You are entitled to make comments. Three copies of your comments should be sent to the Planning Inspectorate by 24 March 2008

The Planning Inspectorate
Room: 3/14 Eagle,
Temple Quay House
2 The Square, Temple Quay
BRISTOL, BS1 6PN


It is important that you quote references:
APP/V5570/A/08/2066104/NWF
APP/V5570/E/08/2066102/NWF


The Council refused to grant planning permission for the following reasons:

1. REASON: The height, scale and bulk of the proposed development is considered to be excessive for the site and would be contrary to Policies D1, D4, D5, D9 and D18 of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002 and Policies 4B.1, 4B.8 and 4B.9 of the London Plan 2004.
2. REASON: The proposed development would provide an inadequate level of open space/amenity space for future residents and would be contrary to Policies D3 (iii), H3(i) and H10(ii) of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002, Islington Planning Standards Guidelines (Section 1.3) SPG 2002 and Policy 4B.9 of the London Plan 2004.
3. REASON: The height, scale and bulk of the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the setting of nearby statutory listed buildings and the Finsbury Square/Bunhill Fields Conservation Area and would be contrary to Policies D19 and D22 of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002 Islington Conservation Area Guidelines (CA22) SPG 2002 and Policies 4B.10, 4B.11 and 4B.12 of the London Plan 2004.

The Council refused to grant conservation area consent for the following reasons:

1. REASON: The proposed development would cause the loss of the locally listed building at 70-74 City Road and would be contrary to Policies D21 and D42 of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002, Islington Conservation Area Guidelines (CA22) SPG 2002, and Policies 4B.10, 4B.11 and 4B.12 of the London Plan 2004.
2. REASON: The premature demolition of building in advance of an acceptable scheme for the site would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservative area.

hurrah lets get writing! I'll take some photos around the back of that block, as the development actually replaces a number of buildings around there with a low rise section that isnt shown in the renders. It might mean that people wont make a foolish mistake of being too ignorant of the entire scheme when they write.

Good news.

Not sure if its a coincidence by I read this week Mayor Ken has now got his powers to overturn council planning decisions.

Also worth noting these are about to be built next door.

http://www.bezierlondon.com/

The Council refused to grant conservation area consent for the following reasons:

1. REASON: The proposed development would cause the loss of the locally listed building at 70-74 City Road and would be contrary to Policies D21 and D42 of the Islington Unitary Development Plan 2002, Islington Conservation Area Guidelines (CA22) SPG 2002, and Policies 4B.10, 4B.11 and 4B.12 of the London Plan 2004.
2. REASON: The premature demolition of building in advance of an acceptable scheme for the site would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservative area.

I used to work in 100 City Road, but I can't remember what 70-74 City Road looked like. Has anyone got pictures. I would hate for something worthyof keeping being knocked down, appart from this I think it's a really good location.

70-74 city rd- Not much of a looker it you ask me.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.digitalmail.com/images/uploads/CityRoad_70-74_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.digitalmail.com/how_to_find_us&h=450&w=250&sz=39&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=7TU4jI9mNsBtHM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=71&prev=/images%3Fq%3D70-74%2BCity%2BRoad%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dcom.google:en-GB:official%26sa%3DN

If only they would have a go at resurrecting Columbus :(

I would prefer to see this tower approved ,if it happens, rather than alsop's turd.

I'd love Alsops "turd" as well :)

living 5 mins walk from that dreadful roundabout i can safely say it needs all the regeneration it can get, aside from the stunning imperial hall the area is a complete dump, though i do think the developers should be made to give some money to tfl for improvements to the already overcrowded tube station forecourt so it can handle the extra population this building will add

This from Dewent Londons recent results from the other day.

"One of the difficulties with the planning process is that even with the planning officer’s recommendation for approval, consent is not always automatic. These were the circumstances in which planning permission was refused for an office and residential scheme on our City Road Estate in July 2007. However, we are now working on a revised proposal with the intention of resubmitting a planning application in 2008. The
existing buildings continue to provide an annual income of £1.0 million and we are confident that we will deliver an exciting development in this prominent and improving location."

There was a fire near this site last week ?

This from Dewent Londons recent results from the other day.

"One of the difficulties with the planning process is that even with the planning officer’s recommendation for approval, consent is not always automatic. These were the circumstances in which planning permission was refused for an office and residential scheme on our City Road Estate in July 2007. However, we are now working on a revised proposal with the intention of resubmitting a planning application in 2008. The
existing buildings continue to provide an annual income of £1.0 million and we are confident that we will deliver an exciting development in this prominent and improving location."


Saw this on one of the financial reports- substantially smaller than the last proposal.

http://i29.tinypic.com/x5e07b.jpg

So is this not going to a PI anymore?:(

http://i29.tinypic.com/x5e07b.jpg

what the hell is that?! :ohno: I suppose this now automatically fits in with the village atmosphere and Victorianorama that is Old Street roundabout.

The reason that planning got refused was that the percentage of assisted housing was too low. I do not understand the logic of a radical re-design - other than to reduce costs. Well done the local pressure groups: now we will have a scaled back, lower quality building which generates fewer commercial opportunities and which will look tired and dated within a few years. This does seem to be a pattern across London: politicians make onerous demands of the developers in terms of assisted housing, and as a result we are getting a rash of dreadful, cheap development that will be a real blight on the city in the blink of an eye.

because it is never really about local ammenities and affordable housing, these are just legalised terms used to whip up local opposition to adhere to ideas of pseudo-democracy. It has always been about height. The active puppet masters who strangely happen to be pseudo-ruralists use such terms of local ammenities, local 'historical' character (note: never would they be so truthful as to mention social character) and affordable housing as stealth weapons in their ongoing social war of rural feudalism against urban levelling (in which height is its physical manifestation). The reason the battles are never fair is that urbanites just do not try so hard to win purely because the obvious benefits are for all and not just for themselves.

The reason that planning got refused was that the percentage of assisted housing was too low.

Which was a result of the first height reduction.

Which was a result of the first height reduction.
I think it may have also been down to the change in policy from 35% to 50% social housing - i think they were just unlucky with the timing.
I think if some pressure group or politician wants to whip up some anti-development fervour, then the issue of height is just as effective as the social housing constraint. Witness the opposition to the City Road Basin towers (what is going on there, by the way?) - mainly about height, and social housig did not seem to figure strongly.

I love the fact that London as well as having amazing skyscrapers (200m+) it also has loads more high rises planned or in the bag, its a shame this was turned down. Im sure something will take its place on the site in time. Hopefully :)

I'm told the inquiry in respect of the appeal will commence on 8th July, continuing on the 9th, 10th and 11th July.

I think we know what the outcome is going to be, though...

this is a brilliant tower that would do wonders for the outskirts of the city cluster

Locals have been up in arms complaining about London being turned into Manhatten, ruining the village atmosphere & this tower being an eyesore...who would have thought it ...tsk tsk :(

Im thinking that the local nimbys don't get out much as they clearly haven't been to NY or any villages as they don't I know that contain large 60's office blocks & massive roadabouts. Hmm I wonder who planted the seed of thought that Old St Roundabout has a village atmosphere....

...................................................
http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/071108/news071108_04.html

1 July 2008


Artist’s impression of the proposed building
‘This is Old Street, not New York,’ protesters tell inquiry

Neighbours make their point outside meeting over skyscraper development

DEVELOPERS behind plans to put one of London’s tallest skyscrapers behind Old Street railway station have been accused of wanting to turn the area into another Manhattan.
Residents made the claims outside a planning inquiry at Finsbury Town Hall yesterday (Thursday). A government inspector is reconsidering plans for a 149-metre, 39-storey glass building on a tiny site overlooking Old Street roundabout.
Developers LMS City Road Ltd put their case before principal planning inspector John Gray this week after Islington councillors threw out their plans in July last year for being too high, too bulky and lacking sufficient affordable social housing.
The main tower would have 250 flats, plus 100,000 sq ft of offices, shops, bars, cafés and an underground car park, but no outdoor play space for children or balconies for residents.
Residents stood alongside Islington Council barristers as they made their case against LMS.
Neighbour Paul Cottee said: “I’m not against development per se. If nothing else, it will improve the value of our homes. But I don’t think a 40-storey building is appropriate for this part of the world.
“We don’t want to go down the road of having avenues of tall buildings like Shanghai, Hong Kong and Manhattan. London has its own character.”
Simon Beck, who lives in Featherstone Street, said: “The area is surprisingly village-like. This is the thin end of a large wedge of turning the area into a huge area of skyscrapers.
“It’s a bland, nondescript, high-rise building that will become an eyesore in the coming decade.”
His wife Minjee said the plans didn’t include enough open space.
Bunhill councillor Ruth Polling told the hearing the development was “well over twice the height of the average tall block in the ward” and 13 storeys higher than the tallest – Peregrine House, in Hall Street, which has 26 floors.
She added: “I have received more letters of concern about this development than any other in my ward.
“Any permission granted for this site will affect the way residents and visitors to Islington perceive the borough for well over 50 years. It is just too large to be accommodated within such a small site surrounded by residential properties.”
The council also opposes the developers’ plans to demolish the locally listed 70-74 City Road and build a nine-storey office block instead.
Cllr Polling said: “It will be replaced with a corporate, identikit nine-storey building and tower.”
The skyscraper, backed by former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, would form part of a proposed three-building cluster around Featherstone Street and Mallow Street.
It would have dwarfed the London Eye, Centre Point and nearby Barbican.
Richard Hillebron, senior planning consultant LMS’s parent company Derwent London, said: “This first went to Islington’s planning committee with recommendation for approval from officers.
“In essence we’re fighting two issues. One was the loss of the smaller building, 70-74 City Road. That’s a difference in point of view between us and the council.
“We think it’s not an important building, but they think it is. It’s not listed.
“The council say the height, scale and mass is an issue, but that’s a difference of opinion.”
The inquiry is expected to end today (Friday).

I'm giving up with Londoners. Time to move on I guess. Let them wallow in their sad miserable pathetic backward incomprehensible attitudes to redevelopment.

Agree have any of these twats been to new york? such a simplistic argument. Let the place rot then because that's whats gonna happen...and these people like disgusting places because that's all they ever aspire to.

And those who actually been to NY no doubt love it for its skyscrapers.

Maybe this building is too nice and clean and modern for the area? If the developers where canny why not build a Baroque or Classicaly inspired tower that will suit the architecture more? I would be very curious to see what reaction it would get? I'm sure it would be different.

"wanting to turn the area into another Manhattan" Not another Manhatten! They are everywhere these days :lol:

avenues of tall buildings? you'd think that this was the last place left without one!

Rubbish, London is full of tall buildings Gothic, everywhere I look I see 2-3 storey towers. I for one don't want London to start resembling Bognor Regis.

Not another Bognor Regis! Protect the atmosphere of our 1960s major road junction!

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/dailynews/2008/07/squire__partners.html

Squire and Partners' City Road tower would be a 'monstrosity', says councillor

* Published: 16 July 2008 11:37
* Author: Max Thompson
* Last Updated: 16 July 2008 12:57

City Road

* Increase image
* View all images

Squire and Partners' proposed City Road skyscraper in central London has been labelled as a 'towering corporate identikit monstrosity' by an Islington councillor.

Councillor Ruth Polling, Islington's executive member for leisure and communities, made the comment following the closure of a public enquiry into the 39-storey block of 225 luxury flats that has been earmarked for the corner of Old Street and City Road.

Speaking to the Islington Gazette, Polling said: 'This towering corporate identikit monstrosity will have a huge impact on the character of the local neighbourhood. At nearly 40 stories and taller than the Barbican towers, it would dwarf even the biggest tower blocks in Finsbury.

'This area cannot just be seen as an extension of the City. The developers have misjudged the area and just don't seem to care about the people who already live there. I really hope the inspector throws this appeal out.'

Developer LMS (City Road) is hoping that the government planning inspector will quash a ruling by Islington Council to refuse planning permission for the skyscraper a year ago. A decision is expected in November.

At the time of writing Squire and Partners was unavailable for comment.

:gaah:

"it would dwarf even the biggest tower blocks in Finsbury" :lol: thats a good thing isnt it?

This is the same sort of bullshit thats going to come up with the Bishopsgate goodsyard

Hazel Blears has overruled the planning inspector and given this scheme approval:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=725&storycode=3126315&c=1&encCode=0000000001860827

Blimey.

Hazel Blears is doing us proud.. this is great news.. Again!

WOW justice is always great news.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=725&storycode=3126315&c=1&encCode=0000000001860827

Communities secretary Hazel Blears has overruled a planning inspector to grant permission for a 39-storey triangular residential tower, designed by Squire & Partners, at the junction of City Road and Old Street in London.

The 225-home City Road Estate scheme, which includes a nine-storey office block, was the subject of a planning inquiry in the summer after being rejected by Islington council.

In a letter to the council, a DCLG spokesman said: “[Blears] considers the design of the residential tower to be of very high quality… The secretary of state concludes that the proposal as a whole would accord with all relevant development plan and national planning policies, including those on design.

"Any slight detrimental impact, in terms of loss of sunlight and daylight to existing properties, does not outweigh the compliance with development plan and national plan policies in other respects.”

Squire & Partners’ design was reviewed by Cabe three times. On the third occasion, in June 2007, the design report said: “We think that a building of this height and prominence is appropriate on this site, and the tower’s form has the potential to be elegant.

"We are now content with the massing of the lower built elements and can offer our qualified support for the scheme.”

This woman is a saint. Great news!

Is this the tower that caused the 'ruining the village atmosphere of Old St' controversy? Or is that another one? :?

Good news nevertheless. :)

Wow - a decision that sounds dangerously like common sense.

A little reminder from further back in the thread;

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/4817100CityRoad_pic2.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/3.jpg

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/2rddlde.jpg

Excellent tower, I forgot what it looked like. I always fantasised* about skyscrapers around that roundabout. :banana:


*Sad isn't it?

Absolutely outstanding news. I honestly thought this project was dead in the water. This sets a major precedent for the area - hopefully an entire cluster will form now. I love the proportions of this tower... it's so elegant.

a decision that sounds dangerously like common sense.



Indeed. The reasons given by English Heritage, local residents and the council were frankly insane. How anyone could describe this place as having a "village atmosphere" when in reality it's a festering dump is beyond me.

Typical though. This could've started in early 08 if it wasn't for the PI so now this will probably wait a while before starting.

I hope Hazel is still around for the Blackfriars verdicts next year.

Nice one Hazel! Are you married? I ve got a nice highrise for you!

Hazel really is a star. Maybe we should write to her supporting her, as I'm sure the ES will see to it she gets plenty of bad press over this decision.

I wrote an email of support, like I think some others here did, following her approval of Doon Street and the stupid article written by Simon Jenkins after that.

She is great/ Thank god Ruth Kelly wasn't in the job long enough to do any damage. Hazel has approved Fenchurch, Doon street and now this, lets hope she has the final say over Blackfriars!

And on SSN; http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1836

100 City Road Approved On Appeal
Published on 30-10-2008 by Skyscrapernews.com


The decision which culminates the saga of one of the more bizarre planning refusals in London has been announced by the Secretary of State for communities, Hazel Blears.

100 City Road designed by Squire and Partners is a planned 131 metre tall tower to stand overlooking Old Street Roundabout in the London Borough of Islington that encountered much opposition from locals with the scheme eventually being denounced in the council planning meeting which refused the application.

The council objected most of all to the lack of affordable housing in the scheme which had been reduced from 31% to 29% to comply with the council's requirements that it be reduced in height.

It was also refused permission on the basis that it was "detrimental to the local character, not in keeping with the local Victorian architecture" despite standing on the urban blight that is Old Street Roundabout surrounded by other less attractive and substantially older towers.

The government's own architecture quango, the Commission for Architecture and Built Environment welcomed the scheme giving it "qualified support."
With this refusal in mind, the developer London Merchant Securities, launched an appeal to have the refusal overturned which Hazel Blears has agreed with stating "the design of the residential tower to be of very high quality".

In a blow to the local opponents, the Secretary of State also concluded there was only "slight detrimental impact, in terms of loss of sunlight and daylight to existing properties", in other words opposition was a storm in a teacup.

Unfortunately for London Merchant Securities over a year has passed since Islington Council refused their proposals and much has changed economically since then. They may have got the green light but only time will tell if their project has missed the boat with the housing market.

Are there any renders that shows the impact of this from the other part of the river.

The negative side of this is the terrible state the local democracy/local planning is in.
Central government has still to rule over local nimbyist decisions.

Great news! What is that sculpture thingy with the union jack on it?

it is a structure for displaying advertising. Below the ground at this point is the concourse of the underground station.

Indeed. The reasons given by English Heritage, local residents and the council were frankly insane. How anyone could describe this place as having a "village atmosphere" when in reality it's a festering dump is beyond me.

I've been to some villages that were pretty festering...

But - yay! This can't possibly make the street-level environment around Old St any worse, may make it better, and will certainly improve the skyline.

rather nice landscaping job down the road, sounds like the roundabout will be redeveloped as part of the phased program, god knows it needs it!

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=453&storycode=3125658&c=2

The negative side of this is the terrible state the local democracy/local planning is in.
Central government has still to rule over local nimbyist decisions.

Agreed. Deterrent to all developers and one the reasons of lack houses and high rent.

Hurrah for Hazel! Nice simple elegant tower that can only improve the area. Common sense prevails.

Lol- where to begin... The sensationalist reporting or the deluded nimby's & their village being turned into Manhatten or even the local councillor who is determined to spent more taxpayers money opposing this. Thank god theres nothing they can do about it.

They are losing this wonderful building for a bland NY/HK skyscraper. What were they thinking.
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h126/wildheart99/100_0452_.jpg


http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/103108/inews103108_04.html

It’s ‘huge, bland’ and been given the green light

Hazel Blears dismisses local objections to City Road skyscraper in favour of ‘national plan’

