Kirkgate Market Redevelopment - Have Your Say

munki · Post by **munki** » Wed 30 Jan, 2008 3:03 pm

This is the announcement of the beginning of the public consultation process about the redevelopment of the 'temporary' parts of the market (constructed after the fire in the 70s & apparently only meant to last for 30 years).I know that these 'public' consultation processes are not always made that visible to the public, so I thought I would post the link to the press release up here, as I am sure that many of you on here would like to have your say!http://www.leeds.gov.uk/files/pressRele ... A_PR_1.pdf

roundhegian · Post by **roundhegian** » Wed 30 Jan, 2008 5:01 pm

munki wrote: This is the announcement of the beginning of the public consultation process about the redevelopment of the 'temporary' parts of the market (constructed after the fire in the 70s & apparently only meant to last for 30 years).I know that these 'public' consultation processes are not always made that visible to the public, so I thought I would post the link to the press release up here, as I am sure that many of you on here would like to have your say!http://www.leeds.gov.uk/files/pressRele ... A_PR_1.pdf I'm all in favour of an extension in the style of the Victorian and Edwardian original and I suspect the majority of Leeds-born people would share that view .In passing I wouldn't restrict an extension built in the style of the original to the central market . In my view any " ikon " building in Leeds should be extended in this manner .Congratulations to " munki " for highlighting this matter .

Post by **chameleon** » Thu 31 Jan, 2008 2:44 pm

We have talked about the market in an earlier thread which pre-empted this proposal.I always remember being surprised at how the 'new permanent' market so closely resembled the initial 'temporary' one errected to cope with the aftermath of the fire! Although serving its purpose, I don't think it ever really integrated with the remains of the old. If the powers that be are prepared to invest appropriately, this event will offer an almost unique oportunity to re-establish the building more in keeping with the 'real' market.A point to watch of course will be the inevitable need to recoupe the costs which will undoubtedly lead to the loss of many traders and the type of outlet they represent. This could as we have discussed before, lead to larger named organisations becoming installed and a loss of the essence of the traditional market.The same could be said of 'Providing protection to shoppers and traders in the open market - again, and dependant upon the design (a canopy, a 'closed' area with restricted access and access times), the essence of an open market and its very ethos could be lost.I have to ask why the Butchers Row and associated buildings need to be removed; it is surely possible to refurbish these to an acceptable standard which I would have thought desireable being part of the old structure, albeit, a little more recent.I would sound a note of caution in relation to the public survey and questionaire. It is inherent with such methods that particular questions are asked in very general terms usually with multiple choice answers.Bothe the questions and the answers can be open to interpretation by the individual and so are the results which can be viewed and worked as simple statisics. The outcome can be a very different conclussion to that which the respondent intended!Far better perhaps to write individually making your own points quite specifically.I have not yet seen any response to this from the Civic Trust, though I am sure that will be forthcoming too.

Post by **chameleon** » Fri 13 Jun, 2008 11:39 pm

From today's YEP:http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 4181929.jp

Phill_d · Post by **Phill_d** » Sat 14 Jun, 2008 12:11 am

It's long overdue they do something with that 'tempory shed'. That's how they described it 32YEARS ago. Does anyone know who owns the office space above the market? It isn't the council I do know.

BLAKEY · Post by **BLAKEY** » Sat 14 Jun, 2008 9:24 am

One thing I do feel should be highlighted again, regardless of the arcitectural debate, is the Council's rent policy for the interior stalls.It is nothing short of alarming and sad nowadays to see, even on the busiest "market days" like Tuesdays and Fridays, so many units closed and to let. I was in the Market recently with a friend who hadn't noticed this trend, and he was quite amazed when I pointed it out.

Post by **chameleon** » Sat 14 Jun, 2008 11:01 am

BLAKEY wrote: One thing I do feel should be highlighted again, regardless of the arcitectural debate, is the Council's rent policy for the interior stalls.It is nothing short of alarming and sad nowadays to see, even on the busiest "market days" like Tuesdays and Fridays, so many units closed and to let. I was in the Market recently with a friend who hadn't noticed this trend, and he was quite amazed when I pointed it out. A trader I visited regularly in the 'temporay permanent' bit closed down a couple of years ago. On my last visit, a Thursday, he'd taken less than a fiver all day.As has been said in earlier discussions, whatever the content, someone has to pay for upkeep and the inevitable profit of accommodation and with todays trends, jockying for good sites pushes the prices up with thebigger players inevitably winning out - whether they sell what we want or are simply another stereotype of a branch else where.

skippy · Post by **skippy** » Sat 14 Jun, 2008 1:21 pm

BLAKEY wrote: One thing I do feel should be highlighted again, regardless of the arcitectural debate, is the Council's rent policy for the interior stalls.It is nothing short of alarming and sad nowadays to see, even on the busiest "market days" like Tuesdays and Fridays, so many units closed and to let. I was in the Market recently with a friend who hadn't noticed this trend, and he was quite amazed when I pointed it out. i agree with you blakey, the interior stall get less and less, i can remember the original market, that night it was burned down was devastating, they could never re-build it like it was, choose how clever they might be, but give them a chance, you nrver know

patter · Post by **patter** » Sat 14 Jun, 2008 4:50 pm

I hope they don't manage to ruin it like they've done with the corn exchange. Its been months since that was done and there's still only 4 shops in there.It'd be interesting to see the edwardian balconies opened up but they'd have to rip them all down for widening first.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Wed 18 Jun, 2008 10:26 pm

It's the first time I've seen this, so thanks to Munki for posting it.It has been one of my bugbears for a long time now that important items for public consultation are often deftly tucked away on obscure parts of website with little publicity only for those involved to bluster "but it's been on the website for six months" or whatever when people question why they know nothing about changes that are foisted upon them.Hiding important consultative documents away on websites should be against the law. Often they are no more in the public domain than if they'd been stuffed behind a radiator at the town hall...The Market needs to be saved, to be nurtured and to be allowed to flourish again. There are many excellent stalls in there and with the right management it could be the antidote to the faceless clone malls that developers seem to thing we want.The fish market is excellent as are many of the butchers and the olive stall by the clock is sublime, for exampleThe council could do a lot worse that create a section in the market for those cruelly thrown out of the Corn Exchange to make way for an expensive restaurant and shops selling truffles.