The People's Hero Posted 29 November 2006 Posted 29 November 2006 I went to the residents meeting on Woodgate and all they're going to build is a marina and loads more apartments. As an estate agent myself I can tell you all now there is no way we need anymore apartments in this city. I've got loads on my books just sitting there empty, impossible to sell or too expensive to rent. We've gotten ourselves in a ridiculous situation.... Maybe I should move to Lestoh... How much am I looking at rental for one of these nice posh flats? I'm looking at shared ownership down here at the moment. Getting on the property ladder in Kent is nigh on impossible.
vanfox12 Posted 29 November 2006 Posted 29 November 2006 The tower is a good idea but we need other things which would draw people to the City apart from shopping like converting some of the old factories into art galleries and a better transport structure with Trams and better road access.
moseeds Posted 30 November 2006 Author Posted 30 November 2006 I don't think any of these towers will cast that big a shadow over the town centre if at all!! Just to re-iterate - please please sign the petition in support for the development here: http://petitionthem.com/default.asp?sect=detail&pet=3594 More details for this scheme and general development/regeneration in Leicester can be found here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.p...946&page=16
davieG Posted 30 November 2006 Posted 30 November 2006 I don't think any of these towers will cast that big a shadow over the town centre if at all!!Just to re-iterate - please please sign the petition in support for the development here: http://petitionthem.com/default.asp?sect=detail&pet=3594 More details for this scheme and general development/regeneration in Leicester can be found here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.p...946&page=16 Who mentioned the town centre? Not me I said the Canal. There's a listed 2 storey brick building right next to that plot, it's a narrow plot squeezed between a narrow road - Still think it's the right building in the wrong place.
hairy Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Looks like it worked then:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/art...r_feature.shtml
Ultra Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 The council have given their approval. It will be the tallest building in the East Midlands when it is built. The chairman of the meeting also expressed the hope it would encourage others to invest in the city.
Zingari Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 The council have given their approval. It will be the tallest building in the East Midlands when it is built. The chairman of the meeting also expressed the hope it would encourage others to invest in the city. the tallest building in the east midlands WOW that should bring the tourists flooding in; up yours chicago / new york
Ultra Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 As long as we stuff Snottingham, that will do for us..
Trumpet Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 If you look at the picture on the bbc article, you can see the luxury apartments, which have just been built near West Bridge... they look rather big when I walk past, but look how big that tower is next to it!
davieG Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 Skyscraper bid for Leicester's Bath Lane ditched due to lack of funding Developers have scrapped plans for a £150m skyscraper after failing to raise enough funding. The 39-storey glass-fronted hotel and apartment complex in Bath Lane, Leicester, would have been the tallest building in the East Midlands. But developer Westbridge Living has ditched the project after being unable to secure the finance needed. The Three Towers development, designed by renowned architect Ian Simpson, would have featured a 120m-tall tower along with two smaller towers along the side of the River Soar. It was to accommodate a 200-bedroom, five-star hotel, 179 apartments, a bar, restaurant and leisure centre. Talking from a holiday in Abu Dhabi, Ryan O'Neill, managing director of Westbridge, said the developer was unable to raise enough cash from the banks. He said: "Without bank support it's pretty impossible for a project of this magnitude to go ahead. "At the moment the market is on its knees and banks are just not lending on large developments. "This is not a reflection on Leicester, but more of a reflection of the times." The plans were first put forward four years ago at the height of the property boom. But following the credit crunch banks are unwilling to back large-scale residential developments. Mr O'Neill did not rule out building a similar-sized scheme in the city in the future, but said it was impossible to give a timescale. He said: "It's unfortunate that this is the right deal at the wrong time. If the right time comes again and there's a requirement for this type of building in the city I would look at making it happen." Nick Carter, chairman of Prospect Leicestershire, the county's economic development agency, said: "It's always disappointing that ambitious schemes of this sort can't be brought to fruition. "But the investment and development climate has been so widely changed by the global recession that these kind of projects are really no longer viable." Councillor Abdul Osman, Leicester City Council's regeneration spokesman, said: "This is a sad loss for the city. "Hopefully, we will find other developers and investors." Mr O'Neill said Westbridge Living had been put into administrative receivership. He said the business did not owe any money and had only been created for the Three Towers project. Other major residential developments in the city have been hit by the economic downturn. The developer behind the £12m Thames Tower, in Burleys Way, went into administration last year after only selling 14 of the 112 apartments, while the £33m St George's Central development – known as the Blue Tower – in St George's Way, was repossessed by Anglo Irish Bank because of difficulties finding tenants.
AjcW Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 Its amazing that a project that would improve the city, provide employment and better housing should receive such responses from users on a Leicester forum This. As long as it wasn't sarcasm .
Trav Le Bleu Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 It hadn't failed my notice that they have built something else on the site... ages ago. This is no surprise really.
Tony Pine Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 So the problem isn't that we have too many, they're just over-priced mainly due might I add to your own profession over-pricing them in the first place! Get your landlords to drop their rents, you lower your fees and maybe just maybe they won't be empty for much longer. It's not rocket science ffs as someone who knows an estate agent it's not as easy as that (that's also an extremely naive comment) take the st georges tower for instance. the owner was told time and time again that the prices were too high, but being from london he had set figures in his head, which turned out to be unachievable. this led to him having to turn it into a hotel and the rest of it stalling. estate agents want to sell places and they know their stuff (the good ones anyway) but a lot of these guys refuse to listen to them to the point where it seems they would rather have empty or rented places than selling them for a decent price. so don't be so quick to blame the estate agents as easy as it is.
Finnegan Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 Its amazing that a project that would improve the city, provide employment and better housing should receive such responses from users on a Leicester forum fooking spot on. I hate all this bum-love for old "landmarks" like that shit-awful rust bucket bridge and the people that kick their heels in and resist any type of development / redevelopment. If it was millions being spent on some pointlessly horrific statue or some vulgar monument then fair enough but this is progressive building and it'll also create a ****tonne of labouring jobs for a lot of the city's unemployed. With no disrespect intended to the few individuals whose cage I'm obviously rattling (I personally like the select few who spring to mind) I strongly disagree with their stance.
Lillehamring Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 It hadn't failed my notice that they have built something else on the site... ages ago. This is no surprise really. i'm guessing a parking lot or a hand car wash? by the way, have the arsonists got hold of the bath house yet, or has it just rotted away?
Lillehamring Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 fooking spot on. I hate all this bum-love for old "landmarks" like that shit-awful rust bucket bridge and the people that kick their heels in and resist any type of development / redevelopment. If it was millions being spent on some pointlessly horrific statue or some vulgar monument then fair enough but this is progressive building and it'll also create a ****tonne of labouring jobs for a lot of the city's unemployed. With no disrespect intended to the few individuals whose cage I'm obviously rattling (I personally like the select few who spring to mind) I strongly disagree with their stance. except that the plans have been scrapped this was just another example of the redevelopers in leicester completely missing the point, as davieG said, it was the wrong place for it in the first place. the canal has already been spoilt by the council/local landowners flogging of all the land to crap property developers and the DMU, it could have been a beautiful oasis in leicester, now it's just a graveyard for ugly developments and student flats. granted the tower development was nice, but they should have planned it near the station or soemwhere where people want to live and stay en masse. Towers are most impressive if clustered - any development of this nature should be in the heart of the city, near similar developments, and they area round the station (a dump) is just such a place. but obviously somebody, decided that a cramped little pocket near the canal, miles from public transport would attract investors and potential tenants. sadly the redevelopers are so obsessed with 'landmarking' and trying to outdo other cities they fail to look at what leicester really needs.
