Coin Street's revised plans for a tower of only 43 storeys - still a betrayal of their founding principles?

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 14
Saturday 26 May 2007 8.28am
As reported on this site's news page today, Coin Street Community Builders have now produced some revised plans.

They can be seen in PDF format on CSCB's website at:

http://www.coinstreet.org/DoonStreetMay2007exhibitionboards.pdf

I'll post further comments once I've been to the exhibition at the Oxo Tower

NEW READERS START HERE:

We had an interesting debate some eighteen months ago when CSCB's first plans for a 48-storey towere were unveiled on this thread that I started:

C01n Street's plan for 48 storey tower -a betrayal of their founding principles?
yas
Saturday 26 May 2007 2.43pm
This is only a victory for the developers!

The neighbours and the rest of the city lose. The people who buy these places don't even live in them themselves. It's purely for money and sod city aesthetics, quality of life and other consequences. Am ranting... ok but am also fed up!
Saturday 26 May 2007 5.10pm
Can this be merged with the older thread please?
Saturday 26 May 2007 5.11pm
Bloody typical of English Heritage. Always sticking their nose in and ruining developments. Their SOLE argument is literally ALWAYS about height.
Saturday 26 May 2007 5.12pm
This looks like a fantastic development to me.

Yas - I'm interested to know how the neigbours and the rest of the city lose and, further, why you think there won't be owner/occupiers?

Chris
Saturday 26 May 2007 5.38pm
I don't see what the fuss is about in terms of principles. They have empty land. They want to put it to uses that include a leisure centre and swimming pool intended to serve huge areas of Southwark and Lambeth, along with new, affordable housing and a whole raft of other community and cultural uses. However, they can't do any of this without that marvellously useful, but, for an organisation like them, inconveniently hard to get hold of thing called money. Money, which despite their name, they can't mint. They therefore put together a highly profitable scheme that will give them all the facilities and money to spare to spend on other things for the area over an extended period, including the fleecing on the new leasehold residents for the money to subsidise the community facilities, and that consumes the minimum amount of that other hard to get hold of thing they have called land.

They could, of course, not provide any of these facilities and allow the land to sit undeveloped indefinitely or lower their sights, deprive the area of a major leisure facility that no one else will build any time soon, and build something more modest that they can afford. A few affordable flats and, perhaps, a paddling pool, a sand pit and some swings for the community.
Saturday 26 May 2007 9.13pm
boroughbloke wrote:
I don't see what the fuss is about in terms of principles.

Without rejigging the entire previous thread

i) There is no mention in their proposals that there actually is any affordable housing. All the indications are that they are building housing for sale at market value (although I suspect that there will be some negotiations with the planners).

ii) You say correctly that raising money is the key to delivering the community facilties. Yet CSCB appear to have unilaterally decided to give away a quarter of the site to Rambert. I have nothing against modern dance, but why should a community housing association be paying for this scheme at the opportunity cost of other projects?
Saturday 26 May 2007 9.18pm
wjfox2004 wrote:
Bloody typical of English Heritage. Always sticking their nose in and ruining developments. Their SOLE argument is literally ALWAYS about height.

I think the photo mock-ups for the two schemes of the view from inside the courtyard of Somerset House are a pretty compelling argument that the original scheme was too tall.

wjfox2004 wrote:
Can this be merged with the older thread please?
I deliberately didn't revive that thread because it was derailed somewhere around page 4 by a lengthy debate on the history of plastic manufacturing in the lower Lea Valley!!!
Sunday 27 May 2007 9.27am
Im not a Tory but I agree with Ed Vaizey.
yas
Sunday 27 May 2007 2.35pm
[quote carmenes82] Yas - I'm interested to know how the neigbours and the rest of the city lose and, further, why you think there won't be owner/occupiers?

chris, the reason I believe the City & neighbourhood lose out is because of the horrendous obstruction to the city scape. This proposed building is taller than the millenium wheel, the RFH, QEC, etc. It sticks out like a sore thumb along the much improved Southbank riverside. The Rambert Dance Studios are a great idea but they are just an excuse for the rest of the building which covers 48 times more space. Not sure what you know about the "community" facilities but having an Olympic sized pool which SE1 lacks does not require 47 stories above it.

Re: owner-occupied: Of all the recent developments in SE1, very few are owner-occupied. Speak to estate agents! They will tell you. Most of these flats are bought off-plan by the dozens at much reduced prices by property managers for their rental portfolios. They keep them 3 years and ditch them afterwards to avoid CGT. A lot of them stay empty for months. Just look up at Tabard Square (or Empire square as renamed for evidence).
Pages:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 1 of 14

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

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: