SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 199 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
21,963 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Original Developer - AWG Ltd
Original Architect - Carey Jones Architects



I know the proposed building planned for this site (above) known as Imperial Quay (which is what I have named the thread for ease of identification) has I think been cancelled so the site is currently dormant but this is a very important development site and we should monitor what happens here.

This is one of the three major remaining “gaps” in East Quayside, with the other two being ’57 Quayside’ and the ‘entrance to the Ouseburn' plot, all three of which are important (in my view) if we are to achieve 'completion' of the East Quayside Streetscape.

The last mention of this development site on the old 'Projects Thread' was on December 10th last year when Gregstone wrote . . . "Known as Plot 12 or Imperial Quay and owned by One North East, Very little info or news on intentions or indeed why it has taken so long. I understand the CDC is keen to bring forward "Lower Ouseburn / East Quayside" as a priority area for redevelopment."

Last I heard was that One North East are supposed to be marketing the site.

I, personally, think that this major "gap" in East Quayside has a very detrimental impact on the overall appearence of the area, and that is why I think we could use this thread to keep an eye on progress, or lack of it, for this location?
 

·
dE/dm
Joined
·
2,399 Posts
I agree with the comments regarding the gap effect this dormant site has, but you've got to rememeber the controversy this development stirred up when first proposed due to the church at the top of the bank (st. annes?) and the blocking of views. Local opinion was so against the plans that they were considering sit-in protests in order to avoid construction. The plans were approved after the developers knocked a couple of floors off the height (from 15 to 13). I always got the feeling that the susequent rejection of the 'northern light' application was in some way linked to imperial quay as a way of regaining favour of local residents.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
21,963 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I agree with the comments regarding the gap effect this dormant site has, but you've got to rememeber the controversy this development stirred up when first proposed due to the church at the top of the bank (st. annes?) and the blocking of views. Local opinion was so against the plans that they were considering sit-in protests in order to avoid construction. The plans were approved after the developers knocked a couple of floors off the height (from 15 to 13). I always got the feeling that the susequent rejection of the 'northern light' application was in some way linked to imperial quay as a way of regaining favour of local residents.
The long term benefits to all, of having a civilised and complete 'city-environment' in that area, rather than being left with an obvious overgrown and desolate un-developed development site, far out weigh perceived benefits to "a few" of a particular view from a particular static place. The view would still be there, you just might have to walk to the left or right a few feet. Also, what about all the new views that would be created 'from' Imperial Quay (and from 'Northern Light', since you mention it) and all the office workers and residents who would benefit from those?

The main thing though is the ridiculous "this is a poor place that cannot even manage or get the investment together to build on its premier and most obvious sites" type of impact that is created by this very obvious and silly looking UNFINISHED GAP.

In my opinion, that is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,315 Posts
The long term benefits to all, of having a civilised and complete 'city-environment' in that area, rather than being left with an obvious overgrown and desolate un-developed development site, far out weigh perceived benefits to "a few" of a particular view from a particular static place. The view would still be there, you just might have to walk to the left or right a few feet. Also, what about all the new views that would be created 'from' Imperial Quay (and from 'Northern Light', since you mention it) and all the office workers and residents who would benefit from those?

The main thing though is the ridiculous "this is a poor place that cannot even manage or get the investment together to build on its premier and most obvious sites" type of impact that is created by this very obvious and silly looking UNFINISHED GAP.

In my opinion, that is.
Ive never understood this, maybe someone involved in planning can enlighten me.

Since when was someone - anyone - entitled to a view? How on earth can such an arguement be used to deny development? Can i now roam the area at random claiming 'views' as my own and use this to my benefit?
 

·
Architect
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
I'm pretty certain that it is still the case that you have no right to a view, only a right to light. I could be wrong, but that's always been my understanding of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,457 Posts
i don't think the argument was so much about the view from the bank, but about views to St. Anne's as a landmark feature of the quayside, or some bollocks like that. It is a great church, a real gem, but it is small and domestic in scale, and you can barely even see it from across the river because it is blocked by trees. It shouldn't really come into consideration when planning for this site.
 

·
dE/dm
Joined
·
2,399 Posts
That's right, and the fact that it's not even on the quayside but rather on the road behind and on the top of a bank makes it even more ridiculous.

Another consideration here is the way there is a sudden transition between the relatively large buildings of the western quayside, including the st.annes quay building, and the essentially lowrise Mariners wharf buildings further east. Although those buildings are fairly decent quality I don't like the way they effectively bookend the quayside by making anything placed further east appear oversized in camparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,457 Posts
mariner's wharf (and the uglier flats above them) have always been unsatisfactory for me, because of the dead space behind them - carparking and the exposed bank. In contrast one of the best features of Imperial Quay was designing a stepped public route through the site connecting the quayside with city road.
 

·
dE/dm
Joined
·
2,399 Posts
Mariner's wharf should never have been approved. It just shows what a load of one-dimensional rubbish this argument about the need for correct scale and context is. This is a clear example of a development too small for it's location.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
21,963 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Sadly, STILL no 'new' news on this project, or on any possible new project for this sensitive GAP site on East Quayside.

Below is, out of interest, a bit of the history of the Imperial Quay project, leading up to the most recent news in 2007 . . .

August 2002 - The new proposal is described as the "final piece in the (East Quayside) Jigsaw" . . .



September 20th 2002 - The PROTESTS begin . . .



2007 - The protesters have won, we have a LOVELY undeveloped GAP on East Quayside, and One North East put the site back on the market . . .

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,256 Posts
I despise NIMBYs. The way they talk about that building being supposedly so massive is pathetic. They ought to either live in Dubai, where they'll see what a real monster looks like, or live in a cave to keep their backwards ways from causing any damage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
I hate these NIMBY's - sometimes they can do good BUT in this instance they got it wrong, so wrong.

Imperial Quay was the final piece of the jigsaw of that area - instead we are left with a grassy verge - :bash::bash:

Also the proposals suggested look pretty good, not just tacky offices BUT what looked like quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts
Agency upbeat over last piece of Quayside jigsaw
THE owner of the last remaining undeveloped site on Newcastle’s Quayside says it is still confident it will find a development partner –more than eight years since it first unveiled a £60m scheme for the land.

In 2003 landowner One North East (ONE) and Scottish property company AWG trumpeted their impressive plans for a mixed-use development on the land known as Imperial Quay, south of City Road on the eastern end of the Quayside.

But five years later ONE terminated their agreement after AWG had failed to progress the scheme within the agreed timetable.

With the commercial property market still in a slump, there have been no signs of progressing the development. However ONE remains upbeat about its long-term potential.

David Cramond, director of capital development at One North East, said: “Imperial Quay remains a high-profile redevelopment opportunity for Newcastle Quayside and it is important that the best possible development is secured for the site.

“Clearly, the current economic climate presents challenges for investors, but we remain confident that through our continued partnership with Langtree in Onsite North East we will secure a high-quality development for the site that brings with it long-term business opportunities for the area.”

AWG agreed in 2002 to develop the Imperial Quay site and the following year agreed a £60m scheme with Newcastle City Council planners.

The Scottish property company, backed by York property company Shepherd Developments, had intended to build 100,000 sq ft of offices, a 13-storey block of apartments, a restaurant and a 234-space multi-storey car park.

Ian Parker, agency director at GVA Grimley in Newcastle, said: “The site is something of an enigma. It is the last site on the north side of the river and is now an important link between the Quayside and the developments at Ouseburn.

There seem to have been a number of schemes floated for the site over the years, but it does not appear to be an easy sell and it has missed the top of a number of development cycles. It may be just too far out for leisure use.

“One possible scenario would be a mixed-used development sold on a pre-let of office space as envisaged earlier.

“It would be good to see it developed as it would finish off the Newcastle side of the river.”

Onsite North East is a joint venture business between One North East and Langtree, a national private property investment and development business.

ONE has transferred its development land portfolio with a value of £25m into Onsite North East who will manage, develop and invest in these sites to encourage new property activity.
http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/commercial-property-north-east/news/2010/01/06/agency-upbeat-over-last-piece-of-quayside-jigsaw-51140-25533428/
 
1 - 20 of 199 Posts
Top