Berkeley Homes development at Potters Fields

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 1 of 20
Wednesday 31 March 2004 5.41pm
Continuation of the previous Potters Fields thread



Post edited (31 Mar 04 18:43)

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Wednesday 31 March 2004 8.12pm
We'll just have to wait and see I guess. Once the meeting has been held at the end of next month I am quite sure the conclusion will be more deliberation, debate and delay. Which I am sure will all help BH in the long run - almost enough to appeal for non-deliberation....! All the time that clock ticks money is being lost. I am sure there are some contributing to the discussion who don't give a monkeys but for a business, love them or hate them, it's money down the drain.

Nobody is here to change opinion and as much as I have heard not one person (perhaps with the exceptions of Lang Rabbie and the advocate) has made one bit of difference to the way I feel about it...

And so it goes on - almost as long as this thread with the same conclusion - none.
Thursday 1 April 2004 7.59am

Oh I don't know - at least it appears an "extension to the park" is no longer being seen on the thread as possible, so there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

On the actual proposed development, it is not what I would put on the site in design terms, but that does not make it wrong.

If it were me, I would do a modern interpretation of a wharf, which has the benefit of high density, but with extended public areas around the "U" shaped walkway below to give it life, but hey, I'm not an architect, so what do I know!

Regards,

Loafer
Thursday 1 April 2004 8.14am
"Oh I don't know - at least it appears an "extension to the park" is no longer being seen on the thread as possible, so there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel."

Loafer: Why do you consider there to be light at the end of the tunnel because the park is not being extended?

We *should* and *ought* to be extending the park, rather than building yet another faceless lump of architecture.

Much as I love the new open spaces of More London, with its ample landscaping perfectly smooth enough for skateboarding, what the area really does need is more green space, not less.

Why should Tower Bridge residents have to traipse all the way down Jamaica Road to Southwark Park, when Southwark Council to take the bold step of making a prime tourist spot into a prime park.

You have only to take a Eurostar to Paris to see how Mitterand's "Grand Projets" have left beautiful open spaces such as the Tuileries. Why can't London (or rather, central-eastern London, as opposed to the park-filled western part of the city centre).
Thursday 1 April 2004 9.45am

Martin,

Because it is entirely unrealistic to expect the site to be turned into a park.

I go back to my previous flippant answer - I would love to see World Peace and an end to hunger, but they remain as likely.

Your aspirations are, nevertheless, valid, even though I disagree with them.

Regards,

Loafer
rm
Thursday 1 April 2004 9.46am
why is it entirely unrealistic to expect the site to be turned into a park?
Thursday 1 April 2004 10.15am
rm wrote:
> why is it entirely unrealistic to expect the site to be
> turned into a park?

Because there is no-one currently offering to compensate the landowners for the extinction of their property rights and buy the site off them.

Under British planning law, the site owners have a reasonable expectation of being able to build something on the site, so long as it is in accordance with national and regional planning guidance, the local borough's plan (the Unitary Development Plan) and relevant building regulations.

In my opinion - and that of many other posters - what Berkeley Homes is proposing is a massive overdevelopment. However, as I understand the existing planning guidance, a substantially smaller, but still relatively high density development, with a mix of housing and other uses, has consistently been regarded as appropriate for the site by the various planning authorities.



Post edited (01 Apr 04 11:17)
Thursday 1 April 2004 10.17am
<<why is it entirely unrealistic to expect the site to be turned into a park?
>>

Exactly. Loafer, r&M, etc seem to be unable to contemplate the idea that it would be possible to do something other than build on every riverside central space we have.

?shares in Berkeley Homes anyone?



...there's plenty more c**** in the cup.
Thursday 1 April 2004 10.37am
I remember at the time the Royal Opera house was being
redeveloped I thought it would be a good idea for it to move
permanently to the site where the Mayoral Assembly now stands because it demands something of the that stature.
and the floral Hall portico could have stayed where it was



and
parks can be created any where

thats what makes great citys great



Post edited (01 Apr 04 11:41)
Thursday 1 April 2004 10.41am

Sorry Ivanhoe, but I think Lang Rabbie was making the opposite point, in that he is saying the site will be developed, but maybe not under the current high density design. This does not mean a park is going there, just not tower development.

Maybe I'm wrong - LR can you help clarify...?

Regards,

Loafer
Pages:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 1 of 20

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: