Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Robin Hood
Joined
·
5,171 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just a quick question guys... I'm from Notts. Nottingham's had a few architectural disasters in the past but our council are now very strict with planner making sure we don't get any more of those boring buildings that can't stand the test of time....

The problem is... every time something great and innovative is proposed.... a whole bunch of old timers hanging on to the past seem to criticize it, Nottingham Civic society put a whole bunch of objections across and in the end the plan gets abandoned because of the lack of support... it seems there more people against it than for it.

Now i'm trying to work out... are we just going through a stage here in Nottingham... or is it like that everywhere else in the Country??
 

·
BAND
Joined
·
12,217 Posts
Lol. I think you should have a look on http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk if you want to see moaning. They frequently complain about anything new. Recently some people were complaining about the city markets getting moved to a new site in the city centre, as 'they're full of character' (a drab 60's block with absolutely no redeeming features). Moving the markets would make way for a new square which would incorporate the castle remains that are currently buried underneath the current building and bring life back into a currently underused area.

Sheffield is pretty bad for moaners anyway. Today in the local newspaper, some guy was complaining about a restaurant wanting to put tables and chairs in a nice Georgian square as it would spoil the square (which is currently being used as a car park) :bash:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,178 Posts
Think you might get a bit of input from the Liverpool forumers on this one. At the moment Glasgow city council are so open to new developments you could probably get planning permission for a 600ft **** an baws tower. Its come full circle from the council that virtually blocked Selfridges from opening store in the early 90's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,604 Posts
No you're not alone. The same sort of thing is going on here in Hull at the moment.

In all the council documents regarding the strategic development areas it states that the maximum building height for a new building is 6 storeys so to compliment the existing skyline of predominantly 4/5 storey buildings with the odd higher 60/70s addition. To me a maximum of 6 storeys in a sizeable city like this makes me a bit angry especially when you see that there are plenty of attractive, good quality tall new buildings out there. Having said that there are various proposals for buildings approaching 10 storeys at the moment and the first building over 30m since the 60s is about to be completed even though the renders hardly suggested a building of the highest architectural quality. It looks rather like a 1960s box but even given the strict controls supposedly put in place by the council, it was built.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,178 Posts
No you're not alone. The same sort of thing is going on here in Hull at the moment.

In all the council documents regarding the strategic development areas it states that the maximum building height for a new building is 6 storeys so to compliment the existing skyline of predominantly 4/5 storey buildings with the odd higher 60/70s addition. To me a maximum of 6 storeys in a sizeable city like this makes me a bit angry especially when you see that there are plenty of attractive, good quality tall new buildings out there. Having said that there are various proposals for buildings approaching 10 storeys at the moment and the first building over 30m since the 60s is about to be completed even though the renders hardly suggested a building of the highest architectural quality. It looks rather like a 1960s box but even given the strict controls supposedly put in place by the council, it was built.
I dont have a problem with zoning and preserving current streetscapes, you have to have the right context. I'd rather a set zone for taller buildings than a few spikes jutting out willy nilly and adversley affecting the finer districts of the city.
 

·
It's Sting. So What?
Joined
·
32,693 Posts
Birmingham's got 'em too. The Twentieth Century Society will go beserk over anything - though they seem quite subdued when it comes to building a 100 metre tower in the place of the NatWest Building in a conservation area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,604 Posts
Most city centres are big enough to have an area where tall buildings are allowed without them intruding on the older more historic parts. Hull had its fair share of buildings like this built in the 60s. It doesnt mean that tall buildings should be discouraged. All it needs is better thought as to where they are located.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,178 Posts
streetscape protection, fine...zoning, nooooooooo!
That was a slack comment I made. I didn't mean zoning as in set retail, business and residential zones, I was more referring to Glasgow's central conservation area and the specified zone that borders the area of the fine Victorian core where tall buildings are welcomed. In a long winded way I'm just meaning to say taller buildings shouldn't just be whacked up regardless of their surroundings.
 

·
Robin Hood
Joined
·
5,171 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Just about every development put forward to Nottingham Council has been objected to by the Nottingham Civic Society....

For us in Nottingham...forumers are fine...theys support the majority of nice development coming through...but when you take a look at our evening newspaper... its ridiculous!! Critisized by hundreds of people...

The problem is down here...our council actually listens to all of these wankers complaining... we had a tower proposed in Nottingham last year.... only about 20 storeys... the thing is...the tower was placed in the only place in Nottingham that I would say is suitable for a high rise.... guess what.... developers backed out and came back with a boring 12 storey apartment block.... ridiculous
 

·
Robin Hood
Joined
·
5,171 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
That was a slack comment I made. I didn't mean zoning as in set retail, business and residential zones, I was more referring to Glasgow's central conservation area and the specified zone that borders the area of the fine Victorian core where tall buildings are welcomed. In a long winded way I'm just meaning to say taller buildings shouldn't just be whacked up regardless of their surroundings.
I agree with you totally.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
quite... jst jumped on the dreaded 'zoning' as this is the biggest city killer of them all. I would not be so prescriptive about 'tall' it is about context, a super tall can look quite elegant, and fit perfectly in a block of shorter buildings, as you see all over NYC and San Francisco, as long as they maintain the streetline and respect their neighbours!
 

·
Buka Pintu
Joined
·
23,616 Posts
The problem is... every time something great and innovative is proposed.... a whole bunch of old timers hanging on to the past seem to criticize it
Its same everywhere.
In London EH is the biggest moaner.They just hate tall buildings.Every time something tall is proposed they start running around screaming how this buildling is going to destroy the character of heritage sites and bla bla bla.Bunch of old farts.These heritage sites are some of the worst places in London.Lets take Tower as an example - its surrounded by motorways and crap 60s architecture - a truly horrible place.I dont understand why we need organisations such as EH - they are useless - they waste millions on their crusades against skyscrapers and forget that their job is to protect old buildings.They refused to list Smithfield Market saying its of little architectural merit and so the historic market will be demolished and in its place will rise boring glass box.Then we have Regents Hotel in Piccadilly and Edwardian Buildings in Fenchurch Street - they are going to be demolished and replaced with dull glass boxes too.Well done EH!
Then there are people from Chelsea and Westminster who complain that new towers will ruin views from their Georgian windows.

Crazy World.

:nuts:
 

·
Leicester - why not?
LE5
Joined
·
14,496 Posts
When the 39 storey Westbridge Hotel building in Leicester was proposed (now granted permission) an online petition was set up by the Leicester Civic Society to oppose the plans, in turn a petition was set up for people who agreed with the plans-and it was a very close contest in terms of numbers for each petition!

Luckily our council is starting to see the benefits of large-scale projects in the city (i.e the Highcross Quarter and Simpson towers) even with the civic society finding even the minutest point to oppose plans with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,761 Posts
Nottingham's problem could be its medieval past. It seems to make the council there more cautious than in other industrial cities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,580 Posts
Id say Leeds people used to be more NIMBY like than they are now. Development has been embraced by some and more are embracing it I think, and accepting Leeds is a changing city. So at first, yes, people are against change, but they have to get used to it. We still have some NIMBY type people (Infamouslly Civic Trust) but other randomers too. Outweighed by supporters Id say though.
 

·
Robin Hood
Joined
·
5,171 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I notice one of the great things about great buildings is that with most of them, especially the innovative ones, people either love them or hate them. But when they're complete, a year down the line everyone finally begins to like them....

I would assume you guys in the bigger cities all had residents and objection groups like who would always criticize innovative design for any flaw they could find, do you find now that as time has passed..there's less objectioners... less complains...let moaning?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,556 Posts
Think yourself lucky, Us Brummies seem a hard bunch to please and we've got towers come out of our arses ... or will have anyway and there's still not happy!
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top