hear hear
More Height...
Im sick of hearing this complaint... more height more height.
Theres a reason things arent all 30 stories high, mainly its down to the ability of the developer to let the property and maintain a profitable build.
Whats the point in a building having 20 floors if only 10 will be rented? Whats the point in having a 10 storey IT centre next to the station when its actually meant for small to medium businesses and to provide space for training etc.
Its ridiculous to suggest height is always needed.
Theres more to regeneration than tall buildings. They must serve a purpose and function rather than provide some kind of fantasists idea of utopia.
The winter gardens is definitely too small... It should have been at least the size of the arts tower...
Theres a reason things arent all 30 stories high, mainly its down to the ability of the developer to let the property and maintain a profitable build.
Whats the point in a building having 20 floors if only 10 will be rented? Whats the point in having a 10 storey IT centre next to the station when its actually meant for small to medium businesses and to provide space for training etc.
Its ridiculous to suggest height is always needed.
Theres more to regeneration than tall buildings. They must serve a purpose and function rather than provide some kind of fantasists idea of utopia.
The winter gardens is definitely too small... It should have been at least the size of the arts tower...
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
i agree that we do not need high-rise buildings for nearley every project! i think that for a city that has not had tall buildings we need to approach this subject carefully and not in a willy-nilly fashion!
buildings such as city lofts, weston tower, hancock and lant and spital are very carefully done and are meant not to impose too much. and i am pleased with all of those projects so far (as long as they get a move on) but high-rises should only be proposed in strategic places in the city at the moment.
for example, if a tower was proposed adjascent to the city hall where john lewis is it would be a very bad idea and would be rejected immediatley without question. sometime over the next few years - as the city develops - we will feel a little less sceptical about tall buildings and hence, we will develop a skyline.
buildings such as city lofts, weston tower, hancock and lant and spital are very carefully done and are meant not to impose too much. and i am pleased with all of those projects so far (as long as they get a move on) but high-rises should only be proposed in strategic places in the city at the moment.
for example, if a tower was proposed adjascent to the city hall where john lewis is it would be a very bad idea and would be rejected immediatley without question. sometime over the next few years - as the city develops - we will feel a little less sceptical about tall buildings and hence, we will develop a skyline.
The height of the buildings are not dictated by anyone. Developers can increase/decrease heights to a certain extent and councils can encourage landmark buildings but ecconomics determine the average height.
Sheffield office space is being built at the height it is because taller projects are more liable to be unviable. Our only buildings currently over 50m are all public/accademic and the 2 100m+ proposals utillise residencial units to make them worthwhile. At the moment we can't expect a office building above 70m and the majority will remain relatively low rise until the supply of city centre space pushes up land values thus requiring taller buildings. We then have to rely on the council not to be retarded and allow this to happen.
Sheffield office space is being built at the height it is because taller projects are more liable to be unviable. Our only buildings currently over 50m are all public/accademic and the 2 100m+ proposals utillise residencial units to make them worthwhile. At the moment we can't expect a office building above 70m and the majority will remain relatively low rise until the supply of city centre space pushes up land values thus requiring taller buildings. We then have to rely on the council not to be retarded and allow this to happen.
No. Everything must be tall. Only tall is good.
I hope your joking there Accura - tall can be disastrous if not thought out very carefully. Sightlines have to be preserved and economics must be held in the highest regard - an uneconomical building will look great for 3 years and then fall into disrepair as it struggles to let out space due to expensive rent prices.Accura said:No. Everything must be tall. Only tall is good.
Building tall near heritage sites, or creating "landmarks" in places that are not suited to such development can lead to more than just financial bother....
Yeah this is a Skyscraper forum after all - show me the height!!
One thing that really pisses me off is when people say that sheffield is to hilly for tall building !
Im living in Auckland, (New Zealand) at the moment, the city centre is way more hilly than sheffield and it hasnt stopped them from building taller, if anything they have used all the hils to their advantage
Im living in Auckland, (New Zealand) at the moment, the city centre is way more hilly than sheffield and it hasnt stopped them from building taller, if anything they have used all the hils to their advantage
thelynxeffect said:Im sick of hearing this complaint... more height more height.
Theres a reason things arent all 30 stories high, mainly its down to the ability of the developer to let the property and maintain a profitable build.
Whats the point in a building having 20 floors if only 10 will be rented? Whats the point in having a 10 storey IT centre next to the station when its actually meant for small to medium businesses and to provide space for training etc.
Its ridiculous to suggest height is always needed.
Theres more to regeneration than tall buildings. They must serve a purpose and function rather than provide some kind of fantasists idea of utopia.
The winter gardens is definitely too small... It should have been at least the size of the arts tower...
Thats the whole point of this website!!!! Thank God other city forums understand why we get so excited about new tall buildings in our cities.
Come on Sheffielders, TALL is GOOD, SMALL is SAD!
personally i would love to have tons of skyscrapers in sheffield, it would be soo amazing! but my earlier post was just adressing how i felt the city is realistically going to develop an react to high-rises.
the point is, if the city doesnt develop it will be left behind and will fail to keep its economy going. it would lose everything it has gained. therefore i think that large scale development is integral to the cities future...
the point is, if the city doesnt develop it will be left behind and will fail to keep its economy going. it would lose everything it has gained. therefore i think that large scale development is integral to the cities future...
What fascinating discusions you must have.Skychaser 2005 said:Thats the whole point of this website!!!! Thank God other city forums understand why we get so excited about new tall buildings in our cities.
Come on Sheffielders, TALL is GOOD, SMALL is SAD!
120m prison block under construction
Forumer 1: Yay
Forumer 2: Can't wait for this
Forumer 3: Needs to be taller.
40m gold mine being built
Forumer 1: What's the point of this
Forumer 2: Waste of good space.
Forumer 3: Needs to be at least 170m
New 150m tower proposed
Forumer 1: Yay
Forumer 2: Can't wait for this
Forumer 3: Needs to be taller.
This forum is not just dedicated to skyscrapers, but also urbanity and its very foolish to think tall is good all the time because it simply isnt the case.
Ones like the late Eclipse, the Conran tower and the West Bar mid-rises are examples of how they can enhance areas. However care needs to be taken by the government in their PPS notes and by planners to ensure we don't go back to how things were in the 60s.
High-rise living is not what families want and having visited New York, which is very dense, I can honestly say it would be a dreadful place to live and I would hate UK cities to end up the same way.
Tall buildings can be good, but not everywhere and if you think otherwise, you are a fool.
Ones like the late Eclipse, the Conran tower and the West Bar mid-rises are examples of how they can enhance areas. However care needs to be taken by the government in their PPS notes and by planners to ensure we don't go back to how things were in the 60s.
High-rise living is not what families want and having visited New York, which is very dense, I can honestly say it would be a dreadful place to live and I would hate UK cities to end up the same way.
Tall buildings can be good, but not everywhere and if you think otherwise, you are a fool.
Tall is good if its in the right place :tongue2:dinp said:Tall buildings can be good, but not everywhere and if you think otherwise, you are a fool.
Which of course, is subject to individual opinion!AndrewC said:Tall is good if its in the right place :tongue2:
Read the name on the tin!! The race is on for the skyscraper cities of tomorrow, and I am afraid height is what its all about.dinp said:This forum is not just dedicated to skyscrapers, but also urbanity and its very foolish to think tall is good all the time because it simply isnt the case.
Ones like the late Eclipse, the Conran tower and the West Bar mid-rises are examples of how they can enhance areas. However care needs to be taken by the government in their PPS notes and by planners to ensure we don't go back to how things were in the 60s.
High-rise living is not what families want and having visited New York, which is very dense, I can honestly say it would be a dreadful place to live and I would hate UK cities to end up the same way.
Tall buildings can be good, but not everywhere and if you think otherwise, you are a fool.
In 10 years time when Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Birmingham have reached the skies, you will understand what this site is all about.
Enjoy your 15 mins of fashionable username-fame then.Skychaser 2005 said:Read the name on the tin!! The race is on for the skyscraper cities of tomorrow, and I am afraid height is what its all about.
In 10 years time when Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Birmingham have reached the skies, you will understand what this site is all about.
They thought towers were the answer to everything in the 60s and 70s, and we're tearing lots of them down now. Which is why we have to be careful not to repeat the same mistakes and just allow skyscrapers just for the sake of it. They're fine for offices and as living accommodation for students, singles, couples and yuppies, but aren't much cop if you have kids.
And as for understanding what this site is about, i've been a member for a year more than you and am a planner by profession.
:grouphug:
Don't be such a bore! If Sheffield had any half decent proposals you would be well up for tall buildings - anyway it's too hilly I hear...
Don't be such a bore! If Sheffield had any half decent proposals you would be well up for tall buildings - anyway it's too hilly I hear...
I'm in favour of the Conran and Spital towers, as well as the developments at West Bar. Not a fan of those glass spikes in Leeds though.Willwright said::grouphug:
Don't be such a bore! If Sheffield had any half decent proposals you would be well up for tall buildings - anyway it's too hilly I hear...
The hills of Sheffield should play to its advantage really...
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
6800 Replies
calatravavx
2601 Replies
kunming tiger
1380 Replies
Recommended Communities
