SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Gateshead is more relaxed towards potential highrise developments. There's too much outdated, negative theories strangling Newcastle. Issues like "restricting view from Monument", "restricted height at foot of banks of Tyne", "conservation central area". However, I think it needs to be questioned if these restricting factors are just set in personal opinions and choices of planning committee.
.
It is time Newcastle was allowed to flourish into a modern era, maybe youth should be allowed to be involved in Newcastle City Planning Department.
.
Slowly the scale is getting bigger, but after being in Liverpool & Manchester for the last 14 days, viewing the masses of cranes on the skylines, sadly, Newcastle is a very small scale development area just now.
.
That area of Gateshead might benefit from the Elliot Group development, it is bigger than everything around it, people might grow acceptance towards midrise structures
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
There is a lot more development in the likes of Manchester, this is true, but that’s probably because there is far less demand here, and the main reason for that in my opinion is the years of neglect in this area, also geographically quite isolated. I actually think we have an excellent city in spite of that, and I am proud of how good it looks now, so hopefully we will see a bit more development in years to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Newcastle is a northern outpost, the cost of integration tends to outweigh actual developed projects. We are up against it solely for geographical reasons. However, keep it neat, chip away at it, many will still come to the table in many ways. Turn negatives into positives, were not the smallest, decent packages can be assembled and brought to light, light the place more so as Newcastle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,513 Posts
Ian Simpson, an architect in Manchester and designer of Downing Plaza in Newcastle recently suggested a tall buildings policy in Manchester in response to concerns about high rise next to Manchester's historic core buildings.

What he proposed was an 'inverse cone' projecting up from the core. So instead of a typical high rise middle, tapering down to the suburbs, he proposed the opposite whereby there was a ring of high rise surrounding the centre.

This indeed seems like a logical strategy for Newcastle and Gateshead, albeit it wouldn't be quite Manchester's scale (until Tyneside is merged into a singular city like it should!) Central Motorway East, St James Boulevard, Gateshead Town Centre seems like reasonable places for high rise.

These would form particular 'clusters' at junctions where radial roads intersect with this new 'City Wall'. These could be:-

- Westgate Road (Hadrian's Tower),
- Scotswood Road (Forth Goods),
- Coast Road (Jesmond three sixty),
- Great North Road, (Gateshead Town Centre),
- Barrack Road (Helix/Downing), and
- New Bridge Street/Tyne Bridge (East Pilgrim Street)

This would then preserve the conservation area of Newcastle- which should be preserved to avoid another Westgate Tower or Bewick Court, but allow high rise to soak up housing numbers and fulfil a required vibrancy that comes from densification.

Gateshead has always been considered a backwater entrance to Newcastle, and high rise in this part of town provided it is high quality and not like the Trinity Centre muck is highly desirable.

I think this scheme by the Liverpool developers is fantastic and it is great to see collaboration between the two cities. Liverpool perhaps more than Newcastle has an argument as politically it seems to have fallen under the shadow of the Manchester centric N Powerhouse and HS2 govt policy.

Gateshead Quays could benefit from high rise set back from the Quays, however I wouldn't want to see too much. GQ is replete with 'icons' along the river, and high rise naturally due to their prominence become 'icons' regardless of intention- especially in skyscraper deserts like our city region! What i'd really like to see instead is more good quality 'middle scale' buildings to infil/ those car parks and ruderal banks and make it feel like a place and not an everlasting 'regeneration ongoing' site.

High rise should be focussed on Gateshead Town Centre instead, it could look incredible from certain views- like coming in from the coast on the Metro over Ouseburn Viaduct, or announcing you are now in the 'city proper' after trawling through traffic on Durham Road.

In summary, Planning should be like refereeing. A unified and consistent approach with well established rules that let the game be played to best suit the public/viewer. Sites in the core region seem to be a little a la carte and an overall policy for tall buildings would allow a more coherant 'major UK centre' more akin to the scales we all hope Newcastle should be aiming for - Leeds- Cardiff- Nottingham rather than Southampton-Norwich-Hull we seem to be relegated to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Ian Simpson, an architect in Manchester and designer of Downing Plaza in Newcastle recently suggested a tall buildings policy in Manchester in response to concerns about high rise next to Manchester's historic core buildings.

What he proposed was an 'inverse cone' projecting up from the core. So instead of a typical high rise middle, tapering down to the suburbs, he proposed the opposite whereby there was a ring of high rise surrounding the centre.

This indeed seems like a logical strategy for Newcastle and Gateshead, albeit it wouldn't be quite Manchester's scale (until Tyneside is merged into a singular city like it should!) Central Motorway East, St James Boulevard, Gateshead Town Centre seems like reasonable places for high rise.

These would form particular 'clusters' at junctions where radial roads intersect with this new 'City Wall'. These could be:-

- Westgate Road (Hadrian's Tower),
- Scotswood Road (Forth Goods),
- Coast Road (Jesmond three sixty),
- Great North Road, (Gateshead Town Centre),
- Barrack Road (Helix/Downing), and
- New Bridge Street/Tyne Bridge (East Pilgrim Street)

This would then preserve the conservation area of Newcastle- which should be preserved to avoid another Westgate Tower or Bewick Court, but allow high rise to soak up housing numbers and fulfil a required vibrancy that comes from densification.

Gateshead has always been considered a backwater entrance to Newcastle, and high rise in this part of town provided it is high quality and not like the Trinity Centre muck is highly desirable.

I think this scheme by the Liverpool developers is fantastic and it is great to see collaboration between the two cities. Liverpool perhaps more than Newcastle has an argument as politically it seems to have fallen under the shadow of the Manchester centric N Powerhouse and HS2 govt policy.

Gateshead Quays could benefit from high rise set back from the Quays, however I wouldn't want to see too much. GQ is replete with 'icons' along the river, and high rise naturally due to their prominence become 'icons' regardless of intention- especially in skyscraper deserts like our city region! What i'd really like to see instead is more good quality 'middle scale' buildings to infil/ those car parks and ruderal banks and make it feel like a place and not an everlasting 'regeneration ongoing' site.

High rise should be focussed on Gateshead Town Centre instead, it could look incredible from certain views- like coming in from the coast on the Metro over Ouseburn Viaduct, or announcing you are now in the 'city proper' after trawling through traffic on Durham Road.

In summary, Planning should be like refereeing. A unified and consistent approach with well established rules that let the game be played to best suit the public/viewer. Sites in the core region seem to be a little a la carte and an overall policy for tall buildings would allow a more coherant 'major UK centre' more akin to the scales we all hope Newcastle should be aiming for - Leeds- Cardiff- Nottingham rather than Southampton-Norwich-Hull we seem to be relegated to.


I fully agree with the idea of high rises on the edge of town rather than in the centre, though with expecting of the western edge were running out of room to do that.
I also agree that Gateshead town centre would look amazing with a cluster but I think GQ would as well, otherwise we’d be in danger of getting another Downing clump which would be a real shame. Tall doesn’t need to be iconic, if developments around it fit in then Gateshead Quays could have its own modern ‘toothpaste’ so to speak.

I don’t think anyone who comes to Newcastle would put it alongside Hull and Norwich, that’s a bit harsh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
Having been to Amsterdam numerous times over the years, they seem to have a similar policy of tall buildings on the outside of the historic core. It works well for them, and it looks good. Gives a distinctly different feel depending on whereabouts you are in the city. I think that is a great idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Amsterdam has a massive tourist industry, more and more affluent, foreign people are taking residency in Amsterdam, wealth is more so than industrial cities. The city has been built majestically from historical foundations and waterways, hence tourism, similar to Edinburgh.
I also just had my 9th trip to Amsterdam a few months ago. I took trains & trams from all directions and just went full distance of routes so i could see the outer and inner city. I love Amsterdam, that trip i was staying on the island of Sumatrakade, where views were amazing, cranes on all horizons, larger buildings under construction.
Developers & architects need to have impact upon designs and style, in order of trying to narrow the appeal gap between an industrial city and a natural historical city, difficult but can be made brighter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,513 Posts
Amsterdam has a massive tourist industry, more and more affluent, foreign people are taking residency in Amsterdam, wealth is more so than industrial cities. The city has been built majestically from historical foundations and waterways, hence tourism, similar to Edinburgh.
I also just had my 9th trip to Amsterdam a few months ago. I took trains & trams from all directions and just went full distance of routes so i could see the outer and inner city. I love Amsterdam, that trip i was staying on the island of Sumatrakade, where views were amazing, cranes on all horizons, larger buildings under construction.
Developers & architects need to have impact upon designs and style, in order of trying to narrow the appeal gap between an industrial city and a natural historical city, difficult but can be made brighter.
I've always felt unlike many of the great Northern cities Newcastle benefits from being an obviously Industrial city but also a 'natural historic' city as well.

As England's frontier city against the Scots, it's always appeared until the industrial revolution as in the top 5 or so medieval UK towns.

Turning the corner and seeing a bit of Town Wall or St. Andrew's or Quayside masterpiece every now and again our amazing city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
Manchester is an ugly place (I’ve lived there and enjoyed it but bonny it is not). It has a scrapyard/ canal/ skyscraper footprint that is woven with areas of extreme poverty. While the volume of development is impressive, and individual buildings are sometimes good it’s not something to aspire to in totality.I can’t understand why it keeps being brought up as an exemplar city Newcastle should be looking to. There are many European cities worth emulating and in the UK Bristol, Edinburgh and Glasgow,

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I am currently in Manchester & today i visited Pendelbury, Salford Keys, Deansgate, Trafford and each day i am driving through different routes..
Sadly every city has deprivation, Newcastles west end orparts of it and Walker areas are examples of deprivation. The difference with Manchester is; because of a powerful economic status and being inclined to attract development, then deprived areas can be rebuilt quicker to a larger scale than most places in the UK.
.
Manchester is not bland, it is a developers play ground. Every city has different styles, colours of brick and stone in older buildings. Manchester is probably the leading modern era city in the UK. It might not be for everyone, local bias will be apparent to many in areas of birth.
.
Liverpool also has severe deprivation, shootings happen on most days, drug culture is set in badly and it tends to be a hub. But this made Liverpool qualify for massive government funding to try to uplift the deprivation. Liverpool also has good development.
.
Deprivation is not seen as much in the inner parts of Manchester, it seems to be pushed away to the outer, older parts of the city, I see it more so in Oldham, Ashton, Stockport, Bury, where there is less development.
.
I am not a person for slagging any city off, but i struggle to comprehend your selection of Bristol. Recent times in Plymouth, Falmouth, Exeter, Southampton, Portsmouth, Leicester, Oxford, York then industrial cities Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Huddersfield, Blackburn make me wonder why Bristol is picked, lets face it, it is a far outcry from its neighbouring city Bath, which is one of the UK's finest historical cities
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
I’ve visited most of the UK bigger cities at some point. They’ve mostly all got *something* going for most of them. Obviously this is subjective, but I prefer Manchester to Leeds for example. However, I prefer Liverpool to either. Edinburgh is beautiful.

Newcastle reminds me most of Glasgow. The architecture is somewhat similar, although where Newcastle elevates itself over Glasgow for me is the quayside and geography of the area. Also the place has a very similar vibe. Kind of hard edged; what you say about the centre of Manchester not seeing much deprivation is not really true of Newcastle and Glasgow, where you can pretty much see it everywhere.

That said, Newcastle is nothing like other cities I’ve been to.... and long may it stay that way. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Deprivation has been pushed outwards from central Manchester, this happens when condense development sets in. The charachter and lifestyles of people in new build areas are key factors.
.
Development is supportive of cleaner lifestyles.
.
Not many cities are undergoing condense development on a scale capable of pushing deprivation out of areas. Lets face it; you dont exactly get junkies living in new build apartments due to the cost and committment
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
Central Manchester is junkie central and the central suburbs are dire-you must have your eyes shut if you don’t see massive social inequality.While some young and single live in the city with an urban lifestyle that appeals to some, the nearest liveable suburb is Didsbury ,Chorlton or The Heatons-that’s the equivalent of living between Birtley and Chester le Street. The far outer suburbs are pleasant and where the money is -there isn’t an equivalent to Glasgow’s West End or Edinburgh’s new town.Places like Monsall are far worse than Walker or Scotswood. It also has no real significant river front, not much quality green space and is flat as a witches tit. It has a gritty, gothic quality which is interesting and fine for a while but becomes claustrophobic. A developers playground allows for a lot of bland, awful design as well as a few decent projects-that’s not my idea of a quality cityscape.
Bath is not a big city by the way nor Falmouth etc-Bristol is and has some brilliant architecture and historical urban fabric

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Deprivation exists everywhere, normally the bigger the city, the worse it is. No place is exempt. I find Manchester as having less deprivation than Birmingham & West Midlands, where i lived for 5 year, but I am aware of areas such as Sparkbrook, Perry Green & Soho Road.
Bristol, on at least 18 occasions, has never stood out to me as being one of the nicer places, there are pockets of decent areas everywhere in cities.
The size of a city has no bearing or influence if a place is nice. Anyone would be impressed by Falmouth, the marinas & boats, the palm trees lining streets, riviera style white washed buildings. The reality is; they are pleasant places, but that is the south coast in general.
Sounds like you dislike Manchester. I do partly agree that the place allows developers to build with less constraints, when sometimes, if planning is regulated, then the potential exists for better buildings. However regulating strictly can hamper and jeopodise growth & development
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,554 Posts
Falmouth is not an urban area it’s a town-we are talking about Tyneside and the other major conurbations are we not?
English provincial cities ( major urban conurbations) are sadly neglected and have to reverse the scars of industrial decline Newcastle and Bristol have the advantage of being cities well before the industrial revolution and have a much more interesting , rich,cityscape. Lincoln, York and Norwich were sizeable mediaeval cities but never developed in to urban conurbations. Nothing to do with not liking Manchester (as I said I enjoyed it) but it’s not the land of milk and honey portrayed by some and certainly I have greater aspiration for Newcastle-there is more to work with after all. This makes it all the more frustrating that Newcastle’s planners and developers make a sows ear out of a silk purse-Manchester just makes a sows ear out of a sows ear.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,143 Posts
This big difference between somewhere like Newcastle and Manchester, is that Manchester is used by the current government as an example of look what you can do if you try. Except, it has had billions thrown at it to create that, whereas Newcastle's growth is pretty organic and in reality more sustainable. There are amazing parts of Manchester city centre, but you can walk in any direction and you'll quickly find derelict empty plots and parts of the city which can be hostile if you don't know the area well. Newcastle on the other hand due to it's compact nature and long history, is a much more classic European city and had it been given the money of Manchester since the mid 90's, who knows where Tyneside would be today.

I'm always drawn to the fact that the Manchester Metrolink only opened in 1992 and not much happened until this mid 2000's. However, since then it has expanded massively with new lines everywhere and even though the system is 13 years younger, they got new replacement tram units in 2009 (so after 17 years), whereas our Metro is still using units from 1979 (so 40 years and still a few more to go). The ridership of the 2 systems is pretty similar, but you wouldn't believe it looking at how new their system looks in comparison with ours, even if they're not exactly the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
This big difference between somewhere like Newcastle and Manchester, is that Manchester is used by the current government as an example of look what you can do if you try. Except, it has had billions thrown at it to create that, whereas Newcastle's growth is pretty organic and in reality more sustainable. There are amazing parts of Manchester city centre, but you can walk in any direction and you'll quickly find derelict empty plots and parts of the city which can be hostile if you don't know the area well. Newcastle on the other hand due to it's compact nature and long history, is a much more classic European city and had it been given the money of Manchester since the mid 90's, who knows where Tyneside would be today.

I'm always drawn to the fact that the Manchester Metrolink only opened in 1992 and not much happened until this mid 2000's. However, since then it has expanded massively with new lines everywhere and even though the system is 13 years younger, they got new replacement tram units in 2009 (so after 17 years), whereas our Metro is still using units from 1979 (so 40 years and still a few more to go). The ridership of the 2 systems is pretty similar, but you wouldn't believe it looking at how new their system looks in comparison with ours, even if they're not exactly the same.
There was something on the Radio as I was driving in Ashton Under Lyne, just a few days ago. I did not hear the full article, but someone was praising some new expansion to the Metrolink system. I was using it from Bury & Ashton, was full of Manc City fans on Saturday, singing away, with me looking on my phone at Toon results and images.
To be honest, there was no different feeling to being on Tynesides Metro, the age of the trains made no apparent difference. I do not know what expansion they were praising.
Manchester is also Greater Manchester, about 3.5 million people, over 3 times the size of Tyne and Wear, hence, they will get more government support. There location is also easier and cheaper in integrate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,513 Posts
In your opinion, Where should Newcastle sit in relation to other major UK City Areas?

Here's where I think it should be:-

London
Birmingham
Manchester
Glasgow
Liverpool
Leeds
Newcastle
Sheffield
Nottingham
Edinburgh
Bristol
Cardiff
Belfast
Leicester
Coventry
Bradford
Stoke
Teesside
Southampton
Milton Keynes
Plymouth

Despite its prominence in medieval times, Newcastle somewhat lagged behind the other major centres in growth. Not consuming its lower half (that place they call Gateshead) because of the county boundary, and then the segregation of Tyneside within a nothing area called Tyne and Wear seems to have further contained the potential as a major city and economic capital of the region.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
Depends what key factors present the list order and weather outer urban areas are including in the main regional city.
What key factors / features or potential make this listing order ?
.
Several indicative suggestive facts can be used to gain a wider, national type opinion. One of the ways of making an orderly list of development, would be to base it from actual projects currently under construction. Newcastle has more constraints, producing slower and less building results, hence, this would place Newcastle lowly on the list.
.
Despite living in Birmingham & area for 5 year, I now have clear indication that Manchester is far more condensed with many more highrise buildings, covering a bigger footprint area within a rapidly growing inner city centre and outer city centre.
.
This is my list, based from developers interest, actual funding potential, location and accuracy / ease of integration;
London
Manchester
Birmingham
Glasgow
Leeds
Liverpool
Edinburgh
Cardiff
Sheffield
=Newcastle
=Southampton------- (bigger scale buildings, more density covering city centre area, more actual projects)
=Bradford
=Bristol
Nottingham
Leicester
Plymouth--------------(many modern new builds, plenty happening, attractive by the Hoe, modern sea front section)
Coventry---------------(faster growing city centre, many projects happening, as close to Birmingham, bigger scale buildings)
Belfast-----------------(the only city on here I have not recently been to)
Milton Keynes----------(growing as a new town quickly still, typical Londopn suburb)
Stoke-------------------(used to work here, too many cities have priority close by, tends to be stagnant)
Teeside-----------------(sorry smogs but like Stoke, stagnating in terms of development, unless a chimney pot needs built)
.
Towns like Slough, Gatwick, Guildford, Reading & Luton are growing and building quickly, i would imagine city status will be on the horizon for some of these in the near future.
.
I personally think my open type mindset and because of persistent traveling and working in all locations, temporary residing within these cities, then my opinion may be less bias.
In order of making any comparisons, compiling lists, judging places, then it is essential to have an inside knowledge about all cities, without this, then it is only biased opinions, where home town birth or current residence will prevail and step a certain city up the list.
If you ask many people down south about Newcastle, then there may be grim conclusions, what people do not see, they do not really know about
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Yes, good decision. A modern zone in Newcastle is spreading out nicely, visual deprivation being pushed back. There are now at least 10 buildings within Gallowgate & Helix areas either under construction or approved.
Lets hope it spreads all the way down St James Boulevard to Calders Yard
 
1 - 20 of 81 Posts
Top