A HUGE Manhattan-style skyscraper, which objectors claim will tower over the whole of Finsbury, was given the go-ahead by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.
The secretary of state approved the massive 39-storey glass tower and then, in a double blow to residents of City Road, Featherstone Street and Old Street, overruled a planning inspector to approve the most controversial element of the scheme – a nine-storey tower block overshadowing their homes.
Ms Blears announced the decision this week following a public inquiry at Finsbury Town Hall in July.
A letter from Ms Blears’ office reads: “The secretary of state agrees that, looked at in isolation, the proposed tower is a slender, elegant and attractive piece of architecture.”
It goes on to say: “Any slight detrimental impact, in terms of loss of sunlight and daylight to existing properties, does not outweigh the compliance with development plan and national plan policies in other respects.”
Developers LMS City Road Ltd took their case before principal planning inspector John Gray after Islington councillors threw out their plans in July last year, ruling that the building was too high, too bulky and lacking sufficient affordable social housing.
Objectors had also opposed plans to demolish the locally listed 70-74 City Road and build a nine-storey office block instead.
Now furious Bunhill ward councillor Ruth Polling – who said the listed building will be replaced with “a corporate, identikit nine-storey building” – has ordered council lawyers to scour the papers with a fine tooth comb to see if there are any grounds for appeal.
At nearly 150 metres, the tower will dwarf the London Eye, Barbican Towers and Centrepoint in Tottenham Court Road.
The main tower will have 250 flats, along with 100,000 square feet of offices, shops, bars, cafés and an underground car park – but no outdoor play space for children or balconies for residents.
Minjee Beck, who lives in Featherstone Street, said: “It’s very disappointing. The Secretary of State overturned the inspector’s findings on the nine-storey block, which make it even worse. They are building a 39-storey block in an area which is almost predominantly five and six-storey buildings.”
Cllr Polling said: “For the residents who live there it’s a nightmare. I’m absolutely horrified.
“Islington council officers and residents worked hard to make a really good case and then someone in Whitehall who has no knowledge of the local area, someone who doesn’t know the impact at all, can make a decision like this.”
She added: “This is a huge deal for Bunhill ward. It’s the biggest planning application I’ve worked on. We’re looking at huge numbers of people moving into the area. It will have an impact on the feel of the area. We’re a residential community on the fringe of the City, but we’re not part of the City.
“I’m really worried about the precedent, that it will be seen as OK to put big skyscrapers here.”
The skyscraper, backed by former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, will form part of a proposed three-building cluster around Featherstone Street and Mallow Street.
Speaking after the July inquiry, neighbour Paul Cottee said: “I don’t think a 39-storey building is appropriate for this part of the world.
“We don’t want to go down the road of having avenues of tall buildings like Shanghai, Hong Kong and Manhattan. London has its own character.”
Simon Beck, who lives in Featherstone Street, said: “The area is surprisingly village-like. This is the thin end of a large wedge of turning the area into a huge area of skyscrapers. It’s a bland, nondescript, high rise building that will become an eyesore in the coming decade.”
A spokesman for LMS’s parent company Derwent London was unavailable for comment.

You do wonder why people live in city's atall don't you? building this building WILL help the area, not make it a ghetto, it already is that! I praise Hazel's rational opinion, it's not a village it's a part of London, what are these deluded people on about?!?

The hysteria these people have over anything tall borders on insanity.

Simon Beck, who lives in Featherstone Street, said: “The area is surprisingly village-like. This is the thin end of a large wedge of turning the area into a huge area of skyscrapers. It’s a bland, nondescript, high rise building that will become an eyesore in the coming decade.”

If Old Street's a village then this guys the village idiot. There are few bigger eyesores in London than Old Street roundabout.

I just cant help but wonder what on Earth are these people doing living in one of the largest cities in the World?I mean if you want village feel London is clearly the wrong place for you.Why not move to the Cotswolds?Seriously.Noones going to propose a massive bland nondescript utterly soul destroying NY/HK skyscraper there!Its time these kind of people moved out...either to the Cotswolds or some other planet....

At nearly 150 metres, the tower will dwarf the London Eye, Barbican Towers and Centrepoint in Tottenham Court Road.



The tower is actually shorter than the London Eye, and only 7 metres taller than the Barbican Towers.

Simon Beck, who lives in Featherstone Street, said: “The area is surprisingly village-like. This is the thin end of a large wedge of turning the area into a huge area of skyscrapers. It’s a bland, nondescript, high rise building that will become an eyesore in the coming decade.”

If Old Street's a village then this guys the village idiot. There are few bigger eyesores in London than Old Street roundabout.

These people make me sick. :mad2: What does he want? when he say's it looks bland? then goes to say it will be an eyesaw? Old Street needs an injection of beauty, its so friggin ugly and embarassing, it's more third world than villagey.

i think ray davies sang it best

We are the village green preservation society
God save donald duck, vaudeville and variety
We are the desperate dan appreciation society
God save strawberry jam and all the different varieties
Preserving the old ways from being abused
Protecting the new ways for me and for you
What more can we do
We are the draught beer preservation society
God save mrs. mopp and good old mother riley
We are the custard pie appreciation consortium
God save the george cross and all those who were awarded them
We are the sherlock holmes english speaking vernacular
Help save fu manchu, moriarty and dracula
We are the office block persecution affinity
God save little shops, china cups and virginity
We are the skyscraper condemnation affiliate
God save tudor houses, antique tables and billiards
Preserving the old ways from being abused
Protecting the new ways for me and for you
What more can we do
God save the village green.

i think ray davies sang it best

I like your article in skyscrapernews, I just wish the wider general public could see how pointless the arguments are and that papers should show two sides of an argument and not just dwell on the negative.

The argument against is utter madness?!

Have they ever considered in times like this, the benefits this could have on their local economy.. the number of builders, contractors and man power that'd be on their doorstep, using their cafes, sandwich bars, which I would imagine is where a good few of these complainers earn their wages!.. The new jobs buildings this size will create in terms of maintenance, the businesses that will be given more work and having more people in the area to again use some of the local amenities?

No, all they think of is themselves.

Dwarf the eye, what has the eye got to do with it? and what an aburd comparison, not only in terms of their distance, but the fact they're saying that a new build will dwarf a new structure.. showing how they obviously having no individual building to regard as heritage in the area, well why not say St Pauls.. its a far more valid argument than the eye.

People's opinions should be their own, and shouldn't be allowed to be published in a 'this is OUR view, this is the City's view', especially when that individuals 'view' is as ill-researched as that. Also, these journalists really need to stop using 'Manhatten skyline/skyscraper' every time there is opposition.. how original :|

Here's the article from gothicform's site, made me laugh out loud :) -



http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1839


They Are The Village Green Preservation Society

Published on 31-10-2008 by James Newman

100 City Road has been approved, and as expected there are howls of disgust from the local newspaper, the Islington Tribune. It's a perfect NIMBY A-Z on how to try and smear a development without ever looking past a few narrow prejudices. It's the sort of thing that would make Ray Davies write a song, or perhaps even an entire concept album.

Newspaper claim - "At nearly 150 metres, the tower will dwarf the London Eye, Barbican Towers and Centrepoint in Tottenham Court Road."

Fact - Not only has the height has been rounded up substantially but the planned tower is 131 metres tall whereas the London Eye is 135 metres. Does a 131 metre tall building really dwarf something that is 135 metres or is this just an office block persecution affinity?

Newspaper claim - "Minjee Beck, who lives in Featherstone Street, said: "It's very disappointing. The Secretary of State overturned the inspector's findings on the nine-storey block, which make it even worse. They are building a 39-storey block in an area which is almost predominantly five and six-storey buildings.""

Fact - Just how small an area are we counting here? Does a 50 metre radius from the project sound reasonable? Well that would see 207 Old Street to the immediate north, the Lexington Apartments but one building to the immediate south, Pembroke House to the south-east and the approved Bezier Apartments adjacent to the east.

Included below is a picture of the site with the tower location marked so you can see just how much of the area is predominantly five and six-storey buildings. You will spot 207 Old Street on the other side of the road - aren't locals supposed to know the area before claiming it is something it isn't?

The newspaper - "Speaking after the July inquiry, neighbour Paul Cottee said: ""I don't think a 39-storey building is appropriate for this part of the world. We don't want to go down the road of having avenues of tall buildings like Shanghai, Hong Kong and Manhattan.""

Fact - No one is talking about copying those places. New York has 203 buildings over 150 metres tall. A 131 metre tall building would be 284th tallest completed building in New York right now. Hong Kong has 228 150 metre plus tall skyscrapers and a 131 metre tall building there would be the joint 346th tallest building.

Clearly there is no comparison between Hong Kong, New York or any other famous skyscraper city and the proposals for City Road beyond some sensationalist hyperbole. Besides, why shouldn't a 131 metre tall building not be appropriate for this part of the world?

This is not the English countryside. London is one of the biggest cities on the planet, one of the three "alpha-class" cities, and if a tall building, modest by international standards, is appropriate anywhere it is surely London.

Let's not even mention the article ending with parody as another local calls Old Street roundabout, one of London's greatest eyesores, "surprisingly village-like" and sounding like he has escaped from the Village Green Preservation Society, the skyscraper condemnation affiliate.

It's enough to make you wonder why people bother to live in the big smoke of London at all, let alone quite firmly in central London if they are so in love with this green and pleasant land.

There's plenty of places out there like the village of Sandford which would welcome them with open arms. They can love their little shops, china cups, tudor houses, antique tables and billiards... God save the village green of Old Street roundabout!



http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1839TheyAreTheVillageGreenPreservationSociety_pic1.jpg

It's got to be a village...It's got a load of village idiots!!!!!!!

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/1839TheyAreTheVillageGreenPreservationSociety_pic1.jpg

Ahhh, you just can't beat a good old, traditional English village - cricket on the green, tea and scones......dodging traffic on the 4 lane roundabout and admiring the quaint architecture of the 1970's.

Simply beautiful, makes me proud to be British.

^^ :hahaha:

This part of London reminds me of a small village of the Cotswolds I've visited last year...
these people are insane.

All the buildings on that roundabout are horrendous apart from the far superior Victorian buildings.Those residents really need to shut up and realise what they are getting is a quantum improvement to not only the public realm but will bring much needed regeneration the area.

Village..what? Royston Vasey?

welcome to islington

http://www.mahonabouttown.com/Photos/VILLAGE_PEOPLE_1.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2079/2381958027_2e1ae11dfa.jpg?v=0

please keep off the grass and have a nice day

:lol:

I've cycled round that roundabout a few times...it's about as close to a being a village as Shanghai.

The mystifying thing is that most of the side streets running off Old St roundabout aren't particularly "village-like" either. Many of the buildings are either surviving Victorian warehouses (Leonard St, Paul St etc) or post-war housing. Neither type fits the "village" look these people are talking about (unless they mean Greenwich Village - and then a tower fits just fine!).

The village terraces were levelled in the Blitz...it is mostly social housing blocks which have been sublet to City workers.

but no outdoor play space for children or balconies for residents

I'm calling the police.

The local village idiots wont be best pleased....

Islington Tribune - by ROISIN GADELRAB
Published: 07 November 2008

Tower developers reject ‘tall stories’

Firm says it has no plans to reduce building’s scale

THE developers behind a 150-metre skyscraper on Old Street have insisted they have no plans to reduce the scale of the project.
Reacting to media reports that the global financial crisis had affected the company’s proposals for a huge development overlooking Old Street roundabout, Derwent London’s head of development Simon Silver said this week: “We’ve no intention of scaling it back.”
His words will disappoint the many Bunhill residents who have been fighting the plans.
Mr Silver also said the ailing market situation would not affect the project as work will not begin for another two years due to remaining tenants having up to two years left on their leases.
He said: “We’re a reasonably robust company. If we were going ahead tomorrow it would have an effect. We’re pushing ahead on all sorts of schemes. There’s no reason why we wouldn’t. It was never our intention to go immediately on site, whether the market was bombing or not.”
Derwent London plc describes itself as the largest central London-focused real estate investment trust with an investment portfolio of £2.5billion comprising 5.7million sq ft.
However, since this time last year, the company’s shares have almost halved, from 1475p in November 2007, to 845p in November this year.
But despite this, Mr Silver says the business remains in a healthy state.
“The size volume financially is not what we’re wary of at all, it’s the market we’re operating in,” he said. “We don’t have partners, we’re a public company. All our finance is in-house so we don’t have to get finance. We’re totally independent, we won’t be reliant on third parties.
“If we’re not pushing the button for two years we’ve the necessary headroom to do this in-house.
“We plan our capital expenditure over five years so this is within budgets. Maybe by the time we get to this we might not be gung-ho. We’ve got a reasonable amount of real estate.”
Mr Silver dismissed reports in this week’s construction industry press that Derwent London will have to reduce the size of the 39-storey glass tower, which will form part of a three-building cluster on Mallow Street, Featherstone Street and City Road.
He said: “Things do get varied but we’ve no intention of scaling it back. Even if we were, we’d have to go back to the planners. I don’t know that the plans need to change, but inevitably they always do.
“The permission in its current scale is what we’re planning on taking forward. It’s difficult because so many of the schemes we win permission on end up quite varied.”
Welcoming Communities Secretary Hazel Blears’s decision last week to overrule Islington Council’s rejection of the plans, Mr Silver said: “This did originally have planning officers’ approval and support, but it didn’t get through the planning committee so we feel slightly vindicated and I think we were right.
“I know the area intimately and the key to regeneration is the Old Street roundabout and everything around it. It’s an entrance to the City, something that’s really badly needed for that part of the world. It would be a real gateway for all the areas which are sadly lacking. It’s very down in the mouth here. It needs an injection and regeneration.”
But, Mr Silver said, he would not increase the amount of affordable housing, which stands at 55 homes on site and another 12 elsewhere in the borough.
“There’s a minimum of social housing in the tower and the site, which was part of the planning permission,” he said. “Affordable housing is non-profit making for developers. It’s a social tax in a way.
“Sometimes if you’re asked for too much the scheme becomes unviable, but here everyone’s happy.”
The main tower will have 250 flats, plus 100,000 sq ft of offices, shops, bars, cafés and an underground car park.
Residents objected to the height of the tower and the loss of a locally listed building overlooking Featherstone Street. Islington Council is looking for ways to appeal the decision.

i wonder if they could actually sue the newspaper for defamation. the tower is not 150m tall, the newspaper is criticising the developer for the height of the tower which is incorrect.

Having worked in the closest neighbourhood office (central street) to this development I'm pretty sure the majority of residents wouldn't refer to their patch as being villagey - infact I'm sure a few few would love to get as far away as possible - perhaps even to a real village in the Cotswolds.

But I do have to say the area does have a unique feel to it which I really like - but I'm at a loss how it would be spoilt by this tower.

They probably think its too shiny and new to fit into the grotty urban dump it is now. I have to say I like the area's around old street, they do have alot of charm but towers will only add to the mixed up characture of the area not make it worse.

cool

cool

Are you some kind of idiot that you need to post "cool" in every thread

A week in the Brig ought to sort him out.

In fact, he isn't the only person who's been doing this sort of thing lately. I wish forumers would post more productive stuff on here.

