That would be strange the offices are fully let AFAIK (proivident financial moving) and the rest it a hotel so unless the chain has pulled out it still appears to be all go

I think they're working again. More of it was up this week than last time I went past, and that last time was after they'd asked for a loan from the council.

IIRC there were 3 schemes put forward by the architects a couple of years back, one included retaining the domes, the chosen scheme at that time excluded the domes. Part of the approved scheme included for flats & a fair bit of space for Bradford College. I spoke with the architect a couple of weeks ago, I think these latter 2 inclusions have now changed due to the economic climate. From what he said though, a scheme has now been given the go-ahead (sans domes).

Its all very depressing. Bradford Council should hang their heads in shame.

Email them folks, email them.

I heard there was some sort of 'Bradford Council are sh !t' type march on Saturday afternoon....don't know how true it is but it perhaps is the only thing that everyone in Bradford could agree on.

12 o'clock at Centenary Square. Look at the link above somewhere.

OK, so I don't read threads properly.

I'm rehearsing already: 'what do we want' (insert reply..usually 5% or something) 'when do we want it?' NOW

The Director of Westfield came on breakfast this morning on BBC and didn't seem apologetic at all that it wasn't built yet.

Indeed, the T&A reports today the rlCouncil lent 'em £6,000,000.rl

There's no story there until they get the press release.

It`s totally true. they are .

True but I was referring to the march.

I`d say it was a `natural` process.

Human activity (putting up buildings etc) is really us showing our power over nature. We do have the power to keep our buildings but only if we actively maintain them. When we fail to do that then we "allow" nature to take its course. Of course you can argue the semantics of whether (actively?)planning to do nothing is passive or active (in so much as we are allowing nature to be agent) in demolishing the building.

One thing is for sure though; without any obvious way of getting any return for the investment, the owners aren`t going to put in any more cash than they can help beyond the safety requirements alluded to in a previous post. This applies particularly when the owners are the ones who actively decided to be inactive.................

Right, "dahn wiv 'em" it is then!