Council could build new multi-million pound HQ
Leicester City Council's New Walk headquarters are to be demolished.
City mayor Sir Peter Soulsby has decided the two tower blocks – which engineers have judged as unsafe – should be bulldozed within two years.
-
Leicester City Council HQ
Rather than moving staff to an existing building in the city, Sir Peter said he would prefer to see a new headquarters built on the same site. The project would cost tens of millions of pounds.
Sir Peter said: "Demolishing New Walk is the sensible thing to do.
"Our engineers suggested various techniques which could have prolonged the life of the building, but there was too much uncertainty surrounding the chances of success."
Three options are now on the table – buying an existing building in the city, relocating staff to other council-owned buildings or building a new headquarters at New Walk.
Sir Peter said: "I originally preferred moving staff to our existing buildings but we don't have enough empty buildings and we'd have to purchase more of them.
"It makes sense for us to create a new development on the land we already own.
"The current buildings are eyesores. I'm determined a new building will be in keeping with the scale of the city.
"The people of Leicester wouldn't forgive us for building extravagant new headquarters. It won't be a grand design, a concept building, or a glass palace, it will be sensible and environmentally-friendly."
He said the council would look at the possibility of taking out a 25-year loan to cover the cost of construction. Alternatively, the authority could team up with a public or private organisation to share the costs.
But Tory opposition councillor Ross Grant said he was concerned at the potential expense of the venture.
He said: "It cost £400,000 to demolish part of the market, so you're looking at millions of pounds just to demolish the existing building.
"When it comes to creating a new HQ, you'll be lucky to get change from £50 million. It's going to be a huge expense."
He said his preferred option would have been for the council to use its own empty or part-filled buildings around the city.
"I want to see the figures and information that the mayor has seen, because not making use of our existing buildings around the city would be a missed opportunity.
"The council should also be looking at ways to help more staff work from home, and to give other staff more flexible working hours, so we need less space. It could help avoid an incredible expense."
31 Comments
View all
by eastgates
Wednesday, January 04 2012, 3:00AM
“Nice to see the Google Ads that preface this article.Did any of them charge £400.000 to knock a bit of the Market down ?”
by nursemad
Tuesday, January 03 2012, 10:24PM
“Bobstayne sees it as a landmark building.... hmmm funny Not my idea of a lovely building, but the again some like what is called "Modern architecture" - even the likes of plymouth and coventry city centre.”
by Neil0123
Tuesday, January 03 2012, 7:34PM
“Rather than buldozing it at taxpayer's expense, why not list it on Ebay? I am sure someone would make a bid and, with proper planning controls, would be an ideal site for someone else.
As the council is always trying to build houses on greenbelt (ie eco-town & the plan for Castle Hill park) then why not allow the buildings (when properly repaired) to be used as housing.”
by LuvLeicester
Tuesday, January 03 2012, 7:28PM
“From what I hear the concrete structure (columns and floors) is not crumbling, it is rather the design standards at the time it was built. I agree with Bobstayne, it needs a major refit with new windows/insulation and fittings.”
by BobStayne
Tuesday, January 03 2012, 5:37PM
“Seems a shame to lose one of the cities few landmark buildings. Having worked in there, I'd say it is much more light and spacious than the majority of more contemporary office buildings, whilst the views over the city are unmatched. However, it has been criminally poorly maintained over the years and is now in desperate need of modernisation. Aside from the structural works (which I think are being overstated), it needs a major refit with new windows/insulation and fittings. My guess is that the site itself is still valuable and that it is cheaper for them to move to either another building in the city centre (such as the Mercury building) or else build something cheap and nasty on a site outside the main city core.
However, any significant movement of Council staff out of the city centre, would have a very severe impact on the vitality of the centre.”
by jonger
Tuesday, January 03 2012, 4:04PM
“LuvLeicester
You cannot "patch up" a structurally unsafe building, the main reason it needs replacing is the concrete structure (columns and floors) is crumbling and will no longer hold the weight.
Add to that all the faults that PlanetJane listed (all true) and that's a compelling reason to get rid of it sooner rather than later.”
by Rodders65
Tuesday, January 03 2012, 3:40PM
“What about Thames Tower next to Burleys way flyover and that other 'blue' monstrosity opposite the old Charles street police station, are they still empty ?”
by eastgates
Tuesday, January 03 2012, 3:11PM
“Forgetting asbestos(only a danger if disturbed)has anyone explained why the buildings are a risk ?Some floors are closed.OK
It has the themal efficiency of a tent.
There are/were enough building in the City to accomodate the staff that are not due to be sacked.”
by LuvLeicester
Sunday, January 01 2012, 7:14PM
“To nursemad: Your comment does not make sense. older buidings all over the country are repaired and made stronger if there is a will.”
by nursemad
Sunday, January 01 2012, 5:21PM
“LuvLeicester - your an expert on construction then? Do tell us your wisdom. And how much money are you paid and training have you had for your brilliant surveying???? I personally would rather no one has the threat of the building falling on top of them, the fire alone a couple of years ago should have set alarm bills with some people, but some are too bothered in thinking that it will personally cost them money to think about safety of others.”