SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
ENTJ 8w9
Joined
·
11,993 Posts
I'm for scrapping it.

However, the CAA will have a problem as a plane may crash into a lost plane that goes from USA to Brazil.
 

·
He glides like a bird
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
I like the bit that says "I think it was a mistake. If you want to be a progressive, proactive city you can't have a ridiculous policy that says you can't have this and you can't have that." BCC, are you listening? (Highplaces page 10 para 2 Oct 2002 edition)
 

·
He glides like a bird
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
I like the bit that says "I think it was a mistake. If you want to be a progressive, proactive city you can't have a ridiculous policy that says you can't have this and you can't have that." BCC, are you listening? (Highplaces page 10 para 2 Oct 2002 edition)
 

·
Second Citizen
Joined
·
16,937 Posts
My initial reaction is that Birmingham should not scrap it.

I think it should be revised, and it shoudl be more along the lines of guidance rather than rules, but I think it helps give Birmingham a fairly cohesive skyline (unlike another large city that has no policy in place and consequently has less cohesion) as well as protecting our historic and lowrise areas.

The tall buildings policy helps cluster our talls, and even if we scrapped it, the masterplanning exercise would most likely end up designating zones for tall buildings.

That said, I think the current one is too restrictive and gives developers the sense that if they want to build tall, they can't do it anywhere other than those shown in "High Places". And for some reason, the Cube is classed as a tall building, so I think it should also be revised to aim bigger - maybe 60 or 70m and above will be a tall building?

So, I think it should remain but be revised, and worded such that developers get the clear message that the council will seriously consider tall building applications even if they fall outside of guidance zones.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
15,712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
in the main i agree with the high-rise policy but like you bio, it should be down grades to guidance and not actually adopted policy. to those of you who have seen it, it specifies site that are appropriote to highrise buildings. however, as of the next 5 years, AL those sites will have been taken up by either towers or just new developments....thus developers wanting to build tall wont be able to.....

having been studying high-rise policy...the biggies such as londong, paris, berlin, frankfurt etc..... dont have a site specific highrise policy...and more just high-rise regions.....something id prefer for birmingham!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Mr Glide said:
I like the bit that says "I think it was a mistake. If you want to be a progressive, proactive city you can't have a ridiculous policy that says you can't have this and you can't have that." BCC, are you listening? (Highplaces page 10 para 2 Oct 2002 edition)
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
15,712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
^^ wow that picture is scary

so is there a general hatred against high places here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
Personally, I think anything which says you can't do this and you can't do that and you need to consider X,Y and Z, first, has three extremely negative affects.

1. It instantly puts off a large proportion of developers.
2. It means developers don't employ any imagination or innovation at any early stage.
3. It allows the more pedantic planners (Not all granted, but I think we all know of the type I refer to) to destroy schemes based on specifically worded policies.

So for example, lets say a big corporation wanted to move to Birmingham and build a big statement tower, theoretically if the site was not in the guidance it cant be built. I know if they then went to BCC and said "can we build a tower we will create lots of jobs" the City would probably say ok. But what if they aren't that fussed about which City they go to and instead just quickly flick over the main cities and see what the policies are towards tall buildings... One tall building to Liverpool!

Why cant we judge every application on its merits, rather than cripple it before its even started.

+ I don't think High places has contributed at all to the Birmingham Skyline Cluster, most of the buildings were build before the policy came into force for a start! But the real reason is traditionally Birmingham has a very small Central Core which means more expensive buildings in a small area.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
15,712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
but in the same way, is in not true to say that developersd can also use it as a tool.... for example, if they wanted to buid a 130m tower n the site of the five ways shoppiing centre but bcc said no, we dont like it...then the developers could easily say "haha, well too late etc"???

do we recon we shuold luobby the council to reconsider the high-rise policy.... this would be one place where we could have the cons vs lab thing one our side....does whitby want a policy bore developed...esp when he already developed a 175m viewing tower outside the poilcy?!?!?!?
 

·
Second Citizen
Joined
·
16,937 Posts
I think we SHOULD lobby the council to change the High Places document.

I see what you mean MJH, but it can also be interpreted the other way. Having a tall building policy can encourage developers, especially those that own land in the designated areas, to develop tall, and the council can use it to kick lowrise schemes into touch.

