St Luke's | Sherlock Street | Residential | 15/7/4/3fl | 46m | U/C - Page 3 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

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

Birmingham Construction Forum Building projects in Birmingham and the Black Country


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 March 21st, 2017, 12:15 AM   #41
Engels
Simples
 
Engels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 5,796
Likes (Received): 532

Far too much public green space lost with this development... there should be less private gardens and a larger retained open spacev Whats the minimum dimensions before you can claim something is a park - I've seen motorway verges wider than the central green space here.

I'm very temted to register an objection on the grounds of the loss of publci amenity
__________________
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!

Biosonic, Nessyjord liked this post
Engels está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 21st, 2017, 12:16 AM   #42
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 14,903
Likes (Received): 2654

Quote:
Originally Posted by daniboy173 View Post
If this gets passed then it just shows how Bham has no hope. Sold its soul to the devil of blandness. Complete lack of imagination as per usual. Are these plans drawn by robots or people!? Bludy awful
In planning terms it would be very difficult to refuse. I expect the LPA may ask them to increase the density on the site near Bristol Road but then you have to think about the impact on the existing housing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Engels View Post
Far too much public green space lost with this development... there should be less private gardens and a larger retained open spacev Whats the minimum dimensions before you can claim something is a park - I've seen motorway verges wider than the central green space here.

I'm very temted to register an objection on the grounds of the loss of publci amenity
You are taking the piss right?

1) A neighbourhood park in excess of 1.3ha
2) A grass kick-about pitch of 50x36m to replace the existing provision
3) An enclosed infant play area of 625m2
4) A junior play area of 1,225m2
5) Informal amenity open space associated with the play areas and kickabout
area and of varied enclosure for general community use
6) A central east-west aligned green spine that links to the neighbourhood
park and the open space to the south of Hope Street

This development will make the current open space much more useful and useable than it currently is.
__________________

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

Last edited by djay; March 21st, 2017 at 12:27 AM.
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 12:29 AM   #43
daniboy173
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 417
Likes (Received): 149

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brum X View Post
Just becouse you may not like it, each to there own. But please please do not rubbish the whole city just becouse of one development that does not meet your ambition. Stuff like Smithfield should be how you judge the ambition of this city and we have yet to see detailed proposals for this site.


It's not the fact that the development is poor that I think that Birmingham is going in the wrong direction, because there are many of those throughout the city that I am happy to ignore. It's the fact that they are going to demolish the architecturally superior church to build this crap instead of. It just shows that there is no 'bigger vision' - no overall direction of creating a city with any sort of character. We will soon (if not already) have a city with a complete lack of historical presence. And once we lose that we are just meaningless. Just a giant lego set with no character or interest. Yes fine this is only one decision in a big city, but if passed it shows the mindset of the decision makers, and basically makes the current lot no better than the vandals of the 1960s/70s.
daniboy173 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 21st, 2017, 12:29 AM   #44
1874
create streets
 
1874's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: SW6
Posts: 978
Likes (Received): 981

Deplorable if the City allow the loss of the church.

From the planning statement:

Quote:
6.60 The application site includes two existing buildings known as ‘The Former St Luke’s
Church’ and ‘The Highgate Centre’. Whilst not formally identified as non-designated
heritage assets by BCC or identified in the Birmingham Historic Environment Record
(HER), the Council has stated during pre-application discussions that these two
buildings are of some interest. A Heritage Assessment which provides a proportionate
assessment of the significance of these buildings has been undertaken and is contained
within Appendix 2 of this Planning Statement.

6.61 The Assessment concludes that both the former St Luke’s Church and the Highgate
Centre are of limited architectural and historic interest. It notes that the existing buildings
are of low significance and therefore a balanced judgement is required to their loss in
accordance with paragraph 135 of the NPPF.
What ever happened to sustainable, healthy communities? Have they thought that perhaps the church could be a community centre or brought back into use as a church with the increased local population?

I suppose the buildings replacing this church hold much more 'architectural merit'. Ha.
__________________

Biosonic, morestoreysplease, Bugbyte liked this post
1874 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 12:36 AM   #45
djay
The promised land
 
djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 14,903
Likes (Received): 2654

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1874 View Post
Deplorable if the City allow the loss of the church.

From the planning statement:



What ever happened to sustainable, healthy communities? Have they thought that perhaps the church could be a community centre or brought back into use as a church with the increased local population?

I suppose the buildings replacing this church hold much more 'architectural merit'. Ha.
But that is not the test... If it is not listed, its potential future use is not required to be judged over the need for housing.

You are falling for the lipservice the Government give you whilst passing laws and policy which you take no notice of that allows this to happen.
__________________

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

citywatcher01 liked this post
djay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 12:54 AM   #46
daniboy173
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 417
Likes (Received): 149

Whether the plans are in accordance with 'policy' and 'rules' is irrelevant to 99% of people. All they see is a nice building being demolished and a shite ones being built. And you can defend the rules all you like but it's these rules that allowed the great city Birmingham used to be to be demolished. It's these 'rules' and 'policy' that has made an mockery of the city. Where is the 'rule' for not creating shite buildings??
__________________

DBadger liked this post
daniboy173 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 01:07 AM   #47
1874
create streets
 
1874's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: SW6
Posts: 978
Likes (Received): 981

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post
But that is not the test... If it is not listed, its potential future use is not required to be judged over the need for housing.

You are falling for the lipservice the Government give you whilst passing laws and policy which you take no notice of that allows this to happen.
You call statutory policy lip service?

I would not say I'm falling for anything. Just saddened that this building has failed to be protected given that it is in fact the only building with any architectural or historic merit in that local area, despite what Turley would have you believe.

I'm not one to pin all the blame on the council mind, despite them having failed to protect the building and presumably advise the developer at pre-app that the church's demolition is acceptable... Developers have a duty to provide amenities and a sense of community in their developments, I would say. Sure they need their 20% but (and I'm no surveyor) surely, saving the church at the expense of a couple of houses would add value to the remaining units.
__________________

Nessyjord liked this post
1874 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 01:16 AM   #48
Engels
Simples
 
Engels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 5,796
Likes (Received): 532

Quote:
Originally Posted by djay View Post

You are taking the piss right?

1) A neighbourhood park in excess of 1.3ha
2) A grass kick-about pitch of 50x36m to replace the existing provision
3) An enclosed infant play area of 625m2
4) A junior play area of 1,225m2
5) Informal amenity open space associated with the play areas and kickabout
area and of varied enclosure for general community use
6) A central east-west aligned green spine that links to the neighbourhood
park and the open space to the south of Hope Street

This development will make the current open space much more useful and useable than it currently is.
No - and that's just a list of what will be provided- it does nothing to demonstrate that this is a reasonable replacement for the net loss See paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework below..

Quote:
74. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including
playing fields, should not be built on unless:
● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open
space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
● the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by
equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable
location; or
● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the
needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.
So where is the assessment of this existing quantity and quality of the current amenity space - there should at least be a suitable breakdown of the existing open space and an assessment of the net loss

Sorry I am unconvinced - we are trying to create more open spaces in our city not less. They need to go back to the drawing board here
__________________
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 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 11:24 AM   #49
Biosonic
Second Citizen
 
Biosonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,903
Likes (Received): 573

Worth emergency listing?

https://ahistoryofbirminghamchurches...ristol-street/

Quote:
St Luke’s is the only known church to contain the Royal Arms of Edward VII.
Wonder what the conservationists think?
__________________
Birmingham.Brilliance

ellbrown, 1874, Nessyjord liked this post

Last edited by Biosonic; March 21st, 2017 at 12:04 PM.
Biosonic no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 11:34 AM   #50
Brum Boy
Registered User
 
Brum Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 214

Always happy to see new developments going up for planning but with this one I do agree that the demolition of the church is a mistake. With a redesign the church could easily be included to make a feature and with little or no impact on the number of units on offer. The scheme is called St Luke’s after all.
Brum Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 11:44 AM   #51
Storeys
Hello
 
Storeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 1,704
Likes (Received): 1008

The whole development looks great overall, the taller buildings look really good. It's a bit strange that an old church is being demolished though.
__________________

Brum X, ReissOmari liked this post
Storeys no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 12:11 PM   #52
ellbrown
flickr ell brown
 
ellbrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 21,689
Likes (Received): 7726

I see that Bill Dargue used my photo of St Luke's Church in that link.
__________________
Flickr ell brown

1874 liked this post
ellbrown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 12:47 PM   #53
citywatcher01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 880
Likes (Received): 530

And yet no one seemed to complain when the Park Central developers reduced the 'green' space on an awful sink estate into the far more enjoyable, and useful central parks. I'm not seeing the problem with the green space here. Agree that finding a use for the church could add character to the area. However, it's not the most beautiful piece of architecture, just because it survived the 60s, doesn't mean it has an automatic right to protection
__________________

djay, ReissOmari liked this post
citywatcher01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 01:17 PM   #54
Kingsheathen
Kingsheathen
 
Kingsheathen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,856
Likes (Received): 2085

The church is in an awkward position. It's just too close to the junction. I often try to imagine how it could be incorporated well into a new development. I couldn't come up with any good ideas but I thought an architect would.

It's a real shame to loose the church but the area should still look better if this development gets built.
Kingsheathen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 03:52 PM   #55
Brum Boy
Registered User
 
Brum Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 214

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingsheathen View Post
The church is in an awkward position. It's just too close to the junction. I often try to imagine how it could be incorporated well into a new development. I couldn't come up with any good ideas but I thought an architect would.

It's a real shame to loose the church but the area should still look better if this development gets built.
There is already a gap between the 2 proposed building facing Bristol Street. I think it would look quite good having the church sitting in the gap with access to the centre of the development round both sides of the church.

All they need to do to make this happen is reduce the width of the building on the left to fit the church in and increase the width of the building on the right. They probably won’t even lose any units doing this but if did they can add to the height of the other buildings in the development. (SIMPLES).
__________________

Kingsheathen liked this post
Brum Boy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 04:42 PM   #56
Kingsheathen
Kingsheathen
 
Kingsheathen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,856
Likes (Received): 2085

St Luke's Masterplan | Southside | Apartments & Housing Development | 11 FL | Prop.

You're right. The church looks like it is pretty central in the development. The existing St Luke's road points straight at it.





__________________

Brum Boy, Spread liked this post

Last edited by Kingsheathen; March 21st, 2017 at 05:51 PM.
Kingsheathen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 05:07 PM   #57
Brummyboy92
Registered Abuser
 
Brummyboy92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 6,979
Likes (Received): 1576

I forgot there was a park here as well, so will that be lost as well? Cant quite tell from the render.
Brummyboy92 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 05:20 PM   #58
citywatcher01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 880
Likes (Received): 530

Most of the greenspace in the above image had a college campus, tower blocks and low rise housing on it until a decade ago
__________________

Kingsheathen, ReissOmari liked this post
citywatcher01 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 05:41 PM   #59
Biosonic
Second Citizen
 
Biosonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 16,903
Likes (Received): 573

That large parkland has always been there.
__________________
Birmingham.Brilliance
Biosonic no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 06:18 PM   #60
DBadger
culled
 
DBadger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Wolverhampton / West Bromwich
Posts: 18,197
Likes (Received): 5839

Any plans for McDonalds and the adjoining site? Missing corner of a very built up area then.
__________________
THE NORTH/SOUTH DIVIDE
THE MIDLANDS CONQUER

♣ WOLVERHAMPTON ~ BIRMINGHAM 2022
DBadger 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
ACTUALIZACIONES | LISTA MAESTRA DE PROYECTOS | Información y Fotografías Melkor2004 Ciudad de México 17094 Today 10:38 PM
London - Full Summary of Projects 28 SE9 London Metro Area 93 October 15th, 2019 08:50 AM
**ADELAIDE Project Guide** - Updated: March 2018 crawf South Australia 18 December 17th, 2018 11:19 PM
[Bratislava] Full Summary of Projects alien Bratislava 636 October 3rd, 2018 12:45 PM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:52 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