cgksheff Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Its nothing to do with SCC. The land is owned by Sheffield Town Trust. Its private and they can do what they want with it. .......... You may wish to have a look at the Cathedral Quarter Action Plan. "SCC will continue to negotiate the phased removal of parking in Paradise Square to restore the square and return it to public use. To achieve a pedestrian friendly and more accessible environment." "A number of major occupiers in the Quarter are considering their property options, and some leases in Paradise Square are approaching their expiry dates. A comprehensive development strategy is required for these sites and premises. A change of use in Paradise Square properties, including residential and retail, with active ground floor usage will be encouraged." ".....active ground floor uses like café bar/restaurants/music and gift shops/bookshops etc. will be encouraged for the buildings enclosing these spaces." Edited February 19, 2013 by cgksheff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Wow. A very interesting document. So, I wonder what happened. Ownership never changed from STT so who on earth came up with that plan and who was supposed to take over from whom. 2004 that idea was concieved and bog all happened. Funnily enough the 2008 masterplan for the area seems to be an opposite proposal with the Cathedral Quarter/Paradise Square being part of the "Business District". No referece to restraurants and bars in that but contradictory however they are referenced in the Cathedral Quarter Masterplan of 2005. So, in 4 years one plan wants it to be eating and leisure and another plan agrees but also refers to mixed used units and residential and then a third plan refers to it to being in the "business" district......and in any event none of the masterplans came to anything at all. Amazing!! Its enough to make your head spin. No wonder nothing gets done anywhere. It just goes round and round and round Bottom line for me is that its a good job those lawyers and accounts were there otherwise it would have been 10 years of compulsary purchases followed by empty units and eventual decay. Edited February 19, 2013 by ECCOnoob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Obviously it's not much of a tourist attraction as it is now. My point is that we should aim to get rid of all parking and think about what we would like to put in this location to make it a place where visitors want to spend time (and money). People wont visit and spend money if it is a no go zone for cars and they cant drive to the "Attraction" and park. They will go elsewhere to somewhere that is car friendly and welcomes motorists. ---------- Post added 19-02-2013 at 20:49 ---------- Some great ideas here, re-create something like The Shambles in Chesterfield, or the old parts of York, Chester, any number of other places. Sheffield city centre is already a Shambles . Edited February 19, 2013 by Penistone999 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raiders42 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 People wont visit and spend money if it is a no go zone for cars and they cant drive to the "Attraction" and park. They will go elsewhere to somewhere that is car friendly and welcomes motorists. That's why Venice struggles like it does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Wow. A very interesting document. So, I wonder what happened. ........... What happened? Planners were kept in lucrative posts and consultants did very nicely. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallisman Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Parking should be freely available in all city centres. City centres need shoppers more that shoppers need to pay for parking. Remember Meadowhall? Well it did work and it is successful.....SCC Jerks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Such a shame that Paradise Square is blighted by cars enough as it is, it would look even worse if it had the usual amount of roadsignage plastered all over it too. The Square should be kept clear of cars-I would have it made the province of the roast chestnut vendor with shoe-shines to cater for the dapper men and women of the legal profession,and in summer an ice cream van. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 The Square should be kept clear of cars-I would have it made the province of the roast chestnut vendor with shoe-shines to cater for the dapper men and women of the legal profession,and in summer an ice cream van. Now we're getting somewhere. We should have an ostler or two as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Parking should be freely available in all city centres. City centres need shoppers more that shoppers need to pay for parking. Remember Meadowhall? Well it did work and it is successful.....SCC Jerks!!! and when all those freely available spaces are took up by the thousands of office and shop workers, visitors/clients attending meetings with the lawyers/accountants/banks/council offices and other businesses in the city, students attending the lectures at the university, people staying in the hotels, people coming for meals/cinema or theatre showings......etc....etc... Where will the shoppers park then? God sake. For the final time. The city centre is much more than just shopping!!! Do you think its a coincidence that shopping malls within city centres ala Frenchgate, Westfield and Liverpool One still charge for parking and yet those outside the city centre such as White Rose, Meadowhall and Parkgate dont. Even most supermarkets which are in or very nearby city centres have a parking charge or very limited time for free parking. Wonder why that is Edited February 20, 2013 by ECCOnoob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Do you think its a coincidence that shopping malls within city centres ala Frenchgate, Westfield and Liverpool One still charge for parking and yet those outside the city centre such as White Rose, Meadowhall and Parkgate dont. Good point. Liverpool One's parking is the most expensive in the city. There are lots of car parks dotted around it but this one gets the customers without a problem. But then again, Liverpool city centre does have the shops to make really close parking worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now