SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Europe (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=88)
-   -   Birmingham and Rotterdam (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128645)

Citrus-Fruit Apr 3, 2007 3:38 PM

Birmingham and Rotterdam
 
These two cities have quite a similar situation with quite similar height ranging skylines. Along with Frankfurt are these two cities going to become major world cities within the next 15 years.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...pril200797.jpg

http://www.jellejanvanveelen.nl/foto...pano2_1600.jpg

Grumpy Apr 3, 2007 4:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus-Fruit (Post 2739925)
These two cities have quite a similar situation with quite similar height ranging skylines.

This is certainly true

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus-Fruit (Post 2739925)
Along with Frankfurt are these two cities going to become major world cities within the next 15 years.

They wont.
Look what London & La Défense have to offer in the future , these 2 (B'ham & R'dam) even with Frankfurt are way to small to compete with the big 3 in Europe (3rd is Moscow).
But it must be said they are both doing good to become top European cities

Citrus-Fruit Apr 3, 2007 6:22 PM

Of course. But outside the capitals of the major countries these two have an incredible chance to become world cities like Frankfurt is for Germany, Milan is for Italy etc

Amsterdam and London have dominated there respective countries for along time but both seem to be coming out of the duldrums now and trying to muscle in on what the others have had for a long time. They will never overtake the likes of London, Moscow, Paris etc that can be said without an ounce of negativity towards the two, its just plainly obvious, but can they become 2nd tier (beta) world cities like Frankfurt within the next 15 years. Currently they lie within the top 50-100 most important cities can they make the improvement by 2020-2025 into the top 30 which is the aim of both cities councils.

My money if one was to do it would be on Rotterdam but I think this is one of the best comparisons there is in Europe.

Crawford Apr 3, 2007 6:41 PM

I always thought Rotterdam was a little more prosperous and international. It's skyline sure looks better, though I don't think towers say much about a city.

Is Frankfurt really a "major world city"? It's certainly international, but more in the style of Zurich than London or Paris.

Citrus-Fruit Apr 3, 2007 9:42 PM

Yeh it skyline at the moment is alot better then Birminghams, but in return, Birminghams new towers are an awful lot more asthetic then its compatriot. Its hard to say which city is more international as Birmingham apart from Las Vegas is the only city with 2 arenas in the worlds top 75. Its hosts the worlds largest motorsport, clothes, dog shows etc its hosted the G8 Summit, Eurovision song contest, Is the new home of the conservative political party, national lottery, Europes leading sporting city, accepts responsibilty for over 30% of all UK patents. 9% of the total worlds. Even oxygen was first discovered in the city ;)

The only thing it lacks is a buisness center to attract major firms but this is all changing now with a pre-sale of its new 14 storey colmore plaza to KPG at £150m. It has 1 scheme in pre-planning which is going to accomodate over 2,000,000sqft of office space, its quite a possibility a top of the range high-rise (250m) skyscraper could be involved.

Frankfurt is the 2nd biggest financial market in Europe, a major world player. ammenity wise, maybe not but its ranked along side Toronto, which I personaly rate as a World city.

I guess its how you judge the credentials of a major metropolis. :)

Citrus-Fruit Apr 3, 2007 9:49 PM

This is one office, residential, hotel development that is currently under construction. It is the first of 3, 5* hotels planned for the city after a surge in demand. (smaller tower)

http://i3.tinypic.com/3307m2q.jpg

Jonas Apr 3, 2007 10:07 PM

That's very strange. I always thought Frankfurt was an Alpha-range global city (along with London, NYC, Paris, HK, Tokyo and the likes) due to it's global importance in banking and finance sectors (whereas Moscow seems to be a beta world city as according to the link provided) which makes you thoughts a little confusing :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...orld_cities.29

Citrus-Fruit Apr 3, 2007 10:53 PM

Me or Crawford? ^^

I see what you mean but arguably politically, domestically and internationally Moscow is a more reknowned city. Financially it compares poorly to Frankfurt but both are world cities and as I pointed out before, Frankfurt is a top ranked city which has become a benchmark for the councils of Brum and Dam to aspire to.

However, we seem to be missing the point. Frankfurt is not the capital of Germany but has found its way as one of the leading cities in Europe and the world in terms of highrise accomodation and high quality office developments.

As you can see by the link Jonas has given us, Rotterdam and Birmingham have only notched 2 points a piece. In my experience both are a above Dublin which has 3 points but you could argue thats due to its status as the capital of one of the richest countries in Europe.

Both councils aim to become a top 30 city. This means both have to become as influential, diverse and domestically reliable as the likes of Amsterdam, Prague, Washington, Dusseldorf and Melbourne. Is a 20 year time frame just to short for these cities to progress this much?

The French call Birmingham the Shanghai of Europe. Its has £13 billion worth of redevelopment within its city core, its just announced Europes largest city masterplan in the post war era expanding it by ten fold with the possibilty of grand lakes and even a 90m pyramid. Its all well and good having aspirations and beg my pardon as im not all to familair with the exact development of Rotterdam but are these aims un-realistic?

To me, to get into the top 10 cities in Europe, which I see as, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Moscow, Rome, Barcelona, Berlin, Istanbul, Warsaw and Madrid both cities are going to have to push extremely hard and develop like crazy over the next decade, even if it means building speculatively to attract major tnc's.

P.S Whats Rotterdam's largest known project? :cheers:

Jonas Apr 3, 2007 11:51 PM

^^^
I see your point :)
I was just a little confused when you described Frankfurt as a "beta world city" whereas it is an alpha world city (unless you know some other rankings besides those I provided). Anyway, good luck to Birmingham. :)

one very bored guy Apr 4, 2007 8:57 AM

I agree tha both Birmingham and Rotterdam will increase their level of importance in Europe, and both are exciting cities for new developments. However, I cannot see any other relationship between them. One is an inland city, the other a port city. That major geographical difference seems important to me. Rotterdam also seems to have a longer history of highrises, being one of the pioneers in Europe.

Both are facinating cities though, and I will keep track of their impressive new developments.

As for Frankfurt. It certainly is an Alpha city on the world business stage. But it lacks much what other Alpha cities around the world have. I would still say Berlin and Hamburg in Germany feel larger and more important, although of cause on the international business front, Frankfurt holds it's own.

Citrus-Fruit Apr 4, 2007 11:26 AM

Arr yes agree one very bored guy, but Birmingham constructed the largest inland canal network to accomodate its position as the workplace of the world. At its peak in the late 19th early 20th century Birmingham grew from 74,000 to 630,000 inhabitants and the canal system was the reason for it. It was a leading industrial city and transported coal, iron, guns, swords even buttons etc. The reason it was called "the city of a thousand trades" and all because of the canal system. So you could argue in a way that both cities have prospered from using water to thier advantage and becoming the main ports in thier respected countries for useable goods.

On them being pioneers of highrise in Europe. Im not too sure thats the case. Birmingham built a 100m clock tower completed in 1900 for its university. Rotterdam's tallest at this point was a mere 42m.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/3...d2ee35e3_b.jpg

It certainly was however a pinoneer of highrise residential living. 60+ meter GEB was built in the early 30's. Both cities broke the 100m office barrier in 1969/70. Quite similar time frames. :)

Miu Apr 4, 2007 6:54 PM

Also, Germany has always been a federation/confederation and is traditionally a decentralized country, unlike England, which has been dominated by London for centuries.
Other English cities are improving business-wise, but most are still doing quite poorly compared to other western european cities.
I can see Birmingham becoming more important, but it won't reach the level of Frankfurt or Milan as a business hub. London is just too dominant within the UK.

Citrus-Fruit Apr 4, 2007 8:52 PM

Agreed. London is far to dominant but in a sense, its complete control has now got companies looking elsewhere for thier HQ's due to the continued price hikes being seen in the capital. Birminghams PSQFT price has dropped dramtically over the last few years from the 9th most expensive in the world to just inside the top 50. This has in turn attracted new companies relocating from the capital and with its huge catchment area begun to turn it into a major european buisness city.

Why spend £200m more on a bulding when you can get the same grade A space 110 miles away. The north of England is seeing some major growth with Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool all fighting for major companies relocating from London.

The BBC have just announced its move away from London to Manchester. It seems quite alot are taking heed of the overpriced floor space within dominating capital cities. Which can only be a good thing for the likes of Birmingham and Rotterdam.

one very bored guy Apr 5, 2007 6:48 AM

@Citrus-Fruit, yes I know about the canals in Birmingham. I look forward to having a chance to photograph them one day. But they don't dominate the city in the same way the harbour and port dominates Rotterdam. Canals are like small rivers, and unless it's a completely canal centric city like Venice and to a lesser degree, Amsterdam, they are usually in the background.

Have a look at a group of photos from Rotterdam, Birmingham, Venice and Amsterdam. Most of Rotterdam show the port and harbour somewhere. Most from Venice or Amsterdam show the canals somewhere in a shot. But you really have to look hard to find photos of Birminghams canals.

Just a thought. I love the idea of the canals in Birmingham though, and have to see and enjoy them for myself someday in the future.

Citrus-Fruit Apr 5, 2007 12:17 PM

Yeh I completely understand that. I thought you were talking in relation to thier importance of the growth of the cities etc.

Waterfront settings are immensly more valuable then inland no doubt about it. Thats where within the UK, Cardiff and especially Liverpool have such a clear advantage over some of the other major cities in developing a world reknowned skyline :)

Some good news to come out of the city today though is that 35m 100ft+ has been added on to the taller tower at Masshouse a 1msqft scheme in the eastside. The tower will stand just over 100m which is a fantastic imporvement and all down to a 14 storey catalyst within the area which was talked about earlier thats added considerable land value to the area :) . This could really become one of Europes major CBD's with some gigantic office towers springing up. Over 4 100m+ towers are planned within touching distance now. Its getting exciting.

British Land have also brought the 80m Natwest Tower within the city center and the aim is to double it floor space with another 100m+ tower filtering through into the rumour mills.

:cheers:

RazzC Apr 21, 2007 7:01 PM

Quote:


On them being pioneers of highrise in Europe. Im not too sure thats the case. Birmingham built a 100m clock tower completed in 1900 for its university. Rotterdam's tallest at this point was a mere 42m.
Well, the 'mere 42 m.' was enough to be the tallest office building on continental Europe at the time, so it's not really a dwarf we're talking about ;)
By the way, the tallest building at the time was still the 62 m. tall tower of the 16th-century Laurenschurch, the only remnant from medieval Rotterdam.

Furthermore, about Rotterdam becoming a world class business city, I don't think that'll be the case, the city being in a small country. There's just not enough demand for office space. That's also the reason why the city has such problems building above 150 m. (finally, there's a 165 m. tall office tower under construction now, which will beat the 151 m. tall Delftse Poort after reigning the skies for 15+ years) The ambition is clearly there, that's not the culprit.

Birmingham, that's another story. It might actually become a second tier world city if it does well to pick up companies who are tired of London.
I don't really see much similarities between Rotterdam and Birmingham by the way, beside the skylines.

Minato Ku Apr 21, 2007 7:15 PM

Don't forget Lyon in the cities like Birmingham.
Lyon is already 24th in the best european business cities rank. ;)
Actually it has only one skyscraper and high rises over 100m in construction but the mayor annonced other towers.
It is higly ranked in best european cities for office space (5th or 7th) and has huge redevellopement project.

holladay Apr 21, 2007 7:33 PM

I don't have the patience to read through this whole post so I know I'm exaggerating some of the arguments presented here but I find it foolish that presence of towers is now considered evidence of "world class city" status. More likely, towers just mean greater business presence, corporate headquarters, that sort of thing. And maybe increased role in international commerce. That's it... They don't create great cities. Rotterdam, Frankfurt and Birmingham all accord to this logic.

RazzC Apr 22, 2007 9:12 AM

^I agree, but that's not what this thread is about at all.

one very bored guy Apr 23, 2007 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RazzC (Post 2784231)
Furthermore, about Rotterdam becoming a world class business city, I don't think that'll be the case, the city being in a small country. There's just not enough demand for office space. That's also the reason why the city has such problems building above 150 m. (finally, there's a 165 m. tall office tower under construction now, which will beat the 151 m. tall Delftse Poort after reigning the skies for 15+ years) The ambition is clearly there, that's not the culprit.

That is really not an issue, as there are smaller countries in the world that have cities with towers over 150meters. Auckland in New Zealand is one example. The issue is that this city is in Europe and Europe is simply infamous for it’s lack of high rises.

MacGyver Apr 27, 2007 5:34 PM

Rotterdam a major world city of the future :haha:

Rotterdam is a city for the uneducated and unemployed, not for the well educated and rich. This will never change...

Swede Apr 27, 2007 8:20 PM

^THAT's your first post? And you expect to stay long?
This is your first and last warning; act civilized or you're gone

sullying a good name like MacGyver makes it just that extra bit bad.

Qaabus Apr 27, 2007 10:13 PM

Rotterdam does have plans to build 56000 homes in the city centre by 2025. They will need highrises to achieve that.

MacGyver Apr 28, 2007 7:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swede (Post 2800073)
^THAT's your first post? And you expect to stay long?
This is your first and last warning; act civilized or you're gone

sullying a good name like MacGyver makes it just that extra bit bad.

Truth hurts.

SHiRO Apr 28, 2007 8:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacGyver (Post 2801845)
Truth hurts.

On SSP it's 2 strikes and you're out...

Citrus-Fruit May 3, 2007 8:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qaabus (Post 2800344)
Rotterdam does have plans to build 56000 homes in the city centre by 2025. They will need highrises to achieve that.

Really. Bloody hell Birmingham needs to build 96,000 by 2020. The cities population about 20 years ago at night was about 30. Now its up to roughly 18,000 with apartments left right and center. Its never really been fashionable to live in the cities after the war on top of everything.

Citrus-Fruit May 3, 2007 8:22 PM

P.S Skyscrapers also do signal success. You can only build them in these countries if there is relevant demand. A growing skyline which is recognisable gets world wide attention. Birmingham lost its historical skyline during the blitz. I new one would give it media attention and the rest. Plus we're going to have Europes first vertical theme park in the center of the city standing close to 180m. :jester:

Eric Offereins May 13, 2007 10:03 PM

I know Rotterdam will never be in the top 3 of Europe, but we got some pretty stuff coming up. A selection from the dutch section of skyscrapercity by SkyBridge:

UC:
http://www.spiralmotion.net/rotterdam/maastoren.jpg

http://www.spiralmotion.net/rotterdam/neworleans.jpg

http://www.spiralmotion.net/rotterdam/theredapple.jpg

http://www.spiralmotion.net/rotterdam/erasmusmc.jpg

approved, start in or before 2008:
http://www.spiralmotion.net/rotterdam/derotterdam.jpg

http://www.spiralmotion.net/rotterdam/juffertoren.jpg

http://www.spiralmotion.net/rotterdam/portauvin.jpg

http://www.spiralmotion.net/rotterdam/zalmhaven.jpg

http://www.spiralmotion.net/rotterda...ingeltoren.jpg

ontheroad May 21, 2007 8:18 PM

I cannot se any similarities at all...

Citrus-Fruit May 24, 2007 5:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ontheroad (Post 2848750)
I cannot se any similarities at all...

No?

Ummm ...

2nd largest cities of both countries, densest regional cities blah blah! ...

one very bored guy May 29, 2007 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus-Fruit (Post 2855625)
No?

Ummm ...

2nd largest cities of both countries, densest regional cities blah blah! ...

Let's be honest, that is a little vague. Should we compare Los Angeles with Lyon then, Melbourne with Wellington etc and say they are similar because they are all the 2nd largest cities in each country.

Rotterdam and Birmingham have very little in common. Well, both nice cities though.

