http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/list/1 EN Mon, 01 Apr 2002 10:47:29 +0100 Mon, 01 Apr 2002 10:47:29 +0100 SE1 Discussion Phorum 5.1.6 600 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1289#msg-1289 forum@london-se1.co.uk (howard) great tower.......

please build the tower]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1289#msg-1289 Mon, 01 Apr 2002 10:47:29 +0100 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1287#msg-1287 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Jonathan Smith)
This money is private money. If the LBT doesn't go ahead, it won't get spent in Southwark at all. There is no question of this money being spent on 'community facilties' or anything like that elsewhere in the borough.

Anyway, this tower is sustainable. It is on top of a transport interchange. It is mixed-use. It is high-density. It is environmentally sustainable. It is a structure built to last - not like the 1960s crap that now needs demolishing across London. It complies with just about every planning policy I can think of, and it provides transport improvements for the area through Section 106 Agreements.

Okay, so it might not be another Coin Street in terms of providing afordable housing, but does every single development really need to provide something major for the community? Southwark will benefit in other ways - probably less tangible ways (with the exception of new jobs and transport investment, which are very tangible) such as image, tourism etc., and I think that through the LBT, a lot more investment would come to Southwark that does fulfill your definitions of community investment.

Personally, I think the LBT combined with the new London Bridge Station will be a fantastic improvement for the area - more than enough pay-off for any inconvenience caused by the construction period.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1287#msg-1287 Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:29:34 +0100 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1284#msg-1284 forum@london-se1.co.uk (kateEkaos)
'they bring large amounts of investment and spending to the area'. You do all your shopping locally I presume? I can't think of any positive changes that these large amounts of investment have brought. Aside from some improvements to the local parks, which, incidentally the council have plans to sell off for MORE appartments! How does this benefit people who were quite happy living here for years before redevlopment?

'and generally it becomes a nicer place to live'.
Oh thank you so much for this. Is this a unique gift that only people with money can bring?
'or perhaps youd prefer people with money to live elsewhere and let southwark become a shithole with rock bottom property prices Southwark always had (if you knew anything about the area) a shithole aspect to it - that's was part of it's charm actually - we could afford to live here too.

'where only the poor live'.
what do you mean by poor people? is it not a good thing to live in these areas and why? i generally find that 'poor people' are often rich in spirit - another former charming aspect of Southwark. Aside from that, I don't understand your comment. Rich areas aren't necessarily desirable - crime goes up when money comes in.

'perhaps youd prefer PriceWaterhouseCoopers to move their headquarters to the city'
Er, no, actually. There is already a perfectly serviceable PWC building there - haven't you seen it? And their main HQ is at Monument on the north bank anyway! PWC are also great supporters of the local community by the way.

'a male archietects dream??? what has being a male got to do with it, etc etc'
Oh, come on - that doesn't need an answer, just a bit of imagination.

'if you think the area you live in isnt dirty and noisy then youre very misled'
Er, I think I know what my own street looks like, but thanks for the info!

'so what would you do?'
I'd ask the question whether we need to knock down one building to put up another. I'd ask whether we this kind of 'regeneration' and whether the money could be spent on more long-term, sustainable plans which actually deliver the promised benefits to the area and its resident and working population. I'd just think.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1284#msg-1284 Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:44:16 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1281#msg-1281 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Carol)
I know there were a couple of public exhibitions but was anthing held on the site itself; on London Bridge Station or at Guys Hospital where travellers, patients and staff who are the most likely people to be affected by any development offered the opportunity to comment?]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1281#msg-1281 Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:38:55 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1279#msg-1279 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Jonathan Smith)
I don't want to get into an argument - everyone is entitled to have their own views and everyone's views should be heard, but I can't really see what all the fuss is about. There is no chance of anyone building a homeless shelter or anything like that on this site, LBT or not. The land is simply too valuable even for affordable homes, so I don't think it is right to expect that.

The LBT is a world-class building. It is architecturally superb. It will bring economic and environmental benefits to Southwark that would not be achieved by a lesser scheme. It's height may put some people off, but how many people actually look up above the first level anyway?

Better to have a beautiful 66-storey tower than an ugly 20-storey tower, which is probably what we'd get if this is refused because the developers will want to pack the same amount of floorspace in. The result? bigger floorplates - a fat, squat box. What an achievement that would be.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1279#msg-1279 Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:25:52 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1277#msg-1277 forum@london-se1.co.uk (james newman) a male archietects dream??? what has being a male got to do with it, or do you detect some sexism in its design???
as for the survey, 70% of respondents wanted it built, and 30% are against. there have been no formal objections registered against the tower, though ironically both the city and greenwich with their own skyscraper plans have since complained.
if you think the area you live in isnt dirty and noisy then youre very misled. the whole of london is dirty and noisy. you go outside and return with grime under your fingernails from all the traffic.
so given the shrinking amount of greenbelt land available, the increasing numbers of people living in london where an extra 1million people will live in the next 10 years or so where do we house them all??? if you want anything left of the precious english countryside youre going to have to do one thing - build up.
of course if you can come up with a better idea, some unthought of solution for urban planning then please tell us... so what would you do?]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1277#msg-1277 Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:59:32 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1276#msg-1276 forum@london-se1.co.uk (kateEkaos)
Regarding the communal spaces issue - are you saying that if it is built then communal spaces will sudenly appear? I suspect not.

Re noisest, dirtiest citiy - you display a remarkable lack of knowledge about the area yet again. I live in what must one of the quietest streets I've ever lived in. The noise and disruption is caused solely by development. I've lived here for 10 years or so and the only benefit of late has been the Jubilee Line extension. We've put up with a lot and the promised benefits of regeneration are all too few. Aside from the Jubilee Line, it's not done much for us, aside from putting up rents to a level where we'll probably have to move out.

South of London Bridge has always been great to live in - until its previously 'deeply unfashionable' jewels were 'discovered' by property developers, the city and the ensuing influx of 'luxury appartment dwellers'.

Re the comment about commercial properties not really having any responsibility towards it local community - well that's fine, but don't then expect the community to have any intererest in supporting it, or be surprised at how many people object.

I'm all for development and investment to improve standards of living, community building and crime reduction - but a huge shard of glass? Just a, probably male, architect's dream really, isn't it? At least it may provide a change of scenery for our resident homeless people.

Why is it that central London residents are somehow seen as temporary, and/or not really worthy of having their concerns taken seriously?]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1276#msg-1276 Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:43:20 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1275#msg-1275 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Jonathan Smith)
It will though, through Section 106 Agreements and a number of retail units that will be given over to small local enterprises. Transport improvements and other benefits to the public realm will be included.

Equally, opposing it because it will create noise for a few years is not a very appropriate argument considering you live slap bang in one of the world's biggest, noisiest and dirtiest cities anyway!

Jan - If you're asking me how many they consulted, I'm afraid I don't know. The figures were on the official press release issued by Sellar Properties.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1275#msg-1275 Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:22:59 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1269#msg-1269 forum@london-se1.co.uk (kateEkaos) Phrases such as 'local employment', 'affordable housing' 'provision of community spaces and sports facilities', 'functional, people-friendly buildings' however have a whole different ring to them, don't you think?

Unless of course you like the corporate feel of an area dominated by the likes of Vinopolis, with a Starbucks on every street corner. An area where the arty types, who attracted the luxury appartment dwellers in the first place, have long since departed - forced out by the lack of affordable accommodation, and lack of interest in the corporate world.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1269#msg-1269 Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:22:42 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1252#msg-1252 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Jan)
p.s. I Like the glass 'wobbly' jelly building going up near Tower Bridge, our Kens's new pad!
I think it's the height of l.L.B.T. that most people object to.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1252#msg-1252 Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:19:17 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1250#msg-1250 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Jonathan Smith)
Like all great buildings, opposition is bound to come at first, but once it is up everyone will be admiring it and wondering what they were so worried about.

It will be listed in 20 years time and future planners will be protecting views of LBT from Hapmstead Heath! That is the way it works... the same has happened with St. Paul's Cathedral, the London Eye and Tower Bridge.

No one is trying to turn London into Manhattan - far from it. Buildings like LBT are about high density in good locations - they make sense spatially perhaps more than they do visually, but I think we should not be afraid of architecture that dares to be different. How can we expect London to have a good skyline if we resist every effort to change it? London is built on change and contrast... by resisting developments like this, you're actually going against the very essence upon which London is built. The same goes for anyone claiming this is being built purely as a symbol of commercial might... rubbish! Churches and cathedrals were built purely to show the power of God, and I find that a far less admirable reason to build tall than the creation of jobs and wealth. London is built on wealth... it is one of the world's centres of capitalism... there is no more appropriate place for a building like this, and if you still think London is a peaceful hamlet with sweeping vistas like Florence or Venice, you haven't been looking at your own city very closely!

Most of the arguments 'against' that I've heard so far are based on false information or sheer lack of knowledge about what is actually proposed. At ground level, for example, the developers have been working very closely with CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) to improve the public environment at the base, and they are still doing so. The end result will be a building that integrates well with it's surroundings... far better than the current building, Southwark Towers.

I think that if the LBT is refused planning permission, Southwark as a borough will come to regret it several years down the line. It now has the opportunity to build on the success of the Tate Modern, Globe Theatre etc. and bring tourists deeper in to the borough... and I can guarantee that if this proposal is rejected, what we'll get instead won't be of the same quality because the money available for public improvements through Section 106 agreements won't be anywhere near as much, and the architectural quality won't be anything like as good. Renzo Piano is one of the world's top 5 architects - he is virtually unrivalled! And this would be his best work yet... you couldn't possibly expect to get anything better if this was refused. You'd get the same basics but without the extra prestige and touches of quality that come with such a major landmark, and that would be a real shame. A missed opportunity.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1250#msg-1250 Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:12:08 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1241#msg-1241 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Lloyd Savage)
I find some of the remarks I've read on this board regarding the lack of opportunities for local people in the tower quite strange. Why do people think that local people are only good enough to be cleaners in the building? Do you really have such a low opinion of the people of Southwark? Opportunities will appear at all levels for local people, and the tower will be a catalyst for new businesses such as retail and restaurants.

I can see no downside to this development.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1241#msg-1241 Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:02:07 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1232#msg-1232 forum@london-se1.co.uk (matthew) I do not live in london though, I live in haverfordwest in Pembrokeshire. I agree that the tower would be a stunning thing to look at but I also feel that it should be located with other sky scrapers as it looks silly to have them dotted all over the place. but having read all the messages i think that if it was relocated elsewhere then all the people who work in the original building would also move and this would cause a drain of affluent people and increase unemployment. In a few years this tower will be contributing to the history of Southwark and people will be complaining about other towers being built impeding their view of the LBT. bye then and you can write to me!]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1232#msg-1232 Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:03:12 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1208#msg-1208 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Jan) "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend unto the death the right to say it "
from Mrs Troll,
Troglydyte Mansions (or similar!)
p.s. I have my vitriol with brandy.........]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1208#msg-1208 Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:39:23 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1207#msg-1207 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Jason Rigby) SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1207#msg-1207 Sun, 24 Mar 2002 11:10:01 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1174#msg-1174 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Chris Howsham)
Supporters of the tower are right in pointing out that many of the older buildings cited by critics were highly controversial in their time. Criticisms of the tower seem to me to be either variations on the Nimby theme ("...by all means build the tower, but somewhere else...") or the red herring theme (subsidence, indeed - like this is really relevant and, in any case, wouldn't be compensated for by the engineers building a world-class iconic tower!)

I for one can't wait to see the tower every time I open my front door.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1174#msg-1174 Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:14:25 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1160#msg-1160 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Andrew)
I spoke to the developer\'s PR company at the development fayre outside southwark cathedral in september.

PWC will not occupy the whole tower, it\'s far too big - they have an option on taking up a large chunk of it though. It also be placed on the southwark towers site - the two identical buildings next to LB station, and not on no 1 London Bridge, the archy buliding on the Thames.

I think the project is good, but i just don\'t know if they will be able to attract the tennents in - financial companies require face to face contact, and thus large conglomerations such as The City and Canary Wharf sites - maybe More London can fill this, but i\'m not sure.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1160#msg-1160 Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:35:57 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1159#msg-1159 forum@london-se1.co.uk (jan) Brevity nor wit are part of my make up! :-)]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1159#msg-1159 Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:30:18 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1154#msg-1154 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Rob Buxton)
There are plenty of wingers who would rather Southwark was always the poor relation - problems with traffic and only cleaners will be employed from the local population - they've all been cited as excuses. Wake up. Southwark is coming alive at last and we should be putting our support behind this development.

And for those who seem worried about highly paid businessmen working in Southwark. They have to eat, drink, live and pay tax somewhere - I would rather it's here than West London.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1154#msg-1154 Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:59:00 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1151#msg-1151 forum@london-se1.co.uk (monkey magic) SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1151#msg-1151 Fri, 15 Mar 2002 23:05:17 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1150#msg-1150 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Jan)
How many feet from the edge of the river will this tower be?

p.s. I think that a fair amount of tourists come to London purely to see the old boring things (like myself!) that are
preseved in perpetuity.

in all fairness, the Glass Tower has a glacial quality to it that reminds me of ice bergs, and if it were anywhere else I would applaud the ethereal beauty of it. But not at London Bridge , not for a clever architect just to make his name in the history books.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1150#msg-1150 Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:52:49 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1149#msg-1149 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Harry)
Is it really inconceivable that Renzo Piano might not have just designed a 21st Century answer to St Pauls? By all means let\'s look after our history, but let\'s not destroy tomorrow\'s history before it\'s been built.]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1149#msg-1149 Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:27:05 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1148#msg-1148 forum@london-se1.co.uk (New Se1 Resident)
Purple paint? Aesthetics- surely that's what architecture's all about- else why not build another grisley brown building?!

Density? I've lived in New York - I know all about density........smog, crowded underground platforms, terrorist threats, horizontal travel.

But surely there are other areas in the city that require further development or renovation? What about the derelict building at Queen's Quay in Upper Thames Street. That's been vacant for approx 10 years! Last year it gave residence to the city's first illegal rave- I know I lived next door and couldn't get any sleep!

Where's all the funding coming from- PWC? So they can have Europe's biggest glass splinter?! Why not use private money to bring-up lesser public areas.

Why have the council moved to the city? Surely it's cheaper for them to charge their own lease costs then to pay the Corporations?

Countryside- you obviously don't get out there much. There are many london suburbs between the city and the countryside that would thrieve on several low rise buildings rather than one big skyscraper. Several designs could be used. It would promote more construction jobs. Once built it would promote those areas eg Citibank moved to Lewisham.

Venice- well that's a fine example- it's all on water! Foundations?!]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1148#msg-1148 Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:51:50 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1147#msg-1147 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Trog) SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1147#msg-1147 Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:05:32 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1146#msg-1146 forum@london-se1.co.uk (james newman) your complaints seem to be based on aesthetic qualities of a building... rather like saying purple paint is hideous when i say i like it. as has already been mentioned people said exactly the same thing about the london eye, big ben, st pauls cathedral, telecom tower... almost every much loved high rise landmark in london has been slated at sometime.
i can tell you havent lived in southwark long, if you had youd have noticed the cluster of highrises they are building there, buildings like the GLA headquarters.
the people of southwark dont deserve to live in some run down museum like the people of venice do surrounded by victorian prisons, and they certainly dont deserve to see the boroughs biggest employer after the council move to the city. they deserve a decent quality of life, but they also have to remember they live in a city which is an everchanging fabric, not a countryside. just as people who live next to airports should accept the noise there instead of constantly complaining people in the city should accept a varied skyline.
londons population is set to increase to over 8million in the next 15 years... the solution is either build out and destroy our countryside or build up. now which do you want to do mr NIMBY?]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1146#msg-1146 Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:12:02 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1144#msg-1144 forum@london-se1.co.uk (New Se1 Resident)
James "LBT" Newman, please can you tell me the ground dimensions of the "Shard of Glass" (as named in Skyscapernews). So, the PWC monstrosity that butts the Thames will be demolished? To be replaced with a glass obscenity that will pertrude from the ground where PWC would have stood?

Has anyone seen the picture? It looks awful. No modern architecture? Why are you trying to replicate something that looks like a giant stalagmite!

And what's all this Transport Policy to build highrises around major interchanges? To minimise travel? Surely, this is going to bring more people delinvering goods and providing services into the city. This completely contradicts the MAYOR'S PLANS to avoid TRAFFIC CONGESTION!! What are you going to fly them in? Whoops sorry- the building has a spike so at least no helicopter pad!

I agree- keep the skyscapers to Canary Wharf. Don't ruin the skyline? Of course there's a height restriction- you don't want planes flying in to buildings!!! (apologies for pointing this out, but it's true!)

Can anyone let me know, if there is anywhere we can lobby against these plans?]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1144#msg-1144 Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:33:21 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1143#msg-1143 forum@london-se1.co.uk (G)
"The future's bright, the future's Southwark"]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1143#msg-1143 Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:01:40 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1139#msg-1139 forum@london-se1.co.uk (monkey magic) SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1139#msg-1139 Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:03:18 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1136#msg-1136 forum@london-se1.co.uk (james newman) SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1136#msg-1136 Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:46:29 +0000 http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1129#msg-1129 forum@london-se1.co.uk (Jan) and how close to the river will they be?

With a bit of luck the whole project will end up as a very deep channel ! which with a bit of luck will attract wild life more suited to the river bank - not just rattus neotoma ( the pack rat - normally found in large groups when theres money to be made!)

apart from which if I lived in a house that had a conservation order on, I would not be permittedd to build an extension, change internal or external structures in any way, but Southwark are going ahead with plans that allows the devastation of a beautiful historic area, and visually impede the view from London Bridge to Tower Bridge.

As it's been put extremely well by the writers in the previous comments - Why not Canary Wharf?]]> SE1 Discussion http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/1097/1129#msg-1129 Thu, 14 Mar 2002 07:01:48 +0000