Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Heartland

Icknield Port Loop

Featured Posts

29 minutes ago, Heartland said:

  The land in between the loop and the New Main Line was gradually built up over time with spoil and other things. There was a refuse depot there amongst the buildings and Docker Brothers made varnish. There seems to have been little attempt to clean up the land, it would seem and the possibility of contamination from previous industries is a possibility that Port Loop may have ignored.  

 

 

I expect they are working on the fact that the site will not be disturbed now its built on and tarmaced over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/11/2020 at 16:19, rush994 said:

I don't know how recently you've visited the loop but they seem to be successfully redeveloping it. It's on track to have over 1,000 homes!

It depends on your interpretation of the word 'successfully' but cheap housing isn't my idea of an improvement. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word MATCHBOX CITY is an appropriate description, but the previous works on the site are also a concern

 

This sketch map shows the area concerned-

 

A BCN Cottage 29

B Lodge BCN Cottage 30

C Birmingham Corporation Waterworks

D Tower Ballroom

E Feeder from Titford

F Midland Sailing Club Boatyard

G Midland Sailing Club Offices (BCN Cottage 28)

H Site of former BCN Pumping Engine House (covered by car park) 

I Reservoir House (BCN Cottage 27)

J Reservoir Dam

K Boat House, BCN Wharf and Office

L Mc Kechnie Brothers Works and Offices

M Weldless Tubes Works and Offices

N Hulse Metallic Bedstead works

O Docker Brothers Paint Factory

P Salvage Depot Stables and Incinerator Depot

Q Vivian Copper Works, later Winfield Rolling Mills and then Hermetic Rubber

R Morris's Rolling Mill

S Oslers Glass Works

T Feeder to Engine Arm (473ft Level)

 

 

Icknield Port Loop 2.jpg

 

The present Google Earth view shows the Port Loop as it recently was, but the houses have been built more extensively since then and are close to the New Main line now.

 

 

Icknield Port Loop 1.jpg

Edited by Heartland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the towpath removed round Icknield Port Loop, and why? And a followup question, why were the bridges at the end built without towpath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Heartland said:

 

Icknield Port Loop 1.jpg

Edited 2 hours ago by Heartland

I wonder what happened to the huge amount of white vans that seemed to be stored by the main line? Or why they were there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Index to the map

Should read

 

T Monument Road Railway Basin

U Feeder to the Engine Arm

 

As to towpaths- the towpath on the inside of the loop did remain, but fell out of use in certain parts. Icknied Port was a later road bridge and when built enclosed the wharf area . There was once a BCN cottage on Icknield Port  Such development made a through towpath inadvisable.

 

The Workshops are of interest as they replaced those on the Farmers  Bridge Flight that were close to the aqueduct on the Newhall Branch.  

Edited by Heartland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/11/2020 at 22:40, James Owen said:

It depends on your interpretation of the word 'successfully' but cheap housing isn't my idea of an improvement. 

I would think that cheap housing would be a very appropriate thing to build on a brownfield site in what is one of the UK’s most deprived neighbourhoods but the properties currently available are priced between £385k and £440k. Does that fulfil your criterion for successful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

I would think that cheap housing would be a very appropriate thing to build on a brownfield site in what is one of the UK’s most deprived neighbourhoods but the properties currently available are priced between £385k and £440k. Does that fulfil your criterion for successful?

Cheap housing would be a good use of brownfield sites.

Sadly,that doesn't usually happen. Cheap houses don't yield much profit for developers even when thrown up using orange box quality timber and reconstituted stone.

They would prefer to build for maximum profit taking account of house prices in the area.

A new developement near me had prices starting at £195k, and a month later the same houses had gone up to £210k.

There is no easy answer to the problem of young people being unable to afford to buy their own house.Private rents are too expensive and reflect property prices making it practically impossible to save for a deposit.

We really need to build low rent council houses as used to be done in the seventies.

I won't be holding my breath though.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

 

We really need to build low rent council houses as used to be done in the seventies.

 

And stop selling the few we still have a stupid discounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, pearley said:

And stop selling the few we still have a stupid discounts.

That was a mistake by a previous government.The present help to buy scheme is not helping much either.

First time buyers on a new build,can buy with a 5% deposit.Most lenders are asking for a 15% deposit on older houses.

As a result developers have hiked the price of newbuilds as they are now easier to sell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

I would think that cheap housing would be a very appropriate thing to build on a brownfield site in what is one of the UK’s most deprived neighbourhoods

So poor people should be condemned to live in polluted areas, while the rich live in England's green and pleasant land?

I know that's the way the economic system tends to work, but I'm not sure you'd find too much support for it as a policy objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

So poor people should be condemned to live in polluted areas, while the rich live in England's green and pleasant land?

I know that's the way the economic system tends to work, but I'm not sure you'd find too much support for it as a policy objective.

The rich will always choose to live somewhere nice.They have the power.

Those of modest means have to compromise.

The area may be rough and polluted now,but pollution is under attack thank goodness,and we will in the future live in a less polluted world.

I am thinking of the Hull docklands.When I was a lad the streets around the docks in the city centre were awful.Crime,violence,prostitution,and stunk of fish,rotten fruit diesel etc.

On a recent visit,I didn't recognise it as the same area I had known when I was younger.Old warehouses converted into rather swish apartments,and the whole area looking clean and fresh.

Don't know if these apartments are "affordable"or not,I would hope that they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PORT LOOP MANIFESTO  made various promises- some of the list were-

 

To Work to Work For Us

The whole world’s a stage (and an office) 65% of millennials expect to work away from the office regularly. by 2025 75% of all workers will be millennials

 

WE Want to pick‘n’mix ‘n’remix

A place that adapts with our changing needs

 

WE want homes to suit who we are and how we live

Bespoke homes short, tall, flat or floating

 

Village squares & cultural hubs

Kitchen tables & campfires– places to congregate, eat, drink, dance, chat & philosophise

 

WE want our environment to make us healthier

Easy access to healthier routines {we have unhealthy routines and compensate at the gym}

 

 

Fantasy or Fact, ? Time will tell !

 

Edited by Heartland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem that we have had over the last 20 - 30 years is that housing seems to be an investment rather than a usage. We need to get to a place where housing does not increase in price higher than savings. I hope this can be achieved.

Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Mack said:

So poor people should be condemned to live in polluted areas, while the rich live in England's green and pleasant land?

I know that's the way the economic system tends to work, but I'm not sure you'd find too much support for it as a policy objective.

I note you’ve chosen to selectively quote my post to make your own point. I was responding to someone who incorrectly made a point about ‘cheap’ housing as though it was less preferable to ‘expensive’ housing. In inner city Birmingham I’d say it isn’t. It seems logical to me that decent quality affordable properties being available in the places where people are brought up and close to where they probably work is a good thing. What has “polluted” got to do with it? If the site itself is good enough for £400k properties then it’s good enough for £200k properties. No reason why it can’t have both and indeed it may have, just if it does there aren’t any £200k properties currently available. It isn’t a mutually exclusive consideration. Don’t make it one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.