The cloud-capped towers...

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next
Current: 1 of 3
Friday 28 January 2005 12.31pm
As well as the new twelve storey structure approved at the obelisk end of Waterloo Road, I see from yesterday's Guardian report on the planned Tate expansion that "there are also plans for four residential blocks by Richard Rogers to the south-west of the site. "

Presumably this is the "Bankside 4" development be on the site of the current Holland Street industrial units backing onto the Hopton Street almshouses, as reported in the April 2004 "In SE1", and for which I have now realised there was an exhibition back in August.

Looking at Land Securities "Capital Commitment" website, it is described as a "landmark residential scheme with views over the Tate Modern and the River Thames" which suggests it could be pretty big.

Anyone know whether there is now a planning application or some designs available?

And how many other such schemes are there about to be launched.
Friday 28 January 2005 8.32pm
And how many other such schemes are there about to be launched

No idea but the more the merrier. Onward and Upward I say.
Friday 28 January 2005 9.24pm
Looking at the proposed densities for the Southwark part of SE1 in the (yet to be finalised) new Southwark Plan, if you allow a few spaces between, it looks like there will be few developments shorter than 8 storeys, and if you look at the tall buildings guidance, there will be quite a few much higher ones.
Friday 28 January 2005 9.42pm
Hmmm... I think I agree but you've set me off thinking.


We can either go up or out. Or neither...

Neither...this means living in London becomes ever more unaffordable, which impacts the 'key worker' services. Arguably this can have a market correction via wages, as is happening (on a less regional basis) with teaching - we can't get the staff on the old wages, so now we need to pay them more. Or, don't bother with unpopular increases in public spending and just reduce the quality bar (nice thought). On the other hand no increased housing capacity means no increased demand on infrastructure.

Out...if this is to accomodate London (rather than 'edge') workers then it has serious issues on infrastructure. Building out means long journeys, and this loads the network by magnitudes. And there's the nimby factor to content with, arguably at it's most vociferous in the green belt.

Up...if it's done across the city, this has the potential to increase capacity universally, rather than at the edge, reducing journey distances. Nonetheless it still adds load to infrastructure. The transport system needs to keep pace, given that road expansion opportunities in London are limited, regardless of being desirable or otherwise. The nimby factor is still there. One month you had a view of something or other, six months later it's gone. But it's a city - most people acceot what that means and are more tolerant of change.

I've kind of skipped brownfield redevelopment, because it's not an 'either/or', rather a 'given'.

My vote is to build up, but try to keep it inspiring, or at least innocuous. If there's more of the like of the St George's Wharf dog's dinner about to appear, maybe I'll change my mind.

Saturday 29 January 2005 1.49am
Views over the Tate Modern have nothing to do with housing need

Its just the exploitation of the river side.

And London's most famous land marks.
Saturday 29 January 2005 7.35am
The trouble with putting up endless towers is that it is a temptation to the developers to build a lot of housing on a very small footprint. As a result, you get dozens of tall buildings all cramped up together with virtually no space in between. This causes all sorts of ugly things, like wind tunnels, lack of sunshine and daylight to many residents, and a serious un-greening of the city. They are getting rid of tower blocks because they realised they were an unacceptable social environment...so why start all over again now?
Saturday 29 January 2005 9.03am
Up could be good, if someone put in a few parks, community facilities and other such things. Le Corbusier's original tower blocks were surrounded by green space.
Saturday 29 January 2005 3.36pm
I don't like the idea of anything peeking over the top of the Tate Modern.

There is no need for it ,

just so the unaffordable flat on the top floor can have that view.

As for St. Georges whorf its the last thing you want to look at after viewing the Turner paintings

At Tate Britain.
Saturday 29 January 2005 5.58pm
Apart from anything else, the "affordable housing" aspect is a complete sham. In the end these flats find get snapped up by EITHER people rich enough to buy their way in, or else all sorts of really serious social cases with a huge turnover - creating an unattractive social environment. The area is too "desirable" for the developers to do anything other than cram in the minimum social housing and build up as far as possible with superly expensive flats in order to compensate for their costs - as a result you get higher and crappier buildings with poor quality workmanship..This whole thing is just a wheeze of horrible John Prescott who understands sweet F.A. about what he's doing and just wants a statistic to show he's providing housing.
Saturday 29 January 2005 7.03pm


That's true politicians don't care about the urban environment

they just want a statistic quote.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next
Current: 1 of 3

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

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: