SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 287 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The long awaited Bishopgate development has finally been submitted for planning. On the site of the former Royal Mail sorting office, the development will comprise of five towers containing over 1100 student apartments with some leisure and retail at ground level:







 

·
Concerto Grosso
Joined
·
7,449 Posts
Interesting. A bit of a jumble of blocks there, but I quite like some of the views. Certainly will seem odd having the ring road built up like this. I like the brick plinth, that looks OK.

The Avis building looks very odd stuck there next to this behemoth!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Some pretty tall buildings (for Coventry) going up in the next couple of years. These five, two at Belgrade, three on London Road, one at Friargate and surely more to follow there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Strange that the Avis building is just left their!

I like that its built up to the street, oh and that bridge needs to come down. If it doesn't fall down on its own that is!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
618 Posts
Coventry needs to be removing it's towers in my opinion not building new ones.
Cant say I agree. The old towers are poor in my opinion both in design and positioning but cities need height. Agree I would not want every building to be a tower but I think we are some way off this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Coventry needs to be removing it's towers in my opinion not building new ones.
Can't agree. Way too much low-rise dross that needs to be swept away.

The locations for the proposed tall buildings are entirely sensible in my opinion, and providing there is quality in terms of the design and use of materials I see this as a huge positive.

You also have to consider density - the less dense these student developments are the more of them you need and the more development land is swallowed up, because the demand isn't going away. Coventry is a city not a sleepy market town and needs to start behaving like one and face up to the pressures of its rapid population growth and build accordingly.

Remember also that a number of towers will be lost. Station Tower has gone, Priory Halls will be going, Civic Centre 4 will probably go and the worst one of all (the one on Market Way the name of which I can't remember) will go as part of the CCS plans. So, the worst of the old stuff will go anyway (although I would keep CC4 personally).
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,293 Posts
I don't know. I just wish the Coventry skyline was still dominated by the three spires but i'm a traditionalist i suppose. Yes high rise aren't necessarily bad but i prefer them in clusters rather than in random locations. Maybe a cluster at the train station and a cluster around the university would be my preference aka not in close proximity to the three spires. I agree above the quality of materials and design is key in high rises. The towers in the precinct and the tower next to the Cathedral need to go in my opinion.
 

·
Phoenix1043
Joined
·
144 Posts
I don't know. I just wish Coventry was still dominated by the three spires but i'm a traditionalist i suppose. Yes high rise aren't necessarily bad but i prefer them in clusters rather than in random locations. Maybe a cluster at the train station and a cluster around the university would be my preference. I agree above the quality of materials and design is key in high rises.

The 3 spires can still be prominent if it's carefully planned. All new developments have to consider the sight lines to the spires, so I think your sentiment is safe there. I however don't really mind if they are prominent features or not. I know they are there and they wil always be enjoyed. We can't allow development to suffer because of traditionalist ideas. I think height is the way forward for Coventry. Unless you'd prefer green belt to be built on?

I happen to like this development. I really hope it soyrs on mire growth down that way and beyond.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,293 Posts
As for the design for these they are not too bad as student developments go. I would prefer to see more glazing and less white render/concrete though and perhaps for each of the towers to have a signature in it's design to define it from the adjacent tower. Maybe even if its just different coloured vertical cladding in each i.e. one orange, the next blue, etc.
 

·
...Ready for departure.
Joined
·
11,830 Posts
Nice collection. Mind you, as with all other tower builds going up.. good luck in the next recession... (coming in 9 months, I believe). :eek:hno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,121 Posts
I don't know. I just wish the Coventry skyline was still dominated by the three spires but i'm a traditionalist i suppose. Yes high rise aren't necessarily bad but i prefer them in clusters rather than in random locations. Maybe a cluster at the train station and a cluster around the university would be my preference aka not in close proximity to the three spires. I agree above the quality of materials and design is key in high rises. The towers in the precinct and the tower next to the Cathedral need to go in my opinion.
Echoing the sentiments above, I agree that many of the post-war towers need to go - especially the precinct ones mainly due to their ludicrous positioning. Design wise you could argue they reflect the times and at least one should be retained as a reference to the post-war era. Personally, I'd have kept station tower in that respect, but there we go.

However, I totally disagree that they shouldn't be replaced, or indeed added to, with new ones.

I agree with you that I would like the three spires to remain prominent but this doesn't mean they have to dominate the skyline. As has been pointed out the local plan mentions preserving the viewcones of the spires, and a diagram of it can be seen here, on page 27:

http://democraticservices.coventry.gov.uk/documents/s21891/City Centre Area Action Plan - Appendix.pdf

I've actually taken the trouble to look at these, and almost without exception they are truly terrible views, most have little more than a glimpse of the tip of a single spire, and are obstructed by other buildings or look over the flyovers of the ring road. Some I had to look at via StreetView, and even with
the elevated camera angle they were difficult to spot.

There is another map that eludes me at the moment showing where tall buildings will not be permitted to preserve these 'views'. It covers huge swathes of the city centre.

So I think thought and criteria need to be put behind this idea, and for me they are as follows:

1) ALL THREE spires must be visible

2) A decent proportion of each spire should be visible (i.e. at least the entire spire and preferably a section of tower as well)

3) Along a well-used route, ideally by visitors as much as locals, so they have an impact and create a unique sense of place

Taking into account those criteria, and topography, you can discount pretty much everywhere except to the south.

Christchurch isn't very visible from the north, as it is the smallest and at the bottom of a hill. There is quite a large distance between it and the other two from the east and west, and although you could allow a tall building in between it would break up the 'three spires' and be less visually impressive.

Given that, you could potentially get decent views from Spencer Park (not well used by visitors but a picturesque scene nonetheless) and the station.

Creating this one view, requiring the removal of a single large building (tax office), at the expense of all the other 'views' would allow vast tracts of land to become hugely more viable to developers as it would remove the tall building restrictions. Only a small sliver of land would need protecting from tall developments to allow it.

You could have all the modern tall Friargate buildings around the station, using them to fantastic effect to frame the view of the spires and create a contrast between the old and new. But where did they choose to build the very first of these towers? Slap bang in the middle of that potential view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
Do the images at the top of the thread look better than this version that was posted on the CT website?



Image from the top of the thread

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
I also prefer the CT one.

First thing I noticed was the lower ground level section gaining a recessed entrance(?) not present in the initial renders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,757 Posts
I also prefer the CT one.

First thing I noticed was the lower ground level section gaining a recessed entrance(?) not present in the initial renders.
Indeed, and the glazing to the corner section. The signage is moved on the second one to what looks like the usual Cov story of a side entrance being the main entrance!
 

·
Concerto Grosso
Joined
·
7,449 Posts
I prefer the new one as well. The layout of this matches the planning application (With the entrance at the front.)

I wonder if anyone will build on the car park. It will loo a bit strange with a huge gap there. Something with frontages might bring more life to the street, along with the other gap being filled in. And CDP can restore that lane that runs from the city gate down to the grammar school. :) :) In my dream.
 
1 - 20 of 287 Posts
Top