London SE1 community website

Chambers Wharf

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 7 of 11
zee
Monday 31 March 2008 12.21pm
Ah. As there are council blocks in the area we should not mind about the height.

I see.
Monday 31 March 2008 12.39pm
I find it hard to believe, even with our council, that this is taking so long. In my reply to the councils letter this time I asked them to speed up otherwise nothing is going to happen and will continue to be blighted by derelict buildings.

This new consultation is because some affordable housing will be moved to the north of Chambers street - i cant see a trick , Zee, unless i am missing something.

The small number of homes who could be affected will be affected whether the buildings are 4 or 40 storeys high.We are all benefiting in this area because NIMBYism has been banished - lets not bring it back
zee
Monday 31 March 2008 1.45pm
Anyuone who takes an interest in the local area is apparently a NIMBYist?

Make we enquire what your interest is in this very high estate?

Have you taken a ride down our beloved Thames and looked at the height of neighbouring buildings? It is a long way before you will find anything approaching the intended height of this estate.But hey....it's only council homes which will be affected as has been pointed out.
Monday 31 March 2008 2.09pm
I live next door, or are you suggesting only people who are allowed an opinion should come from the Dickens Estate.

Have you seen Vogans Mill?
zee
Monday 31 March 2008 2.47pm
Vogans is a good way back from the river front.

If you live next door you really will have a difference in your light levels.

I have no objection to the demolition of Chambers, but most people around here object to the height of these buildings and have objected to the council because they have realised that this will not fit in to the local area.
AD
Tuesday 1 April 2008 9.16pm
zee wrote:
Ah. As there are council blocks in the area we should not mind about the height.
I see.

?? You're missing the point.

The council flats are large bulky buildings that overlook the few streets of low rise housing that exist as you head east.
zee
Tuesday 1 April 2008 11.00pm
The argument seems to be that if poor and unsightly buildings have been constructed in the past either by council or private developers then we should allow further bad development on the Chambers Wharf site.

The site obviously needs development and people need homes. What is proposed is the wrong development designed to maximise developer profit by too high density and too many small units which will be second homes rather than add permanent residents to the community. The planners seem reluctant to argue on behalf of the existing community. Nor do our councillors seem eager to stand up for the community.

The towers will overshadow the adjoining flats and the school. The high number of studios and one bedroom flats will be for investors and second homes. The lack of parking will clog the streets rather than encourage use of public transport.

By giving only 14 days to respond to the revised planning application (including the postal days) there is no time to organise a professional response. Perhaps the developers and planners know that the plans are not sustainable hence the subterfuge!
AD
Wednesday 2 April 2008 12.06am
zee wrote:
The argument seems to be that if poor and unsightly buildings have been constructed in the past either by council or private developers then we should allow further bad development on the Chambers Wharf site.


This is not my point at all. Ian Simpson is a well respected Architect, granted he is famous for some tall glass buildings, which might not be to your taste, but his work has won many awards and couldn't be described as poor.

On such a massive site, where very bulky buildings exist already, it is inevitable a similar scale of building will be proposed. Zee, what do you expect a developer to propose?

I share the concerns about congestion, investment properties, etc, but feel this is inevitable in a situation where brownfield sites are being redeveloped into housing and population density increases.

As I mentioned previously, I viewed the design booklet, and the public space along the river front was the clincher for me. It is a similar situation to More London, where it seems the offices aren't popular, but everyone loves the promenade. Incidently I am looking forward to More London being finished, as when the preserved\adapted buildings along Tooley Street are unveiled, this will mitigate the amount of glass and help integrate the development into it's surroundings.....I think Chambers Wharf will eventually fit in too.
Wednesday 2 April 2008 12.27pm
I think More London looks good. The reflections and visual drama match anything in London. I also appreciate the avenue past M+S with a classic view of 1 tower of the bridge + the curve of the GLA building.
Is there a website with details of the Chambers Wharf proposal? A river promenade there would link with the bitty promenades to the East and make the Bermondsey frontage far more worthwhile. The views of Tower Bridge are excellent from further away.
Wednesday 2 April 2008 12.33pm
Whatever one thinks of this proposal I don't think one should attach too much weight to the riverside walkway when assessing its merits as public riverside access would have to be provided as a matter of planning policy whatever else may happen on the site.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Current: 7 of 11

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

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

7,000+ 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