Talk:Paradise Forum

Inappropriately named
Was ever somewhere more inappropriately named than this? :-) Matthew 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Other than Hell, Norway, I mean, which frequently does freeze over. Matthew 15:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I always assumed it was meant to be ironic. However, having heard John Madin's comments... DWaterson 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Birmingham Central Library
The material in this article should probably be in the article on the library. As it stands, the article seems to suggest that the building was built as Paradise Forum, and that it just happens to contain the library, whereas the reverse is actually true. Originally the library building was open to the elements in the middle. Paradise Forum only came into being when the roof was added in the late 1980s, at the time the road was lowered, and Centenary Square created. Paradise Forum is not the name of a building, only of the space in the middle of the Birmingham Central Library building.

There is no discussion of this in either article. To save duplication, Paraside Forum should probably be a section in the library article, and the architecture can be discussed in full in that article.  J Rawle  (Talk) 23:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are probably correct in saying that the building was never built as Paradise Forum. However, it is now a significant familiar named area in central Birmingham containing shops, bars and stalls on a busy thoroughfare (11.8m people a year pass through it). It is undergoing a £2m refurbishment. It has a postal address for the shops within it (B3 3HJ). A Google search shows it also as a landmark for stating directions and an exhibition space. There is no real logical link with the library. When the library leaves the building, Paradise Forum will presumably remain, so I think it deserves a separate article. The history of the place obviously needs updating and the article reworded. Any suggested sources for its enclosure? Oosoom Talk to me 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't argue that Paradise Forum is a well known landmark in Birmingham. OK, if the article is to remain, it needs siginificant reworking, and should explain the Paradise Forum is the space inside, not the outer building. Many people don't even know the building houses a library, so Wikipedia could help to put that right. A good reference is on Birmingham City Council's site . If you read the section on "Moving", it mentions that the glass roof wasn't added until 20 years later. (I know it's more than "probably" correct as I can remember when they were doing it, although I realise original research isn't allowed!)


 * As I understand it, the plan is to demolish the library building when the collection moves. Goodness knows why they are refurbishing the Forum (except that the library might never move, and even if it does, it'll be many years in the future so the Forum will be shabby again by then). On the other hand, the 20th Century Society want the building listed, and restored to its original form with no Forum. (I couldn't find the page where it says that last time I looked, but I know I saw it online somewhere).  J Rawle  (Talk) 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is the page I found about it before.  J Rawle  (Talk) 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your links. I have made some changes and removed the merge tag in the hope that you approve. Oosoom Talk to me 16:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand, Paradise Forum and the Central Library are both to be retained. The cost of demolition has, repeatedly, proven so astronomic (not least due to the structural problems created by the tunnels and road infrastructure of Paradise Circus beneath) that it is unviable to redevelop the site. The current proposal appears to be to build a second library building between The Rep and Baskerville House; therefore, the refurb of Paradise Forum appears to be for the long-term. Hence, I think I will object to the proposed merge, on the grounds that Paradise Forum is independently notable as a separate entity to the Central Library, and is likely to remain so for a long time. Cheers, DWaterson 21:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, and recent reports appear to support this, the plan for the library really is undecided. The construction of the building between the Rep and Baskerville House seemed certain until it was reported that the split library idea was unpopular and was most likely going to be scrapped. This would mean a larger site would be needed or that a large underground basement structure would need to be built beneath the anticipated library fronting Centenary Square. So with that, I think the future of the library development should not really be valid in such a discussion. But, I agree that the current refurb does seem long-term. Though it has been suggested as being short term by the developers. Also, it is known that the council are showing an interest in redeveloping the site. What action will be taken is unknown and anything going on with this site or the future library is in the very early stages. Because of the speculative nature of that, I think that this article should be kept: Object. This has been here for 30 odd years and it seems very possible that it'll stay for another 30. - Erebus555 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)