DERBY CITYSCAPE

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
 

Architect Derek Latham has put forward plans for Derby's railway station and is hoping that architects from across the world will come up with designs as part of a competition. He wants Derby to have its own version of London's St Pancras, with a clear, arched roof over the entire building, which would remove the need for canopies over the platforms, and a new, modern facade. The shape of the roof would echo the St Pancras arch, which was built by Butterley engineering company.

Mr Latham said, "At a time when we have a new train franchise taking over the station and we have a new direct connection via St Pancras to Europe, isn't it time that Derby got a world class station? The present, confused forecourt, ticket hall, contortion of stairs and bridges and obstructed platforms appears to represent a forgotten economy rather than a thriving city." He added that the station's new facade could use some of the existing brick building on either side of the doors but there would be a modern, glass entrance hall.

Organisations including Marketing Derby, Network Rail, Derby City Council, Derby Cityscape, the Derby and Derbyshire Economic Partnership formed a partnership to lobby for funding for the improvements. A spokesman for the partnership which is working on the station's revamp said, "Improving Derby station is a priority for us all and we are working hard to create viable solutions for what are long-standing problems. We feel the station simply does not reflect Derby's current renaissance or its indisputable status as an important railway city and are determined to improve it." (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph, Nov/07)

While most of the companies involved in putting forward these fancy ideas may well be attempting to promote new building projects in Derby, this is not solely for the good of their health. Most developers are seeking to make a great deal of money to the detriment of our city's heritage.

Every time we see an artist's impression, they depict either a 1960s-type block (the Riverlights proposed main building) or the watchtower-type development (high, round towers and a poor-quality finish) always enhanced by the addition of computer-added clouds and birds.

There seems to be so little imagination in any of the proposed designs. It is as though someone, somewhere has bought a master computer program for designing cheap and nasty cloned buildings. They are all of the same shape, height and appearance. It is as though all the imagination of our present-day architects has been stifled by technology.

They continually propose yet more office blocks. Why? We are already surrounded by empty office capacity as shown by the developer of Riverlights changing block D of the development from company to housing use. Even more concerning is the way that the majority of these proposed housing developments are for the "executive".

We are in danger of defeating the object of attempting to revamp city centre living by the total exclusion of poorer parts of the population. When these types of developments are envisaged, there must be a will to include more social properties within the design brief, even if potential profits are less.

We never seem to learn from our mistakes. If these buildings go ahead, we'll be pulling them down in 20 years or so and cursing the people who had no foresight to see the folly of their ways. Enough is enough. Instead of being purely driven by greed, we should take a step back and start to look after and make the most of the wonderful old buildings we have. Tony Dunn

It is quite unbelievable that the council is still trying to enforce on us something that the majority of us neither want or can afford . Look at the facts:

1) Home help charges have trebled since the alliance came to power.

2) We have a funding crisis within social services, lack of manpower, lack of funding and extremely poor morale.

3) In 2003 we suffered another large council tax increase. To claim it was the lowest in the region doesn't help those struggling to pay it.

The Quad will cost an estimated £9.8m, with more than £5.6m of this believed to be secure. The balance will come from the East Midlands Development Agency, up to a maximum of £3.1m. This still leaves the council to find a minimum of £1.1m, assuming that is the final price, which is highly unlikely. As council cabinet member for cultural services, could Councillor Paul West answer these questions?

Where is the council going to find £1.1m without increasing council tax? Who will be responsible for any cost overruns? Who will be responsible for the running costs of the building and where will the money come from? Consultants estimate Quad could attract 100,000 extra visitors to Derby and create 151 jobs and add £4m to Derby's annual economy.

How much has the council paid these consultants and is there a clause refunding our money if it doesn't go ahead? Where do they get these figures from and, if they are correct, where are these 100,000 people going to park? People are prepared to pay more tax if they can see it spent on things that matter, but NOT to satisfy the whim of a minority of arty people. Andrew Wyrobek

On September 2004, I attended a meeting in the pavilion at the County Ground to listen to a talk by John Cadwallader, chief executive of Derby Cityscape and Richard Williams, the city council's head of city development and tourism. I asked whether it was their avowed intention to build on every single square metre of the city centre or, perhaps, if they might consider it appropriate, in their short, medium and long-term proposals, to accede to the clear desire of the good folk of Derby to retain splendid open spaces and vistas, carefully created over many years, at a not inconsiderable expense in certain cases, and which provide the essential elements needed to maintain the attractiveness of our retail and commercial centre.

The meeting was assured that neither the council nor Cityscape had any intention of depriving the city of its attractive views and gardens and that they would be carefully safeguarded. So what do I read over the last few weeks? The Quad centre is to be built on our treasured memorial garden, closing off for all time one of the finest vistas in the city, across the Market Place and the garden towards the Council House and Crown Court. From this, it appears quite clear that the stated opposition to that siting by many Derby people will be disregarded by both the city council, which hardly ever reflects the wishes of the people it purports to represent, and Cityscape, which is simply driven by profit. The promises at the September meeting will, as usual, prove to be just "spin".

When will city councillors begin to make fundamental decisions regarding the future development of our city in accordance with the wishes of those who placed them in positions of trust, rather than to kowtow to the pressures of commercialism which, frankly, couldn't care one jot about the preservation of the few delights left? Who is it, exactly, who wishes to desecrate our memorial garden rather than put Quad on one of the many redevelopment opportunities which exist in and around the city centre? Would he, she or they care to stand up to explain, at a public meeting, why they have concluded that this is the only suitable location for this building? It's amazing how they can suddenly start talking in terms of clearing much of Castle ward to accommodate three Goverment departments but cannot find a more appropriate location for the proposed Quad building. Derby Chartered Surveyor