SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Having read the Official Leeds thread and the mention of 400m towers (!!) which I personally think would look ridiculous in Leeds just what do people consider to be too tall? Some folk seem totally obsessed by height (I consider design and the visual impact on the surrounding environment as more important) but surely things have to be in proportion to the environment. I'd rather rather have a cluster of 30/40/50 story buildings than some 90/100 storey monster totally overpowering the skyline.

Leeds is not New York, London or Shanghai which have massive CBD's in which huge towers do not look out of place, our CBD covers, even with the extension south of the river less than one square mile of land.

Thoughts anyone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
I really don't think you need to be concerned Simon - Leeds is never going to have 400m towers, it simply isn't financially viable. London is a world city, and Leeds, Manchester et al aren't, despite the posturing and elevated sense of ambition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Oh I am not worried about 400m towers, they will never happen but there is mention of Criterion being 61 storey's which if is accompanied by a proportional increase in height from the current 47 storey/550ft or so concerns me a bit as it may completely overpower the skyline. It's this higher, higher, higher idea that concerns me.

Personally I think the Luminere and CP (47 storey's) are about the limit height for our city, anything considerably higher would look out of place IMO. I guess we have to trust our planners to keep things in proportion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,632 Posts
I was in Canada Square last week and wasn't impressed with their really talls. I found them bland and soulless, no architectural daring at all, god knows what it's like to work there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,819 Posts
It's likely that towers built will get taller and taller (subject to planning). Critereon and Lumiere will make a 200m+ tower look less out of place. A 200m+ tower will make a 225m+ tower look less out of place etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
But there is limited space in our CDB, it really cannot expand that much so giant towers would look out of place. You have to keep things in proportion. Height for heights sake is not the way forward IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Simon22 said:
But there is limited space in our CDB, it really cannot expand that much so giant towers would look out of place. You have to keep things in proportion. Height for heights sake is not the way forward IMO.
But surely limited space in the CBD makes it MORE likely for there to be taller towers to a greater extent than what you say makes it less?

Or if not, a least higher average height of building
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,476 Posts
400m is too tall in Leeds at the moment and will never happen anyway. If eventually its skyline is around 300m high though it might not look so stupid. 61 storeys won't look silly if the rest is 40-50 storeys.
 

·
All hail to the ale.
Joined
·
929 Posts
Well if the current construction boom continues then the city either builds up, or it builds outward.
I reckon getting the balance right between building higher and expanding outwards will be best all round.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,476 Posts
It will probably expand into the inner city first, then start to build up- expansion into the inner city is already taking place but full expansion to these areas will take at least 20-30 years unless theres major masterplans. And even then it will take a while to get those areas to start going tall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,987 Posts
Simon22 said:
Having read the Official Leeds thread and the mention of 400m towers (!!) which I personally think would look ridiculous in Leeds just what do people consider to be too tall? Some folk seem totally obsessed by height (I consider design and the visual impact on the surrounding environment as more important) but surely things have to be in proportion to the environment. I'd rather rather have a cluster of 30/40/50 story buildings than some 90/100 storey monster totally overpowering the skyline.

Leeds is not New York, London or Shanghai which have massive CBD's in which huge towers do not look out of place, our CBD covers, even with the extension south of the river less than one square mile of land.

Thoughts anyone?

Funny, because 10 years ago, we would be saying this about 160m+ towers for Leeds. You never know how cities will develop and change
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,819 Posts
Leeds No.1 said:
400m is too tall in Leeds at the moment and will never happen anyway.
You can never say never!! We've got 2 proposed at approx 170m. I'd confidently guess the next major proposal within 5 yrs will be 200m+ (Maybe the Sykes scraper?). Each major proposal is going to get bigger. If we're at 300m in 20years, then 400m will surely follow one day...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,028 Posts
Seems to me there's a bit of a boys' pissing contest going on here, or a case of my willy's bigger than yours.

Simon and di Livio have made two excellent points. One was about the architectural quality of proposals being of far more importance than the height of the proposals. The other was about the stuff that lies between the tall buildings. I'vew recently seen complaints in some of the Manchester forums about the canyon effect that could be created when very tall buildings go up on a narrow street pattern. Well, Leeds is in just the same position. Do we really want to see Park Square hemmed in by monster skyscrapers?

The Koetter Kim masterplan envisages a cluster of towers well to the south of the historical city centre - somewhere aroung the Crown Point Retail Park, I'd guess. I know the masterplan is a kind of sketchbook at the moment and nothing in it is firmed up but it does make the point that you have to plan highrise development carefully. And it has to be in proportion to the city centre it is sited in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,819 Posts
I think (and agree) that now a 400m tower would be silly, my point being that probably one day we will reach 400m. When that is no-one knows, but it will probably follow the construction of a 200m, 250m tower 300... etc etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
It's not a question of how tall is too tall, it's more a question of how tall is economically viable?. As indicated by the ISA people, currently La Lumiere is at the limit of economic viability for Leeds. It may change in the future, but let's not worry about it. I'm happy with 170m for Leeds.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top