Finnegan Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 What the fook is the point of only ever putting nice buildings in nice areas? That totally defeats the point of redevelopment, that's not intelligent it's stupid. This would have been an ideal building to begin reinvigorating a shit area.
davieG Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 fooking spot on. I hate all this bum-love for old "landmarks" like that shit-awful rust bucket bridge and the people that kick their heels in and resist any type of development / redevelopment. If it was millions being spent on some pointlessly horrific statue or some vulgar monument then fair enough but this is progressive building and it'll also create a ****tonne of labouring jobs for a lot of the city's unemployed. With no disrespect intended to the few individuals whose cage I'm obviously rattling (I personally like the select few who spring to mind) I strongly disagree with their stance. Well it's possible to like old and attractive well designed new buildings which I would imagine the vast majority in favour of the 'rust bucket bridge' do. As for this project my only qualm was not the building but the location alongside the canal. So your rant strikes me as somewhat simplistic and thus unfair.
davieG Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 What the fook is the point of only ever putting nice buildings in nice areas? That totally defeats the point of redevelopment, that's not intelligent it's stupid. This would have been an ideal building to begin reinvigorating a shit area. They could still have put 'nice' buildings near the canal but something a bit more appropriate and in keeping with the surroundings thus enhancing the area not dwarfing it. Development for development sake is pointless and doomed to failure, there's certainly enough evidence of it in Leicester and other cities.
Alexikokopops Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 What the fook is the point of only ever putting nice buildings in nice areas? That totally defeats the point of redevelopment, that's not intelligent it's stupid. This would have been an ideal building to begin reinvigorating a shit area. Nice? granted the tower development was nice, but they should have planned it near the station or soemwhere where people want to live and stay en masse. Towers are most impressive if clustered - any development of this nature should be in the heart of the city, near similar developments, and they area round the station (a dump) is just such a place.
Head Honcho Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 as someone who knows an estate agent it's not as easy as that (that's also an extremely naive comment) take the st georges tower for instance. the owner was told time and time again that the prices were too high, but being from london he had set figures in his head, which turned out to be unachievable. this led to him having to turn it into a hotel and the rest of it stalling. estate agents want to sell places and they know their stuff (the good ones anyway) but a lot of these guys refuse to listen to them to the point where it seems they would rather have empty or rented places than selling them for a decent price. so don't be so quick to blame the estate agents as easy as it is. Naive??? What's naive is estate agents allowing owners and developers the space to advertise their wares at such inflated prices knowing they hadn't a hope in hells chance of selling or renting any of them. Estate agents need to be more proactive in such matters and not let themselves be dictated to.
Lillehamring Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 What the fook is the point of only ever putting nice buildings in nice areas? That totally defeats the point of redevelopment, that's not intelligent it's stupid. This would have been an ideal building to begin reinvigorating a shit area. there are more than enough shit areas in leicester, as i suggested round the station is pretty awful. the problem with the location they chose, as i said, is that it was too small to support a development of that size, also the infrastructure round there is totally inadequate. for that amount of square footage you have to be expecting to take advantages of businesses and commuters coming to and from london, hence why they sensibly elected to have the business quarter near the station, it also would have been easier for locals to accept something of that size where similar buildings exist, god forbid, a decent series of towers near the station (i'm a big fan of towers, see my sig) might even encourage occupancy in stgeorges tower. as far as bath lane, stick to developments that fit the area, that complement the historical end of town and the riverside -
Finnegan Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 Nice? I wasn't implying the area in question was nice. It was a response to another post.
AoWW Posted 22 April 2010 Posted 22 April 2010 If I ran a city you'd be my first appointment Lookydo, ideas like this are gold-dust. Or dynamite. That statement is scary on so many levels.
Flynny Posted 23 April 2010 Posted 23 April 2010 Vaguely related - I thought all the DMU stuff near Vaughan Way and The Magazine would look awful but I'm actually really impressed.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.