riffraff
Striker
Worrabout The Dun Cow?
Vaux site......
- Thread starter citybythesea
- Start date
citybythesea
Winger
The footprint of the building takes up a big chunk of the vaux site, so the opportunity-cost for commerce there is huge.
I know there'll be people who'll say we shouldn't bother and try and attract business to Sunderland city centre but it shouldn't be given over just to the public service. Even to accommodate them the sensible thing on the site would have been to stack both those buildings together.....make it taller and save on the floor space for other ventures
I know there'll be people who'll say we shouldn't bother and try and attract business to Sunderland city centre but it shouldn't be given over just to the public service. Even to accommodate them the sensible thing on the site would have been to stack both those buildings together.....make it taller and save on the floor space for other ventures
D
Deleted member 27897
Guest
I listed it! Read again!
I agree, I felt slightly disappointed about this even though the structure looks impressive. It was still in my mind that this was a "let down" from what the Vaux site could have been.
The council do have a stunt habit of merely moving old things to new locations on prime brownfield city center sites and claiming progress. They did this with Holmeside and the new college; discarding the dream of a skyscraper on the site (with thornfield properties collapse).
I understand resources are limited and they're under pressure, but it's a letdown in some ways even if better than nothing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biggest act of cultural vandalism. Unbelievable.
Thankfully I don't think this would happen these days.
D
Deleted member 27897
Guest
Everytime I look at old photos of Fawcett street, I feel nothing but regret and disappointment when I see it.
Pre-WW2 Sunderland City Center looked amazing and you cannot attribute all of it to bombing, in more than a few ways the area physically went backwards in the latter half of the 20th century.
Osklen
Winger
Whilst a 11+ storey building would have been impressive it’s unlikely that the other developments (hopefully led by the private sector) would construct to that scale therefore it may have looked odd within its surroundings. An 11+ storey building would likely provide too greater risk to the development in terms of time to let the space and recoup development cost, as building above 7 or 8 stories can increase the construction costs considerably - I think there is a sweet spot that if you go above say 8 that you should be going to 12 or 14.
Also the Siglion Masterplan I believe had some height restrictions and scale of development?
I can understand the concern that the new civic centre scheme is substituting potential commercial development and there is an argument that the civic centre should have been located elsewhere, such as Holmeside, but suspect they went for the Vaux site to try and build on the momentum of the Beam and to create a place rather than leaving the building isolated.
Does the council own all of Holmeside?
Not a bash-the-council all the time person, but worth noting that the Fire Station, the new music venue, and the refurbs of the Peacock and the Dun Cow are not down to the council, but have been led by the MAC Trust/Sunderland Culture. They're the ones with the vision and who have put the bids together, then have won the funding. Council might have partnered, but the imagination and the drive are elsewhere.
citybythesea
Winger
I get it......"let's not try anything remotely ambitious because we're shite"
All I'm saying the building being the same size but built upwards and saved space for other things......but I know I know we shouldn't or can't...
42
Striker
IIRC there was a feasibility study for options for the civic. Which were:
1 - refurbish current civic (with partial demolition)
2 - relocate to holmeside
3 - relocate to vaux
Vaux was found to be the most cost effective option.
citybythesea
Winger
sexymuffin
Winger
Paul Callaghan and the MAC trust are behind 3 of them and nothing to do with the council. In fact the council were actually pulling in a different direction entirely for the auditorium build and it very nearly went tits up. Without him that area of the town would basically be ruined by now. The Peacock would still be a shit hole full of piss heads, the fire station would be vacant or knocked down and the Dun Cow would probably still be there but a wreck of what it is now. The guy deserves so much more praise then he gets although he not really one to crow about what he’s achieved.
42
Striker
Part of the vaux was originally allocated for residential. If you move that residential to the old civic site & replace with commercial than you havent lost any commercial.
Theres also the argument that had they not moved to vaux then the redevelopment wouldve taken a lot longer, and this speeds things up which also means the surrounding areas (HSW, crowtree etc) improve earlier which brings in more investment earlier.
Theres loads of ways of looking at this as things arent that simple. Theres no right or wrong answer.
Osklen
Winger
I don’t think it’s the argument that it’s not ambitious its the argument of pragmatism and what will fit in wit the scale of the site from an urban planning perspective. Building a building twice the height of all those that might be around it might just look odd (imho).
I’d agree to the premise of a higher building if demand for the scale of development you are talking about is there for the other building plots, however I am guessing it’s unlikely at this moment in time.
Also done a quick search of building heights and this article suggests going over 20 storeys has the larger impact in terms of development cost.
Steel insight: Cost planning steel-framed multi-storey buildings
Also if Sunderland attracts significantly more office tenants that the site demands the. there is the opportunity to either build on Holmeside or the civic centre itself. Also not forgetting there are opportunities in Sunniside and even Sheepfolds. Sunderland has too much developable land.
Last edited:
citybythesea
Winger
By that logic they should just put bungalows on the site.......or better still nothing at all...that's cheaper still.......
I don't think there can be any arguments about vast improvements to Sunderland city centre....unless they at least try to be ambitious
Take the stadium site e.g that might have been deemed ambitious back in the day, yet it's been the catalyst for development next to it.
Suppose the old adage is true, when you change nothing don't be surprised when nothing changes
Osklen
Winger
Well that’s not true as they are building a development and one that is, I am guessing, cost efficient and probably prudent in the scheme of things. Can you imagine the uproar if they built a statement building?
Taking the stadium as an analogy, and about the clubs ambition by your argument We should have built a 60,000 or 100,000 seater stadium to shoe greater ambition, however that would not have been suitable for the club as it would have been inefficient and unaffordable. They however choose to build a stadium fit for their needs. I accept that they, like the council, could have made the facade look different.
citybythesea
Winger
Well actually the stadium was built with that scalability in mind!
And it did catalyse other developments next to it.
But my point is not about building a 1000ft skyscraper.....it's about being smarter on how they use that space. Make it the same size building just upwards so it doesn't prevent space for other developments.
So far they've probably used 40-50% of the initial land area building a road through it and relocating the civic centre and the beam.
Osklen
Winger
You are right it’s scalable but it does as a consequence it will constrain development around it.
Regarding the current developments delivered you have to build roads to service the site and the Beam is a commercial office development, but I take your point that the civic centre has taken up a quantum of commercial development opportunity, but as I say the other sites in the city present the same opportunities as well redevelopment of the existing city centre itself.
In an ideal world the whole of the city centre would be redeveloped and raised to 5 to 6 storeys, with retail and leisure use at ground floor and office and residential above it, rather than have a single location (Vaux) that has 12 storey buildings on it.
citybythesea
Winger
I get that you're seeing this from a Tyneside-centric point of view. But people here want to have a busy and prosperous city centre. Filling the vaux site with as many jobs as possible is important as space on that site is now limited. That public sector hub could have been over two floors with a bigger footprint and would have ended any future hope of commerce on that site....
It's supposed to be a key site for the centre of Sunderland, and limiting its space isn't doing it justice
Bob Fleming
Striker
I can just imagine the uproar had they gone with a highly ambitious statement building. I'd have loved to have seen that too. Some think they should continue to work in the shithole that is the civic. Personally, I think it's about right but the people of the city will never agree on anything.
Osklen
Winger
I’m not sure what you mean by seeing this from Tyneside centric view? But to answer that they could have built it over two storeys but they haven’t. There must be still 300,000 sq ft plus still to go at on Vaux site alone.
I agree that we need as much commercial office development in the city centre as possible and would love to see many of the peripheral business relocated in the city centre. However I would you have to be realistic in how much office space is likely to come. 600,000 sq ft (original masterplan) is quite an amount as a start from an office base in the city of pretty much 0. There is also still loads of development land to got at as I’ve mentioned before.
