New flats proposed at Potters Fields

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 15 of 16
michael salkeld Tuesday 30 March 2004 3.58pm
Jane
the most important priority of whatever is built there is that
it should be sensitive.
which the current scheme certainly isn't
the advocate Tuesday 30 March 2004 4.03pm
Michael,

Well said that man.
Ivanhoe returns Tuesday 30 March 2004 4.05pm
<<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...>>

No. It's very feasible. All it takes is for the council (or whoever has the last word on planning) to say "you can't build houses there. We have enough houses there, but you could build them here or here or here."

People would build on pretty much any space in London. As I said before, demand heavily outweighs supply.



...there's plenty more c**** in the cup.
Ruck & Maul Tuesday 30 March 2004 4.05pm
I completely agree with you - it happens and is a possible risk with any acquisition... This site however is not one you would expect to make too many concessions on given a chance to build what you see as first choice. It is an architectural statement and one for the company responsible for putting it there in the first place. Nobody involved would want a pig's ear on that site and I am sure that the architects and senior management at BH will ensure that this particular development supersedes all precedents in terms of the finish and the contribution to the already superb efforts made on its doorstep.

Everybody knows that the politics involved and the inability to interpret and follow the guidelines issued in the UDP along with hostile reaction to the scheme generally from what is essentially a minority has led to the delay in a sensible conclusion anyway... If it were anywhere else of course it would be simpler and building would have commenced, however as nice as it would be to live in a (hypothetical) world, this is not one - real decisions are having to be made against all the odds and as much as I concede to your proposal (hypothetically) that sort of concession means not just a few quid here and there to a business but millions. Tough and glad it isn't my decision or my fight.

Thanks though Lang Rabbie -see where you are coming from - still not convinced however - sorry.
Ruck & Maul Tuesday 30 March 2004 4.10pm
Ivanhoe

If you owned Berkeley Homes or were the MD for it would you concede so easily to your proposal? If you told me I could build but in a poorer location the scheme would not be feasible at all for the developer - that is the point. Why build at cost when there is a profit to be had. Painful as it may be for some to accept big business cannot make serious decisions based on the whims or desires of a minority and I am sorry to say that you really are. When they are finished with the right attention to detail they will look just stunning. Again my opinion but it counts for something - it's my opinion after all...
Ruck & Maul Tuesday 30 March 2004 4.29pm
Define 'sensitive' in a way that suits EVERYONE...

Regards
R. Shaw Tuesday 30 March 2004 4.32pm
The towers are unique, - rather like Tower Bridge, and the City Hall. They may not follow the traditional pattern of housing, but they follow a strong uncompromising logic, and as such if built they will be as much an attraction as the other buildings along the river walk. - even if they are unusual or uncomfortable to look at
Ruck & Maul Tuesday 30 March 2004 4.36pm
Completely agree. I for one am very excited about seeing them...

Bien joué...
the advocate Tuesday 30 March 2004 4.48pm
R & M - regarding quality of Berkeley Homes work and their wanting to ensure it is of the highest quality, er.... no actually.

All BH has to do is stack 'em high ( literally in this case ) and sell 'em..... for as high a price as they can get. Once they are flogged BH would not care less about them so once plans are approved their philosophy is ( rightly for a corporate entity beholden only to its shareholders ) build them as quickly and cheaply as they can get away with without damaging the company brand. As you rightly point out R&M this is what their shareholders would expect.

Contrast this with the developer of the adjoining commercial premises who has to ensure that tenants will want to continue to let the premises from the company at attractive rents and therefore has an ongoing commitment and interest in quality.

BH wants to make a quid. Fair enough. Southwark Council says we want something that benefits the larger community. Also fair enough. Still say for this particular site the latter should weigh more heavily than the former.
michael salkeld Tuesday 30 March 2004 4.54pm
sensetive

Derived from aesthetic consideration and spiritual well
being within the context of ,and respectfully of the
surrounding area ,and appropriate use,

The Towers are unique

give me a brake



Post edited (30 Mar 04 17:03)
Current: 15 of 16


This thread has been closed

Subscribe now

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,300+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum

Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions