and it is a cultural asset) is a backwards step. Cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Sheffield, Cardiff, Leeds, London, Brighton and others are all supporting their music industry sector through developing strategies and policies to nurture, protect and grow their sector. But is you want hard economics then the Midlands music sector has an annual GVA of £230m and supports 6600 jobs and music tourism (going to gigs) in the West Midlands support 3,400 jobs with a £271m spend. The Flapper is a crucial part of this music ecology. It's worth protecting.

Yeah... what he said
Blunther no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 01:40 PM   #105
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 15,204
Likes (Received): 2703

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blunther View Post
...But this isn't Brindleyplace which I think we can all agree is a net benefit. This isn't HS2 which brings billions to the region. This is a 3-4 storey block of 27 flats. That isn't going to improve life for the citizens of Birmingham any more than me getting my loft converted would do.

If this was a wholesale redevelopment of Baskerville Wharf, maybe replacing the tower blocks, opening up the canal so it's accessible from Centenary Square, and bringing loads of new facilities to all the residents of Birmingham then you'd go 'yeah, shame about the Flapper but cities change, that's progress'. But this isn't that. It's twenty seven poky apartments.
TBH considering the housing crisis we are in and the housing need in the city 27 apartment will probably do much more for Birmingham and it's people than a pub.
__________________

If I ain't the one I'm the prototype
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 01:41 PM   #106
jezc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 120
Likes (Received): 277

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
Indeed, it is only for buildings that are to be sold. However, that would be a step to demonstrate that the building and use have value to the community rather than the abstract and largely un-measurable cultural asset tag that has been attached.

For instance, anything can be a cultural asset, the old bullring was a cultural asset for instance. You can go even further an suggest that Digbeth as a whole is a cultural asset or even the entire JQ.

With regard to your comment to Brumjim, cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Sheffield, Cardiff, Leeds, London, Brighton have all lost important music venues so they are in no way immune from something like this. The Astoira in London, Hacienda in Manchester, Blind Tiger in Brighton, The Dutchess in Lees, Picture House in Edinburgh to name a few.

However, whilst you say populist phrases like "If Birmingham is serious about being a city for everyone it has to cater for everyone. Removing a cultural asset (and it is a cultural asset) is a backwards step." you are, unfortunately, seriously light in suggesting what can actually be done legally to stop the owner developing the site in a compliant way. That's not to say i don't agree with the principle that the Government needs to do more to protect assets like this.
But there are cultural assets and cities and public bodies such as the Arts Council do produce cultural asset mapping documents (I think but maybe wrong, Birmingham is/has undertaken one) and cultural in this sense relates to cultural, creative and art led activities (as opposed to food or whole areas such as Digbeth).

You are absolutely right about other city's losing historical venues (not as many as Brum I would suggest) but they have/are realising that this is unsustainable and damaging to those city's cultural life, visitor and tourist attractions and to how the city promotes and markets itself and so they are seeking to minimise this and, as I say, are actively pursuing strategies and policies to project, nurture and grow the sector.

We also have the Music Venues Trust and the Agent of Change principles starting to be applied so things are getting a bit better but if Birmingham is serious about its cultural offer and the city centre being a place for everyone it needs to do more to make it happen. And I understand your point about their ability in the face of the National Planning Framework guidelines can make this extremely difficult especially in their ability to go to appeal and risk losing and so therefore being responsible for paying all the costs when they have no money.

I haven't got the answer as to how we legally do this, nor am I suggesting that every live music venue should be protected and free from being closed/developed but this particular case is different due to its historical and contemporary place in the city's music (and economic) ecology, the heritage of its surroundings and the communities who use and value it. I was pleased that the planning committee recognised this, deferred the decision until a site visit takes place and we'll see what happens from then, although I won't hold my breath.

I think @bhamjims comments to me, highlight a narrow view of what is and what isn't a heritage or cultural asset and and is dismissive of a sizeable group of people's view and culture. 12,500 people signed a petitiona and 702 letters of objection were recieved on these proposals and that shouldn't be overlooked or dismissed. Again, legally that doesn't count for much!
jezc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 01:45 PM   #107
Blunther
Kebab Licker
 
Blunther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Stirchley, Brumtown
Posts: 3,099
Likes (Received): 82

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
TBH considering the housing crisis we are in and the housing need in the city 27 apartment will probably do much more for Birmingham and it's people than a pub.
Come off it.

If you really believed that, then we could house far more people by knocking down the Town Hall, Symphony Hall, ICC and Council House. Think of those huge juicy plots you could put four storey flats on to.
__________________

jezc liked this post
Blunther no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:03 PM   #108
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 15,204
Likes (Received): 2703

Quote:
Originally Posted by jezc View Post
But there are cultural assets and cities and public bodies such as the Arts Council do produce cultural asset mapping documents (I think but maybe wrong, Birmingham is/has undertaken one) and cultural in this sense relates to cultural, creative and art led activities (as opposed to food or whole areas such as Digbeth).
Of course there are cultural assets... I was talking about how you define and measure such a think. The next question is then, once you attach value to it, how do you protect that value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jezc View Post
You are absolutely right about other city's losing historical venues (not as many as Brum I would suggest) but they have/are realising that this is unsustainable and damaging to those city's cultural life, visitor and tourist attractions and to how the city promotes and markets itself and so they are seeking to minimise this and, as I say, are actively pursuing strategies and policies to project, nurture and grow the sector.
But they still have no policies that would have protected the Flapper had it been in a different city. So whilst they are making moves to do such a thing and as you have said the City is too, the Flapper would still be lost because those protections come from Government generally and not the City.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jezc View Post
We also have the Music Venues Trust and the Agent of Change principles starting to be applied so things are getting a bit better but if Birmingham is serious about its cultural offer and the city centre being a place for everyone it needs to do more to make it happen. And I understand your point about their ability in the face of the National Planning Framework guidelines can make this extremely difficult especially in their ability to go to appeal and risk losing and so therefore being responsible for paying all the costs when they have no money.
What more do you think it needs to do though - i've seen your point below though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jezc View Post
I haven't got the answer as to how we legally do this, nor am I suggesting that every live music venue should be protected and free from being closed/developed but this particular case is different due to its historical and contemporary place in the city's music (and economic) ecology, the heritage of its surroundings and the communities who use and value it. I was pleased that the planning committee recognised this, deferred the decision until a site visit takes place and we'll see what happens from then, although I won't hold my breath.
And here is the issue. The complaint is that the Council is not doing enough and needs to do more but you do not know and, i assume, have not done any research to be able to to suggest what more the Council can do to protect the venue than it already has done, bar buying the site itself obvious.

It must then be assume therefore, that the Council is doing all it can and really you are just complaining.

Please don't take this as a criticism of you as i know you are doing great work in this sector and pushing the awareness of an issue which really needs more Governmental support and guidance.

My point is just that everyone is quick to blame the Council for not protecting their individual interest in a specific subject area when there isn't really anything much the city can do.

I find it interesting for instance, that in your opening report of your Committee involvement that you said that there were people who don't go to the Flapper supporting a stay of execution... I mean really? People who don't use it or support it financially now feel the need to tell the owner they should keep it so that the same people can continue to not support it in the future? It's ridiculous.
__________________

If I ain't the one I'm the prototype
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:05 PM   #109
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 15,204
Likes (Received): 2703

double post
__________________

If I ain't the one I'm the prototype
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:07 PM   #110
Astonian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,440
Likes (Received): 1108

Quote:
Originally Posted by jezc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
That is interesting because as you say, a developer wouldn't do that without planning permission as they would be relinquishing an income. I'd image that if the developer is willing to do that, the Flapper must not be making them much money anyway.

Do we know if the developer is the owner of the Flapper?


The difficulty is that a local cultural listing would have no standing in law so it wouldn't protect anything.

If you want to protect places like this the only method available to the community that i am aware of is to get it listed as an asset of community value. However, there isn't anyone who has done that for this site so it can't be that important to the community you could argue.

Of course, the developer could include a pub unit in the development. It's unlikely to retain the same 'charm' as the flapper though due to incompatibility of uses.
Yes @djay the developer owns the pub and his argument (or the one advanced yesterday) is that the pub needs refurbing, isn't viable and therefore he'll break the lease between himself and the landlady and shut the pub. He wouldn't need planning permission to do this and I'm guessing he'd leave it empty for a period of time and then come back with his plans. There is a lot of local resident support for the pub to remain open, even from those who don't use it. I've suggested an Asset of Community Value could be an option but (and I'd need to look into this) the building would have to be about to be sold or up for sale first and that's not the case here.
I'm pragmatic about this as I realise you can't keep every building and developments will always happen, especially in a city. But @bhamjim I find your remarks condescending and lacking in empathy. The Flapper has been a community pub (residents, visitors, music lovers, canal users, walkers/cyclists) for fifty years. It means something to a lot of people. It's a third space. It's one of few city centre places with an outdoor space. It's a place where different communities comingle. It has important musical history, heritage and culture attached to it and is a place of significant intangible heritage for a wide range of people.
If Birmingham is serious about being a city for everyone it has to cater for everyone. Removing a cultural asset (and it is a cultural asset) is a backwards step. Cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Sheffield, Cardiff, Leeds, London, Brighton and others are all supporting their music industry sector through developing strategies and policies to nurture, protect and grow their sector. But is you want hard economics then the Midlands music sector has an annual GVA of £230m and supports 6600 jobs and music tourism (going to gigs) in the West Midlands support 3,400 jobs with a £271m spend. The Flapper is a crucial part of this music ecology. It's worth protecting.
Spot on.
Astonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:07 PM   #111
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 15,204
Likes (Received): 2703

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blunther View Post
Come off it.

If you really believed that, then we could house far more people by knocking down the Town Hall, Symphony Hall, ICC and Council House. Think of those huge juicy plots you could put four storey flats on to.
You know what my point is. To suggest the flats will provide no benefit is stupid and ignorant.

The Flapper is not legally protected and housing is needed. That is not the same as saying the Flapper should/shouldn't be legally protected or that the Flapper doesn't provide other benefits. In my opinion however, the Flapper can be replaced or moved if it is that much of an asset. Fundamentally though, we need homes and 27 additional homes, of which some will be affordable, is benefit to the city and it's people regardless of whether you think it will be 40 year olds living in them.

For the record, if the ICC was demolished for housing, i would be making the same point.
__________________

If I ain't the one I'm the prototype

Last edited by djay; October 11th, 2019 at 02:12 PM.
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:39 PM   #112
Blunther
Kebab Licker
 
Blunther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Stirchley, Brumtown
Posts: 3,099
Likes (Received): 82

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
You know what my point is. To suggest the flats will provide no benefit is stupid and ignorant.

The Flapper is not legally protected and housing is needed. That is not the same as saying the Flapper should/shouldn't be legally protected or that the Flapper doesn't provide other benefits. In my opinion however, the Flapper can be replaced or moved if it is that much of an asset. Fundamentally though, we need homes and 27 additional homes, of which some will be affordable, is benefit to the city and it's people regardless of whether you think it will be 40 year olds living in them.

For the record, if the ICC was demolished for housing, i would be making the same point.
There's tons of room for flats. There's acres available in Stirchley but it's going to be surface car parking and a retail park. Build flats there. Three affordable homes is not sufficient benefit. If you genuinely think ripping down the ICC for flats is a decent idea, then I dunno what to suggest. Just fill up the city with flats and have nowhere for the people in them to go... that's a weird one.

I said 40-50 people not 40 year olds... I'm one of those soon enough so nothing against 40 year olds!
__________________

jezc liked this post
Blunther no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:40 PM   #113
jezc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 120
Likes (Received): 277

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
Of course there are cultural assets... I was talking about how you define and measure such a think. The next question is then, once you attach value to it, how do you protect that value.



But they still have no policies that would have protected the Flapper had it been in a different city. So whilst they are making moves to do such a thing and as you have said the City is too, the Flapper would still be lost because those protections come from Government generally and not the City.



What more do you think it needs to do though - i've seen your point below though.



And here is the issue. The complaint is that the Council is not doing enough and needs to do more but you do not know and, i assume, have not done any research to be able to to suggest what more the Council can do to protect the venue than it already has done, bar buying the site itself obvious.

It must then be assume therefore, that the Council is doing all it can and really you are just complaining.

Please don't take this as a criticism of you as i know you are doing great work in this sector and pushing the awareness of an issue which really needs more Governmental support and guidance.

My point is just that everyone is quick to blame the Council for not protecting their individual interest in a specific subject area when there isn't really anything much the city can do.

I find it interesting for instance, that in your opening report of your Committee involvement that you said that there were people who don't go to the Flapper supporting a stay of execution... I mean really? People who don't use it or support it financially now feel the need to tell the owner they should keep it so that the same people can continue to not support it in the future? It's ridiculous.
Djay, I can see the way I have written this can be read that I am complaining about the council so let me try and be clearer. I worked for the council for many years as did members of my family. I'm a supporter of the council and often times the only voice in a room who will ask people who are criticising the council to take a step back and examine the realities for BCC (and all councils) with the huge cuts and job losses they have faced over the last ten years and the decimation of the public sector and the struggle they face running statutory services. This is mostly in creative and cultural forums. I consistently argue that BCC can no longer afford to financially support the sector as it once did and struggles to support it through staffing. The same is true for nearly every department.

However, the city council can do better in acting as brokers, connectors etc (again I am now talking about just my experience in the creative/cultural sector). For example, I have been trying to offer my expertise in music for the planning dept in issues such as this case. I'm not a planning officer, I don't know the law etc but I can provide cultural context, act as a mediator etc in cases like this. Instead what happened is that the developer and then the planning officer wrote a report about alternate provisions for live music that was wrong, misleading and included venues that were closed.

BCC needs to work smarter particularly in cases that will be contentious instead of leaving people to feel they have no say or input into decisions that affect them and/or they care about. A written submission or 3-minute opportunity to talk is not sufficient. And so people, rightly or wrongly, feel that it is those with the money who have the power.

My experience at the committee yesterday was positive. I felt the Cllrs on the whole) understood the issues and what was at stake. Now of course, like me they are ley people and so the advice of the planning dept expertise will, I imagine, be taken as they know the legal framework. Going through this process is not complaining, it's partly a result of democratic principles, but it's also important that developers are questioned, their motives are studied and their attitudes are exposed. This particular developer is quite aggressive and to be honest it doesn't bode well for tennants in his flats if they get built. He complains the pub is not viable, needs refurbing etc and therefore should be closed and yet it's his building that he's let get to that state?

What needs to be done? So in other cases, I'm actively working with developers to think through how they might recognise and incorporate the history and heritage of the buildings they are working with. Others have been proactive and paid to soundproof music venues next to their development. So it is possible to be a 'good' developer in these types of cases and a huge credit to a couple of BCC officers who are telling developers that they need to come and talk to me (and others) before they submit plans. Cultural, creative, artistic approaches to planning and development can enrich developers plans, can head off potential disputes and can act as a paradigm shift between city development and harnessing cultural activity so that everyone benefits. I don't want to live in a city that looks and acts the same as every other city. Utopia? Maybe. But it's worth pursuing.

Again, there is a lot of academic literature about how you value and measure culture for different purposes. Dr Dave O'Brien's work is a great start here. How about developers and cultural intermediaries talk to each other and make each other aware of these types of approaches?

And finally, I don't see an issue with people who don't use a venue supporting it. What is wrong with that? In fact is a huge plus. Those people who live in the area see the use the building has from a range of different users and communities. This is about place-making and civic pride. A venue in an area they live is being used. They don't have to attend to get value or pleasure from that. They are thousands of places I don't go to in this city but would support their continuing existence. I want to live in a diverse, pluralistic city and I recognise that that takes all types of places, spaces, peoples and communities and long may that be the case.
jezc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:43 PM   #114
Blunther
Kebab Licker
 
Blunther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Stirchley, Brumtown
Posts: 3,099
Likes (Received): 82

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
I find it interesting for instance, that in your opening report of your Committee involvement that you said that there were people who don't go to the Flapper supporting a stay of execution... I mean really? People who don't use it or support it financially now feel the need to tell the owner they should keep it so that the same people can continue to not support it in the future? It's ridiculous.
Why is that so odd? There's tons of places I never go that I support keeping. I can't remember the last time I even went to the Flapper to be honest. Not everything is about self interest all the time, I like that we have facilities for people to use even if I never use them myself. Other people might want to.
__________________

jezc liked this post
Blunther no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:48 PM   #115
Blunther
Kebab Licker
 
Blunther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Stirchley, Brumtown
Posts: 3,099
Likes (Received): 82

Quote:
Originally Posted by jezc View Post
And finally, I don't see an issue with people who don't use a venue supporting it. What is wrong with that? In fact is a huge plus. Those people who live in the area see the use the building has from a range of different users and communities. This is about place-making and civic pride. A venue in an area they live is being used. They don't have to attend to get value or pleasure from that. They are thousands of places I don't go to in this city but would support their continuing existence. I want to live in a diverse, pluralistic city and I recognise that that takes all types of places, spaces, peoples and communities and long may that be the case.
You just keep coming along, saying what I'm trying to say but saying it far better.
__________________

jezc liked this post
Blunther no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:48 PM   #116
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 15,204
Likes (Received): 2703

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blunther View Post
There's tons of room for flats. There's acres available in Stirchley but it's going to be surface car parking and a retail park. Build flats there. Three affordable homes is not sufficient benefit. If you genuinely think ripping down the ICC for flats is a decent idea, then I dunno what to suggest. Just fill up the city with flats and have nowhere for the people in them to go... that's a weird one.

I said 40-50 people not 40 year olds... I'm one of those soon enough so nothing against 40 year olds!
Again, stop being ignorant. I didn't make that point at all.
__________________

If I ain't the one I'm the prototype
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:50 PM   #117
Blunther
Kebab Licker
 
Blunther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Stirchley, Brumtown
Posts: 3,099
Likes (Received): 82

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
Again, stop being ignorant. I didn't make that point at all.
It's the natural extension of your position. If 'homes' trump all, then what's left? Even tiny little irrelevant developments like this one. You're not going to fix the housing crisis by allowing profiteering developers to run roughshod over the city chucking up whatever crappy cheap boxes they can until ha;lf the city is just crap flats. You fix it from the top level, and that's something we as a country as consistently voting against.
__________________

jezc liked this post
Blunther no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 02:57 PM   #118
Astonian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,440
Likes (Received): 1108

Quote:
Originally Posted by BhamJim View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blunther View Post
We're going to lose The Flapper, Costermongers, Scruffy Murphy's, the Oasis market... basically the entire 'alternative' culture in Birmingham is being wiped out.
I think to suggest the replacing of this pub with an apartment block (and associated facilities) is stoking the fire that burns away our entire alternative culture, is perhaps a bit melodramatic. It's simply the ongoing changing face of our city, for the better.

I fully agree with taking the time to assess all the options and ensure mistakes of yesteryear aren't repeated. Island House is an unforgivable recent mistake that springs to mind. But this, and all the places you mentioned above are not the Old Market Hall or the Snow Hill station facade or the original library. They are not the Town Hall, the Cathedral or even the Custard Factory and the heart of bohemian Digbeth.

There are plenty of pubs and other buildings that are worth keeping of course, I don't advocate the wiping out of everything as we move forward, and thankfully neither do the people that matter. The fact HS2 will not only keep, but embrace and improve the Woodman, the Eagle and Tun and the Curzon Street Hall is wonderful IMO, but yeah, the Fox and Grapes had to go.

I'm sure that there are people who were aggrieved when the Brindley Place development began, or Royal Mail workers who were turfed out of the Mailbox and sent to Newtown, there were regulars in The Bridge at the old New Street Station, I wonder if they enjoy a pint in All Bar One as much. But really, overall, these areas have been improved beyond all expectations and it's my opinion that Baskerville Wharf and the surrounding area can be another city gem, but to be so it wont include the Flapper.
I’m with Blunther. We’re building a nice city centre and demolishing reasons to go there. The Crown is another travesty.
__________________

Blunther liked this post
Astonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 03:03 PM   #119
Blunther
Kebab Licker
 
Blunther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Stirchley, Brumtown
Posts: 3,099
Likes (Received): 82

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astonian View Post
I’m with Blunther. We’re building a nice city centre and demolishing reasons to go there. The Crown is another travesty.
It's the big risk with development. I'm all for development which is why I'm on this forum, but you have to be careful or you end up with a city of flats and chain stores and chain restaurants and not much else. I just don't want Birmingham to be another Anywheresville any more than it already is. Keeping the unique little places, even if (maybe especially if) they seem a bit grotty and unloved from the outside, keeps the magic of the city. Without that you might as well go to Merry Hill and stay dry.
Blunther no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 11th, 2019, 03:08 PM   #120
BhamJim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 884

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blunther View Post
It's the natural extension of your position. If 'homes' trump all, then what's left? Even tiny little irrelevant developments like this one. You're not going to fix the housing crisis by allowing profiteering developers to run roughshod over the city chucking up whatever crappy cheap boxes they can until ha;lf the city is just crap flats. You fix it from the top level, and that's something we as a country as consistently voting against.
I don't think that is what is happening. Bars and restaurants seem to be thriving in Bham with new ventures popping up all the time and a thriving night scene.

That said, 'homes' are the trump card. It's common knowledge that a growth in city centre living brings 24 hr life to the city and obviously attracts further ventures, and this is something Bham is actively encouraging.

It doesnt make sense to have a niche pub in this location.

Places like The Malt House, The Brasshouse, The Tap and Spile, the Craven Arms, the Bulls Head, Fiddle and Bone have withstood developments around them, but you must be able to see how the building design and appeal here is not the same.
BhamJim no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LONDON | Projects & Construction wjfox City/Metro Compilations 24014 Yesterday 10:43 PM
London - Full Summary of Projects 28 SE9 London Metro Area 108 November 15th, 2019 06:06 PM
LOS ANGELES | Projects & Construction soup or man City/Metro Compilations 2210 November 15th, 2019 06:19 AM
NOTTINGHAM | Projects & Construction Stefan88 City/Metro Compilations 196 November 9th, 2019 12:33 PM
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY - Newcastle Metro Area Forum: Projects Listing newcastlepubs Newcastle Metro Area 0 February 7th, 2010 07:32 PM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us