Jump to content

Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted

[Untitled]

[edit]

The Beetham tower is now higher than any others - it might not be open for occupation yet, but it is taller now it's been topped out.

Thoughts? --Gavinio 15:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's finished now. The hotel is open. David 18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also finished now is the Great Northern Tower. Soon we'll be able to add the new Civil Justice Centre. David 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

Just thought this might be of use. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a clean up?

[edit]

I was just looking at this artlice and wondered if it is time for clear out of sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3? As far as I can tell a lot of these developments are clearly never going to be built. I have already removed 2 described by their references as cancelled. Furthermore:

  • It is somewhat generous to describe Piccadilly Tower in section 3.1 as "under-construction". The only thing that was ever completed was the clearance of the site. As far as I can tell planning permission expired in April 2010 [1].
  • Zacharie/Gravity Tower's planning consent expired in January 2011. The SkyScrapperNews page that this article references carries a link to a story about the developer collapsing in 2009 [2]
  • Sharp Street: Planning Consent expired in June 2010 [3]
  • Water Street. Original consent expired in 2010 [4]. Application for extension of consent in same year appears to be still undetermined [5].
  • Lee House planning consent granted 2002 [6]. But no development 10 years on?
  • Victoria Works Tower. If it is this application [7], consent expired in 2009. A later application in 2008 around the same area [8] was withdrawn.
  • With the exception of River Street Tower, all of the developments mentioned in the Proposed Section appear to have been proposed for at least 4-years with no planning application. Whilst, some of these may eventually progress to being built in the proposed form, perhaps we need to question whether we document them until there is some real progress towards buidling them.
Taking the example of the Intercontinental Tower. 3.5 years after this iteration was proposed (Theare Royal Tower a few rows below is an earlier iteration of the same development). There is apparently not even no planning application - there is a suggestion that there isnt even an agreement with Intercontinental Hotels [9] and that the owners of the Radisson are also eyeing the site for their own development.

Finally the following appear to be on life-support. Perhaps we also need to debate whether this article should document them until such time as there is actually evidence of them being built:

  • "Under-Construction" is a slightly better tern for Axis Tower than Piccadilly. They built the foundations at Axis before stopping. By all accounts it is in a perpetual cycle of contruction will re-start in the first quarter of the following year.
  • VIVO: Planning permission extended to 2014 in 2011 [10]

Pit-yacker (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit away, you're quite right.J3Mrs (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; the list must be updated, corrected, etc. There is always the risk that lists, including FLs, become out of date, and really someone ought to keep an eye on them to ensure this does not happen. Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have removed all buildings from 3.1-3.3 except Axis and Vivo. I left these, for now as there is still at least outstanding planning consent, and so perhaps an outside chance of them being built. Or should these be removed as well?Pit-yacker (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

River St Tower

[edit]

I have removed this again as the application is not actually appproved. The planning committee meets on 25 October 2012 to discuss this application. As far as I can tell, said committee is perfectly within its rights to reject the application. Equally, as the previous application (to restart construction on the concrete frame presently on the site) in 2008 showed, the granting of planning consent and start of construction are entirely different matters. The only reason any of the approved section remains is that its complete removal was slighlty more contentious the parts that were removed. Personally, I would be inclined to get rid of the section completely as the granting of planning consent carries no obligation to actually build the proposal. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the MEN used the wording "set to be approved" in one of its recent headlines with regards to River Street. For me the MEN has declined in quality since switching to Trinity Mirror ownership (but that's another discussion!).... I agree that this article has sections that are pretty outdated and ought to be completely revamped if not removed - for me, it's probably worth mentioning some of the pre-recession plans in context of how and why they folded somewhere (perhaps?). --Jza84 |  Talk  13:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell the actual edits in question pre-dated the MEN article by 2-3 days. They cited the planning officer's report as a reference. That report doesnt actually say it was approved - it says that he recommends approval. I don't doubt the tower will be approved tomorrow night. However, it isn't unheard of for a planning committee to over-rule the planning officer and adding that it was approved seemed a little premature and inaccurate for what is meant to be a featured article.
I guess it might be useful to add modify the following paragraph to mention "In the 2000s (decade), there has been a renewed interest in building skyscrapers in Manchester and other cities in Britain.[8] Residential, hotel and office developments are under construction or have recently been built in the city centre including the Beetham Tower.[5]" that there were even more schemes many of which folded because of the recession. However, I'm not sure about going into too much detail as that risks creating an exhaustive list of every tower that has been proposed, no matter how unlikely its construction.Pit-yacker (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All buildings in Greater Manchester should be listed on this page?

[edit]

As is true with the London page which uses all buildings within Greater London, maybe this should include (or another page be created) all buildings in Greater Manchester. Skylines work in unison with each other regardless of local council boundaries. This would make the page directly comparable with other cities. With a newly elected mayor on the way and a combined authority, Greater Manchester itself works as a single city. Tom 05/04/2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.21 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester

[edit]

It has been brought up before on this talk page but I think we should address the possibility of expanding this page to include Greater Manchester (the same way London includes everything in Greater London). Pages such as the tallest buildings in Salford should remain (the same way the tallest buildings in Croydon exists) but should we rename the article to "List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester" to avoid confusion? On places such as SSC and online media towers like Exchange Court are included as a part of "Manchester" even if in Salford. Given the current rate of construction boom this needs to be addressed or the quality of this article is compromised. BenBezuidenhout (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not responding sooner. I reverted your edits as I thought it may need more discussion first (your edits can always be reverted back). I think it would be best to first propose a merge of the two featured lists. It can be done following instructions on Wikipedia:Merging. Once the two articles are fully merged then one can be renamed to List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester and the other redirected to that article. I'm not sure what happens to the featured status when two featured lists are merged, but I would assume that the quality would have to be reassessed at WP:FLRC. An alternative would be to simply create a new article at List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester that combines the two lists. Note that buildings from the other boroughs of GM would have to be added for completeness in either case. Thanks for your patience, Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're replying to the wrong person? I only suggested we merge the two into a Greater Manchester page. Check the history of the article, I didn't do anything hence why I took to the talk page to discuss it first. BenBezuidenhout (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-vamp, re-fresh and update!

[edit]

As mentioned on numerous occasions, it's hard work, silly and confusing to two separate pages for buildings in Manchester and Salford. There are some developments happening around the city that are on the borders and some bigger developments that has land across the two territories. In line with every other big city, the wording has been changed to tallest building in the Greater Manchester area.

There is so much going on at the minute, I've spend hours having a good clean up and refresh. There is still a few developments missing that I will add and also need to finish the references and upload some pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.194.219 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update, As I mentioned it took me hours to refresh the page and finally bring it up to standards with almost every other city in the UK and the majority of international cities across the world. I DON'T understand why people are trying to complicate things. London's page has building ranging from Canary Wharf, Westminster, Hackney, Stratford, Camden, Croydon, Isle Of Doges, Vauxhall, Shepherds Bush etc... Both sides of the river and in total around a 25 mile circle. Less than 7,000 actually live in the city of London (although having many talls). Birmingham have the same system as London. This issue has been brought up time after time. Salford, Manchester, Trafford are all Greater Manchester Borough. If that's the case why is The Beetham tower is the Manchester page? If people are going to be so petty and pathetic, technically it's in Deansgate. Most these high rises under construction are in Ancoats, should that have it's own page also?
It would pay you idiotic people better to remove all the stupid developments that is under proposal or under construction that was cancelled years ago. I'm looking at some of these projects and they are dating back to 2004, 2006. Buildings have been build on these since. I did remove them but it since has all be restored. Many here are trying to keep this page up to date and have all the information correct. However, people who don't have a clue are just continuing to mess everything up.
Please be civil. Your edits are still available in the article history, and so have not been lost. I have used your edits as a basis for starting a new list at List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester. Please be sure to use WP:References in your updates so that they are fully verifiable. Del♉sion23 (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


One Regent

[edit]

I believe this building is done and missing from this list. It is listed here on Skyscrapercenter incorrectly as 1 Water Street. http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/1-water-street/28177 ... Masterscraper (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Manchester&oldid=1254675365"