Citrus-Fruit May 29, 2007 7:09 PM

They have alot in common. More then most. Rotterdam is the best city to compare to Birmingham. Both built densely many years ago, both are trying to become major european cities although being arguably dominated by thier respective capitals. However, lets go back to the first post of thsi thread ... If you're to vague with respective arguments like - they have nothing in common at all, why would anyone waste time in replying with a full list of reasons why they are? :rolleyes:

RazzC May 29, 2007 7:52 PM

Den Haag is much more densely populated than Rotterdam. (because the municipaly of Rotterdam contains the harbors)

Citrus-Fruit May 29, 2007 9:43 PM

Huh? I thinking you're being a bit picky here. Densely populated with high-rise commie blocks? Den Hagg is'nt comparable to Birmingham like Rotterdam is! People ... you guys seem to be missing the whole point.

one very bored guy May 30, 2007 6:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus-Fruit (Post 2865129)
They have alot in common. More then most. Rotterdam is the best city to compare to Birmingham. Both built densely many years ago, both are trying to become major european cities although being arguably dominated by thier respective capitals. However, lets go back to the first post of thsi thread ... If you're to vague with respective arguments like - they have nothing in common at all, why would anyone waste time in replying with a full list of reasons why they are? :rolleyes:

Sorry, I still don’t get it. In your first post all you say is that they have a similar skyline, which I also find completely odd. Rotterdam has a much larger skyline than Birmingham at this present stage. What else do they have in common?

Rotterdam is a coastal city (close enough). Birmingham is inland.
Rotterdam has one of the world’s largest ports. Birmingham isn’t a port city.
The architecture is vastly different
Rotterdam has a subway, Birmingham doesn’t.
Sure, both have canals, but they are vastly different in style. It's a bit like saying New York and London are similar because they both have streets.

Of cause, it's perfectly acceptable to compare two completely different cities.

But I just don't see the simularities here.

Citrus-Fruit May 30, 2007 4:51 PM

Both developed due to thier ports (Birmingham had to build its network), both were the industrial cities of thier respective nations, both are indeed the known second cities of thier respective nations - however, what the whole thread was about, is both cities COUNCILS WANT TO TURN THIER CITY INTO A TOP TIER EUROPEAN POWERHOUSE. How can they achieve it, skyscrapers are both high on the agenda of both cities leaders, they both believe highrise cities will give them a recognisable skyline which will be noticed all over the world - the exact question was this

Quote:

These two cities have quite a similar situation with quite similar height ranging skylines. Along with Frankfurt are these two cities going to become major world cities within the next 15 years.
Frankfurt developed from near enough nothing and become the powerhouse of Germany. Can Rotterdam and Birmingham become recognised powerhouses of thier respective nations to a lesser extent then Frankfurt with thiers. This thread had nothing to do with similarities. Just people being picky. However, they have very SIMILAR AGENDA'S!

Miu May 30, 2007 5:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrus-Fruit (Post 2867202)

Frankfurt developed from near enough nothing and become the powerhouse of Germany.

What leads you to think that Frankfurt developed from "near nothing"? Frankfurt has been a leading european center of trade and finance for centuries.

RazzC May 30, 2007 6:01 PM

You don't really hear the political parties in Rotterdam about an ambition to be a top powerhouse. Rotterdam has a different share of problems, with an according political agenda.

Citrus-Fruit Jun 12, 2007 9:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miu (Post 2867352)
What leads you to think that Frankfurt developed from "near nothing"? Frankfurt has been a leading european center of trade and finance for centuries.

So has Rotterdam and Birmingham! But I meant near enough nothing in terms of development! Frankfurt completely re-invented itself to stay at the top, these two didnt until now!

BenL Jun 12, 2007 9:25 AM

I think Rotterdam can look to a more prosperous future than Birmingham. It has Europe's largest port and in the Benelux, has a far more central European location. Perhaps more importantly, there is far less primacy in the Netherlands than the UK, with The Hague the political centre, Amsterdam the commercial and cultural centre and Rotterdam the industrial centre. The Dutch government realises this and with the high-speed rail network it is hoping to connect all three cities within a very short time so as a group they can achieve what neither city could do on its own and compete on a world scale. In this respect the Netherlands are much closer to Germany - which also has no real primacy - with Frankfurt, like Rotterdam, fulfilling a specific function.

