好色先生TV

The future of Birmingham鈥檚 Ringway centre is set to be decided later this week as councillors meet to discuss plans to replace the 1960s landmark with three towers.

The Corstorphine & Wright-designed scheme would demolish the locally listed building and see the construction of a trio of towers which would be among the tallest in the city.

The highly controversial proposals have been recommended for approval by the council鈥檚 planning officer despite staunch objections from campaigners including the 20th Century Society, the Birmingham Civic Society and Brutiful Birmingham.

Historic England has also expressed its concern and questioned what 鈥減ositive efforts鈥� have been undertaken to preserve the RIngway Centre, a council requirement for Grade B listed buildings.

The sweeping six-storey building was completed in 1962 and snakes along the city鈥檚 Inner Ring Road immediately outside the Bull Ring shopping centre.

Currently vacant, it was designed by James Roberts, the architect of the grade II-listed Rotunda, Birmingham鈥檚 most famous brutalist building.

A hybrid application for the redevelopment submitted in November last year by developer CEG would see two thirds of the building, including a bridge which links two parts of the structure, demolished and replaced by a 48-storey tower containing 547 flats.

A second phase would flatten the remainder of the building and erect two further towers of 44 and 56 storeys, consisting of a total of 1,085 homes and 6,400sq m of commercial space.

A 鈥榤eanwhile use鈥� strategy has been proposed for the part of the site earmarked for the tallest tower if the scheme is delayed, with the preferred option being a small park.

The council鈥檚 planning officers have concluded that the proposals would result in 鈥渉igh quality鈥� residential development which would make a meaningful contribution towards Birmingham鈥檚 housing needs.

The officers鈥� report added that the scheme would create a 鈥渄istinctive place鈥� and provide economic, social and environmental benefits.

But the 20th Century Society said the loss of the Ringway Centre would cause 鈥渟erious, substantial harm鈥� and said the heritage significance of the building had been 鈥渦ndersold鈥�.

The group also argued the building was capable of being adapted for reuse and extended upwards if required, countering claims from CEG that such a scheme would require 鈥渟ignificant and costly interventions鈥�.

The scheme鈥檚 planning consultant Turley has submitted an eight-page assessment of the viability of a retrofit as a direct response to Michael Gove鈥檚 decision to reject Marks & Spencer鈥檚 plan to rebuild its Marble Arch store on net zero and heritage grounds.

In his letter setting out his reasons for rejection, the secretary of state said there should be a 鈥済enerally鈥� strong presumption in favour of repurposing and reuse of buildings.

But Turley argued there would be a significant risk in 鈥渕isinterpreting鈥� this judgement as meaning a blanket ban against demolition of all buildings, which the consultant said would set a particularly harmful precedent in Birmingham given the city鈥檚 regeneration ambitions.

The document sets out the differences between the Pilbrow & Partners-designed M&S scheme and the Ringway Centre plans, including that the former had been primarily for commercial use and the latter would be residential-led.

Turley added that while the M&S store was still in use, the Ringway Centre was unoccupied, no longer fit for purpose and argued it was approaching the end of its design life in terms of structural integrity.

It concluded that the project team had 鈥渇ully and robustly鈥� tested the feasibility of retaining the Ringway Centre and found retention would not be viable as it would require works such as recladding, installing new fire safety measures and repositioning floor plates.

鈥淭he reality is that such works would be prohibitively costly without the benefit of likely proportionate returns on investment,鈥� Turley said.

鈥淭his represents a particular constraint when considering the need for any office or residential proposals to compete with other contemporary purpose built developments in the city that provide high quality accommodation and various other services and amenities. 

鈥淚n that context the scale of intervention works and repairs necessary to bring the building back into a 鈥榝it state鈥� for long term occupation would set a high burden on the deliverability of any such proposals and their realistic deliverability鈥�.

The project team also includes cost consultant RLF, structural and civil engineer Curtins, heritage consultant Montagu Evans, facade engineer Wintech, transport consultant Stantec and acoustic consultant Hoare Lea. The hearing will take place on Thursday.