Talk:Beetham Tower, Manchester

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skyscrapers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hotels Low‑importance

	Hotels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hotels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the hospitality industry, including hotels, motels, resorts, and destination spas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HotelsWikipedia:WikiProject HotelsTemplate:WikiProject HotelsHotels articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Did Ian Simpson buy the top floor? I thought he was given it in lieu of payment.

He paid around 3.5 Millon for it... source is the evening news, sorry I dont have an online version to link to. --Caiman 19:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest Residential Building in Western Europe

I added a brief wording chance, from "tallest residential building in the UK" to "Tallest residential building in Western Europe" The reference for this is the Ian Simpsons website, aswell as many other news sources. 138.253.231.114 13:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Jamiem[reply]

A reference isn't needed, I don't think. That it's the tallest residential in Western Europe is implicit from that taller European residential buildings are in Sweden (Northern Europe) and Russia (Eastern Europe). Matthew 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is wrong. Beetham Tower is home to a hotel as well as apartments making this a mixed use tower. This is all the more reinforced with the fact a bar is located somewhere in the middle of the tower. - Erebus555 18:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - I'll let you make the relevant amendment! Matthew 01:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate logos for Hilton Hotels.

When are the logos going to be added? Has the hotel being furbished yet? Also, is Beetham going to be sued for the whistling wind blade? I have heard talk of it and it would be nice to know the truth. - Erebus555 20:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The logos have already been added to one side, and the rest will be going on over the next three weeks. I don't know anything about Beetham being sued but I assume the problem has been fixed. I work in the building and I also live just down the road in Castlefield and have not heard a peep out of it in the last month. --Caiman 21:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. I just assumed that Beetham could be sued as I heard there was anger from Manchester council due to the whistling. I know Beetham could face court action from Birmingham City Council for panels falling off Beetham Tower there and there might be something going on with the Liverpool tower. - Erebus555 15:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images.

There are becoming quite a few images. Should some be removed? I think three would do this article alright. One of it in construction, and then two of it from two different angles like showing the back and one showing the impact of the tower on the skyline. - Erebus555 11:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article is starting to look a real mess --Caiman 15:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest any excess be put into a gallery at the bottom but instead of this I think they should be left as they are until better photography is added; none of the photos particularly stand out yet but they all show different aspects.
I've put the above suggestion into effect and created a gallery for the two construction images. It looks a bit tidier, and I think the photos should be kept as they are good quality and illustrate the building process well. Robert Mercer 10:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many floors for the Hilton Hotel?

This article disagrees with itself with regard to how many floors the Hilton Hotel occupies, stating 22 floors and 23 floors. Which is the correct figure? Matthew 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton operate the first 23 floors however the actual hotel portion of this only takes up the first 22 floors. The other floor is a bar and lounge which is operated by Hilton. - Erebus555 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've made the text clearer about this. Matthew 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

Bathroom pods manufacturer mentioned in the first sentence smacks of self promotion by this company. It should be removed, it's completely irrelevant and is not even written with proper use of grammar, making for an ugly and long-winded sentence. It could be added elsewhere if anyone can think of a justification for pointing out such a minor contributor to the building. Perhaps someone has something significant to say about their role, otherwise I don't see why we are interested in this. Comdot 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Both the photos that show the building complete are of a near-abstract style of photography and show little of the building in terms of it's overall design or architectural features. They also both show its North-facing side. Today a Google image search for "beetham tower manchester" puts Wikipedia on the third page, I believe because of the lack of the right photography. I would suggest someone add photos that show a better overall view to provide better perspective. Comdot 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname

i have known it to be called "The Ps3" for obvious reasons, its resemblance, should it be noted? 84.13.103.181 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons aren't obvious to me! -- Picapica (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this come from?

Do we have a reference for the statement "It was deliberately designed as a striking but minimalist skyscraper which reflected the resolute and unpretentious values of northern England." ??? --Jza84 | Talk 15:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whistling distances audible

The article has a referenced source for the whistling being audible 300m away. It's actually very clearly audible for at least 4 times that distance, very probably more - I live a mile away and can hear it loud and clear as I type, although I am obviously not a proper source by Wiki standards. I'm wondering if a better source can be found that gives a more accurate distance, or whether it would be acceptable to dispense with the sources and just state "several miles" or something instead - it's less precise but gives a more accurate impression of the loudness than saying 300m.

Beccaviola (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer, my friend ...

The hum has now become so famous, with an article in the Daily Mail and many you tube videos, that it surely deserves its own section. It's not longer an incident, it's a feature.Straw Cat (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beetham Tower, Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beetham Tower, Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Clarifying building ownership 2) Time for a section on the 2019 High Court case between hotel and freeholder?

Two points are worth raising here for consideration:

1) It is suggested Yianis Group owns Beetham Tower. That is not correct. There is just the one reference to an article from the Estates Gazette, which only says that the London-based Yianis Holdings’ "other interests include Manchester’s Hilton Tower, the tallest residential hotel building in Europe." The word "interests" does not mean it is the ultimate owner of the building. It is neither the freeholder nor landlord of Beetham Tower. The entity which actually has possession of the freehold title of Beetham Tower is a company called North West Ground Rents Limited, which falls under Ground Rents Income Fund, a fact that is pretty clear in all the media coverage of last year's High Court case. Here is one article carrying a statement from Ground Rents Income Fund on its remedial plans for the building. Yianis Group, via Blue Manchester Limited, only owns the leasehold interest on the commercial premises, so the first 23 floors if you include the Cloud 23 bar, which the Hilton Manchester Deansgate operates. This fact, that Yianis Group only has a stake in the building as the commercial tenant, has been categorically confirmed in the 2019 High Court ruling, which says that "the claimant is the owner of the hotel, having acquired the 999 year lease of the hotel part of the tower from the original hotel proprietor in 2011." The judgment can be found here, and these articles here and here are helpful in showing that Blue Manchester was taking the landlord to the High Court for not meeting the terms of the lease. I propose that the ownership of the Beetham Tower is clarified. It makes sense to throw it open to the editors on here to decide amongst themselves on what is the most appropriate way to do this. Simply removing Yianis Group from the "Owner" category of the infobox and putting North West Ground Rents Limited in its place could work (obviously with the relevant citations). Or you explain that North West Ground Rents Limited is the owner of Beetham Tower, while the Yianis Group's Blue Manchester Limited has the hotel Hilton Manchester Deansgate and first 23 floors on a 999-year lease.

2) Is it worth having a proper section on the recent High Court case? It was quite a big ruling in the leasehold sector, going on the legal commentaries and journalistic treatments online. Big issues over whether the ground rent investor saw itself as the building owner (which it didn't) and what the whole leasehold structure means for the freehold owner of a prestigious building, such as Beetham Tower, and the commercial outfit who thinks they "own" the hotel but is a mere tenant when it comes to decision-making, meaning they cannot get things fixed easily because of the third-party landlord who is remote and only cares for the incomes. Peoplegivein (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After two weeks of waiting to hear from editors, I have made the common sense and necessary change to the ownership information in the infobox. It is North West Ground Rents Limited who owns Beetham Tower, not Yianis Group or one of its subsidiaries. Happy to discuss here on talk page re incorporating key details of the 2019 High Court case into the Incidents section. I feel it could be beneficial to the page. A highly publicised legal battle. Peoplegivein (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]