In Britain, London fulfills all the major functions and is the very clear primary city. Whilst Birmingham has, like most post-industrial British cities, experienced something of a renaissance in the last ten years with a variety of projects and increased investment, this is hardly evidence for Birmingham becoming a "top tier European powerhouse", which is doing little more than conforming to a trend during a period of British economic prosperity. The regional city I have seen most change in in Britain is Manchester, which has become a hugely confident, cosmopolitan city - feeling a bit like a British San Francisco. It is fast becoming Britain's second city and if any British city has the potential to be one of Europe's major cities, and I have strong doubts, then it is Manchester.

Citrus-Fruit Jun 12, 2007 9:59 AM

Good psot, but I think you are ignoring the changes Birmingham experienced before Manchester began to develop after the IRA bomb in 1996! Birmingham undoubtedly seems to be a bit ignored on the media spotlight which is the reason many dont recognise what the place is about. There's a reason why its one of only 2 cities to have 2 top arena's in the world 9other being Las Vegas), Theres a reason why it holds, the worlds largest fashion show, dog show, motorsport show etc. Theres a reason why its the UK's most used city for sport, theres a reason why its the only European city to host the European indoors twice and world indoors in the same decade. There's a reason why 13 BILLION POUNDS IS BEING INVESTED IN TO THE CITY CENTER. Theres a reason why Birmingham is the only city able to speculative build outside the capital, theres a reason why the biggest pre-let outside London was sold in Brum, theres a reason why companies are creating thier own one of construction firms for one of projects within the city, theres a reason why we have more skyscrapers in the pipeline the Manchester ;)

The difference is, Manchester knows how to boast, Birmingham knows how to be subtile untill it matters. The reason why we still attract more tourists and events then Manchester ;)

BenL Jun 14, 2007 5:14 PM

I'd accept that Manchester's renaissance has been very recent and until the late 1990s Birmingham was the UK's undisputed second city. I'm a bit unsure about your statistics - surely New York, Milan, Paris and London have considerably bigger fashion shows than Birmingham; London is certainly more used than Birmingham for sport and Manchester's sporting history is far superior to Birmingham's with a 76,000 and 49,000 capacity stadiums and one of the world's most famous football clubs. Manchester has recently hosted a highly successful Commenwealth Games, the BBC is considering it the "second city" - moving a large part of its operation to Salford and the UK's first "supercasino" went to Manchester ahead of many other cities, including Birmingham. It can also boast to have the tallest residential tower in the UK and Britain's largest arena.

Now, there are ins and outs to each milestone, but it does lead to an improved perception of Manchester as a modern, forward-thinking city, an impression I certainly get whenever I visit. I cannot see the "second-city" tag to be a clear one in the near future and in a country with such an obvious primary city in London, it may not matter that much. Let's not let this turn into a city versus city, but I do think your claim that Birmingham could be a major European city is rather weak.

tim Jun 18, 2007 7:15 AM

I don't think rotterdam or birmingham will ever be in the same league as frankfurt (whatever league that is), but it seems both cities are growing (in many ways) and this could lead to the conclusion, that they're going to gain importance in europe - atleast as major regional centres.

Citrus-Fruit Jun 19, 2007 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenL (Post 2897151)
I'd accept that Manchester's renaissance has been very recent and until the late 1990s Birmingham was the UK's undisputed second city. I'm a bit unsure about your statistics - surely New York, Milan, Paris and London have considerably bigger fashion shows than Birmingham;

http://www.clotheshowlive.com/main/eventinfo/

Quote:

London is certainly more used than Birmingham for sport and Manchester's sporting history is far superior to Birmingham's with a 76,000 and 49,000 capacity stadiums and one of the world's most famous football clubs. Manchester has recently hosted a highly successful Commenwealth Games.
Birmingham hosts more domestic and international sporting events then any other city. It was the first city to be given the National City of Sport aswell as the first UK city to be awarded European City of Sport For All.

Manchesters sporting history is not far superior. Birmingham was the home of lawn tennis AKA Wimbledon - only last week Sharapova and Jankovic battled it out in the final for the DFS classic title in Edgbaston. It had 3 of the founder members of the football league (AKA The biggest sporting league in the world) - Manchester currently has a much more succesful team then Birmingham in United but that could all change within the next few years not to mention Brum has 3 big teams to Manchesters 2 and another 1 former great just 6 miles away in Wolverhampton Wanderers with all teams having plans to expand the stadiums including Birmingham which will build thiers for both the World Athletic Championships and Commonwealth Games bids. Its home to the Belfry - one of the most famous golf courses in the world used for the Ryder cup, Birminghams hosts the Davis Cup, IAAF Grand Prixs, Olympic Trials etc etc - it also just won the world trampolining and gymnastic championships for 2011 which was decided in Toronto a few weeks ago.

Manchester might have held the Commonwealth games, but Birmingham in the last 10 years has hosted the European Indoors Twice aswell as the World Indoors - G8 Summit, Eurovision Song Contest the first city outside London to host the BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards.



Quote:

the BBC is considering it the "second city" - moving a large part of its operation to Salford and the UK's first "supercasino" went to Manchester ahead of many other cities, including Birmingham. It can also boast to have the tallest residential tower in the UK and Britain's largest arena.
Land is the reason for the BBC not to mention Manchesters location. BBC however has 2 departments located in Brum including its BBC Regional Programmes based within the city. I dont see a HK tycoon billionaire hoping to fund a Sporting Village within the city? The UK's first super casino went to Manchester, argued immensly in Commons now on the rails and not likely to happen. Birmingham didnt put a bid forward as it had to local operators aiming to beat one another - NEC did however win a Casino. Birmingham apart from Las Vegas is the only city to have 2 arenas in the top 100 in the world. NEC is the 7th largest complex in Europe and holds more events then any complex within the UK. NIA is a more nationally important arena then Manchesters and is the reason why the sports department and the IAA continue to operate through the city.

Quote:

Now, there are ins and outs to each milestone, but it does lead to an improved perception of Manchester as a modern, forward-thinking city, an impression I certainly get whenever I visit.
Well considering Birmingham was recently rewarded the Euroopean city of the future title last year that argument seems pretty much answered.

Quote:

I cannot see the "second-city" tag to be a clear one in the near future and in a country with such an obvious primary city in London, it may not matter that much. Let's not let this turn into a city versus city, but I do think your claim that Birmingham could be a major European city is rather weak.
Err, its the 41st richest city in the world, One of the top shopping destinations in Europe, 2nd largest city in the worlds 5th largest economy, It has every initention of becoming a leading European city and so it should. Infact if I were to list what Birmingham has done for Europe already you would see its been one of the most influential cities of the conitnent and still is. From Cadbury to Aston Martin, Mini, to Football Leagues, Odeon Cinema to Whistles, Baskerville Type Face to Steam Engine, Copying Machine to Hydraulic Ram, Custard Powder to Gas Lighting, Transatlantic Telegraph Cable to the Duplex Lamp, Stapler to Radiograph for X-Rays, JR Tolkien and the LOTR to Smoke Detector, Brylcreem to Windscreen Wipers, Magnatron (used now in Microwaves/Radars) to the UKS first hole in heart operation. Could go on but its ignored by the majority. One things for sure though its been a major European city for some time, it just needs to regain that which its trying to do after it was knocked off its feet after the war.

Citrus-Fruit Oct 31, 2007 6:48 PM

Well, Regal are now planning possibly Birminghams tallest tower. Been quite a vintage year for the city with over 12 towers now U/C or proposed over 100m within the city to go with the 3 already built.

Citrus-Fruit Nov 16, 2007 10:25 AM

Another 118m proposed the largest single office tower/block outside London (not in height) that belongs to another in Birmingham ;) and another developer has just purchased the old fire station with views for an "enourmous" tower within!

Seems Birmingham has a very healthy office and residential market!

Citrus-Fruit Nov 16, 2007 10:31 AM

Towers over 100m

Built - BLUE
U/C - RED
Approved - GREEN
Proposed - PURPLE

200m V.T.P
163m Colmore Row
152m BT Tower
152m V Building
150m+ Regal
150m+ Lancaster

138m Snow Hill
135m Broad Street Tower
125m NS 1
125m NS 2

122m Holloway Circus
118m 1 Snow Hill Plaza
110m Martineau Galleries
104m Masshouse
100m Alpha Tower

Bergenser Nov 16, 2007 5:46 PM

^ Seems good! :D


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.