New flats proposed at Potters Fields

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 14 of 16
Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.07pm
a park or culchure is the biger picture for what is best for london as a whole.
Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.10pm
Culchure? Biger picture? You on a wind-up or what...??!! London as a whole... Thanks Mr Mayor - when does your campaigning start? Funny I thought the Monster Raving Loonie Party were a thing of the past. You want culture? Go to Trafalgar Square and visit the National Gallery - or perhaps give your regards to the guys reading in the glass box!!!!
Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.16pm
R&M - solid reasoning?

Walk east , south and south west from Tower Bridge Road and you are seriously suggesting there is not enough existing, under construction or proposed housing? A cultural amenity is exactly what is needed to bring focus to the area. How do 500 new flats reinvigorate an area that is already surrounded by housing ( excepting the offices along the waterfront )? Are you saying there wouldbe the same buzz at Bankside if Tate Modern had been knocked down and replaced by tower blocks?

I support you ( or your clients ) entirely on the idea that the flats make sense for the 500 who get them. I just think there is an issue of public ( ie > 500 ) benefit here.

I remain yours etc.
Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.18pm
Please can we have a civilised discussion without making fun of people's spelling. I'm sure Michael doesn't do it on purpose.

Thank you.


Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.22pm

I don't think we should knock anything down. However I do think that we should give it a lot of thought before we fill the remaining green spaces along the river with spurious "culture", or with additional living space come to that.

I also think that, when London needs a new civic/"cultural" building, it probably should be anywhere other than on the South Bank. The initial development (things like the beautiful Sth Bank Centre) took up valuable riverside space that can only be used once, but was definitely a good thing, IMO, because it regenerated the area and made it the great place it is today. The same probably holds true for the initial residential developments and conversions. They brought people into a neglected area and those people created demand and that brought us the fairly well-served riverside we have today.

We do need more homes, and we will need more civic and cultural buildings. It's silly to pretend otherwise. I probably think, however, that these should be built elsewhere than the Sth Bank. Unless we're careful, the riverside will become a seamless frontage of buildings and I think this would be irreversible (in the medium term at least), and a great shame. It also denies the regenerative power of new developments to other parts of the city.

Developers will want to build pretty much anywhere in London that they are allowed to. The simple supply and demand equation that means houses here are so much more expensive than elsewhere in the country pretty much guarantees that. I think it would be more forward-sighted if we exercised control over building in places like Potters Fields and channelled developers into (possibly nearby) areas that could benefit much more from new money coming in.

Most commercial ventures are a risk to some degree. The people who developed the first sites down the Sth Bank were sticking their necks out a bit. Somehow this makes me feel that it's reasonably fair that they make a bit of profit if they sell their homes on now. However, there is no such risk element in letting someone build flats on an established premium site and scarce resource like Potters Fields. It strikes me as more of a license to print money.

I'd like to see the council taking a stand and managing new developments in a way that gets the most out of the developers in terms of investment in areas that need them. If I am a shareholder, I have a right to expect my board to make my money work as hard as it can and bring the biggest rewards. I would hope to expect something similar from my council when it comes to giving the green light to developers and telling them where they can and cannot build.

...there's plenty more c**** in the cup.
Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.23pm
sez who? I posted here earlier because I intensely disliked the brutal look of Berkelys proposal but would not have a problem with a - dare I say it - sensitive, human scale development of homes. A park or 'culchure' however that is defined, would probably be populated for most of the time by tourists - not a bad thing in itself, but mainly of benefit to local related business - cafes, souvenir shops, burger vans... the last thing that area needs. I can't quite see how that is the 'biger picture for what is best for London as a whole'
Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.23pm
Apologies James - will make sure it doesn't happen agin...

Advocate - cannot say I disagree with all of your contention, but there is also the appreciation of the architecture involved - More London doesn't benefit everyone directly but is something to be marvelled at (I think).

It is purely my opinion and I think that this thread could run for several thousand replies without any real conclusion. I think a statement piece of architecture is the answer and you disagree. Great. I was down there today and I think given proper consideration the glass towers would look stunning and compliment what is there - a slick piece of architecture. There it is - like it or not. Along comes the Shard too - different brainchild - same approach. Glass and light - stunning.

Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.39pm

As always (or recently anyway) I applaud the way in which you have approached the discussion and actually agree with a lot of what you have said although perhaps not all...

"I think it would be more forward-sighted if we exercised control over building in places like Potters Fields and channelled developers into (possibly nearby) areas that could benefit much more from new money coming in."

Suits a lot of people but not the developer who is trying to secure premium sites and yes, dare I say it, make as much money as possible... The ideal is lovely and utopian but not really feasible...

And Jane - well done - loving that too.

Bien joué...
Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.41pm
R & M - completely with you on the stunning architectural work as well. That's why I support Southwark Council in their architecture competition seeking to find a world class design for this world class site.

Alternatively we can have this

which is very similar to schemes in Cincinatti , Hamilton and, I believe, Lagos although I believe the good people of Ohio eventually pulled theirs down.
Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.53pm
Ruck and Maul

Will you accept the prospect that if:

(i) a (hypothetical) developer has speculatively paid a large amount of money for a prestigious site;
(ii) makes an assumption (allowing for affordable housing obligations) that it will be able to construct a large number of flats which will be saleable at high prices because of their views of the river;
(iii) the (hypthetical) local planning authority, acting in accordance with an up to date Unitary Development Plan and following both the ODPM's and Mayor's relevant planning guidance refuses to grant permission, and suggests the special qualities of the site should only be developed at a substantially lower density;
(iv) the borough's decision is upheld by the Secretary of State on appeal.


(v) the developer should expect to make a loss/break even/a much smaller profit than they had anticipated when they purchased the land.

This is called commercial risk-taking - developers cannot expect to make superprofits on every transaction.
Current: 14 of 16

This thread has been closed

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

Proud to belong to

Independent Community News Network