IMO it is good that the city has designated areas that it would like to see developed tall, predominantly along the city ridge, but I agree it should not be restrictive.

For me, the High Places document says to developers "Birmingham City Council wants you to build tall, and if you build in these following places, we are going to suppor you all the way (provided the building is good enough)".

I think it just needs redrafting to emphasise that all projects will be considered, and their chances are bolstered if they fall within the highrise zones. And I think the zones should be expanded too. :)
 

·
Second Citizen
Joined
·
16,937 Posts
You first - you have the authority as regional representative of the UK premier skyscraper enthusiast's website (SSN silly!).

I will happily rite a letta.

Clive Dutton, Chief Mama at Planning's your man (I think)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
I think having a Tall Buildings Policy is fine, but the main principle behind Birmingham's, i.e. building 'tall' on the central ridge, is flawed.

This central ridge, running from Colmore Row, to Centenary Square and on to Five Ways is too restrictive. An area of about 100 acres (about 4 times the area of Brindleyplace) needs to be identified specifically for tall buildings. Now, we all know this cannot possibly happen in the central core, unless great swathes are demolished, but the area around and close to Five Ways could be a possibility. It would still involve the removal of many buildings, but it could be done.

Until something radical is done in Birmingham along these lines, then Birmingham will continue to lose out to other major centres such as Manchester, Leeds .... and in the future, Milton Keynes for heavens sake!!!!!

Construction of tall buildings on the central ridge will not give Birmingham the dense skyline it needs, like what is happenning at Canary Wharf.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
woodhousen said:
but in the same way, is in not true to say that developersd can also use it as a tool.... for example, if they wanted to buid a 130m tower n the site of the five ways shoppiing centre but bcc said no, we dont like it...then the developers could easily say "haha, well too late etc"???
If that was the case, I would agree, but the planners can't be forced, if they designated and then changed their mind then can say something like "oh well change in policy, emerging documents, Cabinet is against it, decided if affects borders of conservation area, Statutory Consultees have changed their mind" etc etc. Look at the U-turn on Parking Policy, with central government and UDP guidance all saying no more than 100%, and the Council (since the cabinet change) saying minimum 150%."
 

·
He glides like a bird
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
I remember reading in the B'ham Post a few months ago, an interview with the Beetham Organisation - I can't remember who it was exactly, but when questioned about how he felt about the height of HCT being reduced due to CAA objection, he said that they could have stuck to the original height and probably got away with it, however safety was of paramount importance, and this comes first before anything else. I've always wondered what he meant by this, trying reading between the lines.
 

·
Just something
Joined
·
8,864 Posts
Come on flower .....

As land locked cities go I think that Brum has a pretty good skyline and personally I`m glad that the `Rotunda` was retained and that new `talls` are adding to the dynamic.

and it`s not a bad skyline either in the distance when passing on the M6/Spag boll.

I do however believe that Birimingham is a little backward in shouting about it`s attractions and the `pleasantness and beauty` of it`s city centre.

When I say `pleasantness` it`s a very nice city centre to walk around - well laid out in general, fairly open and has a variety of different vistas that many others do not and also on an impressive scale as well as.

Really quite airy and I have never felt clostraphobic in Birmingham City Centre.

Walking out of `Birmingham New Street` you know that you have arrived somewhere and I knew that many years ago when I first visited Birmingham.

Birmingham has a wonderful though in some cases laid back energy that belies it`s strength, it`s not too big headed and in fact in some ways that is part of the attraction.

A little more deep down confidense though perhaps would not go amiss.

One or two talls of the 45 to 60 stories variety would be wonderful landmarks even if you don`t actually need them.

I must say that `Birminghams Botanic Gardens` are amongst the finest I have seen and an absolute joy.

:) :cheers:
 
G

·
Thanks ass kisser ;)

Good post. Birmingham has a great chance to get a instantly recognisable skyline but over the last 10 years its stalled. Its time someone took up the baton and actually help brum produce what we all know its capable off. Lets not hide from the fact that the skyline at the moment is 2nd best in London. A few biggies 50 stories plus would be treat and really elevate the city into the top tier of European skylines.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top