Damn you Hazel - Do you know what damage you have done by allowing a crap 60's office block next to a crap roundabout to be replaced by a Manhattan skyscraper. Damn you.........


http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/120508/inews120508_07.html

Skyscraper a ‘really bad decision’

LEISURE chief Ruth Polling has called on the Town Hall to write a joint letter to communities secretary Hazel Blears in disgust at her decision to allow a 39-storey skyscraper to be built in Old Street.
Councillor Polling, who represents Bunhill ward, submitted a motion to last night’s (Thursday’s) full council meeting asking the council to write to Ms Blears “to express our disgust at her ignoring local residents in making her decision”.
Cllr Polling’s wrath comes after Ms Blears overruled Islington’s own planning committee last month to give the go-ahead to a huge Manhattan-style skyscraper overlooking City Road, Featherstone Street and Old Street.
Cllr Polling said this week: “The point is to have a formal record of the council’s upset. We also want to put on record our belief that local planning applications are best done at local level.”
She added: “What frustrates me the most is that I’m sure Hazel Blears just saw it as the City but it’s not the City.
“I feel a really bad decision has been made by someone who doesn’t understand the local area. I want her to understand how much damage she has done to the community.”

errr yes it is the city??? what on earth are these people on???

errr yes it is the city??? what on earth are these people on???

Dont ruin their fantasy! they think they live in a tiny picturesque Hamlet far away from Goliath.

I generally find the people who call these towers 'Manhatten-style skyscrapers' have never even been to Manhatten.

Ah yes but they have probably been to Dubai - in which case they know through their powers of duction that these must be more like Manhatten skyscrapers.

As it is a widely known fact that these are the only two places on earth that have such things...or something :nuts:

Lower Manhattan skyscrapers (ie the Woolworth Building) wouldn't look to awful around London, it's things like the Citicorp Building that just look ugly and are protested against. Either way, London's a city and these people need to get over it.

I worked in the current 100 city road for a while, and I'd have much rather worked in the proposed design. Surely people working in the area should be allowed nicer working environments? I really think this is the most bizar case of Nimbyism I've ever seen.

CABE Design Review (http://www.cabe.org.uk/design-review/100-city-road)
100 City Road
Islington

Office-led mixed-use scheme including a 17-storey office building, together with residential and retail uses on Old Street roundabout in London. Designed by Allford Hall Monaghan Morris.

4 November 2010
Planning reference: P101833

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2715NewPlansFor100CityRoadRevealed_pic1.jpg

Summary
The design team’s research into creative working environments is compelling, and we commend the client’s support for it. In general, we support the scheme and think it promises to be stronger than the previously approved scheme. However, there are a number of challenges in the site planning, form and massing, and architectural expression that need to be resolved before planning permission is granted.

Site planning
We think there are two aspects to the site planning which would benefit from further consideration. Firstly, whilst we support the principle of locating the tower on the northern half of the site alongside the roundabout, creating distance between it and the conservation area, it does not present a positive edge to this frontage. Such busy junctions are always well populated, particularly where buildings fronting them support the urban quality of these spaces with active frontages and an enhanced pedestrian realm. In our view, the building proposed does not offer enough to Old Street Roundabout. The narrow pavements here, combined with the effects of the extensive frontage of the tower which will cast shadow right across Old Street for much of the day, means that the quality of this space for pedestrians will be low. In seeking to present a more open face to the roundabout and create a more positive urban gesture, we think the ground floor of the tower could open up to reveal more of the activity in the courtyard beyond.

http://www.cabe.org.uk/files/imagecache/Large/webimages/100-city-road.jpg

Secondly, we support the east/west route through the development, complemented by a new central courtyard framed by the refurbished buildings on the southern half of the site. However, the proposal does not yet satisfactorily marry the world of the corporate city office development with the more informal life of a city fringe workspace quarter characterised by Mallow Street and Featherstone Street. This can be seen in the awkward juxtaposition of the servicing yard on Mallow Street with the new pedestrian route through the site. The daily movements of delivery lorries will not only fundamentally change the character of Mallow Street, but also require pedestrians to use an indirect and stepped route under an inactive colonnade and around a private lightwell to avoid them. Given that the public realm strategy is predicated on pedestrians choosing this route over the pavement on the frontage on the roundabout we would question whether it would succeed in this aim. The challenges associated with servicing a development of this nature are acknowledged, but we think a more comfortable solution could be achieved. The design team should be sure that the new route and courtyard space proposed will support the life of the quarter, acting as a fulcrum around which the life of the corporate office development and finer grain offices will converge. As proposed, it appears to emphasise an uncomfortable distinction between these two worlds.

Form, massing and expression
Whilst the tall building has a quality that evokes the office buildings of 1960s Milan, it comes across as relentless and domineering in the views presented, particularly from the conservation area on Featherstone Street and also from the north on the Old Street Roundabout. The incision in the building’s north elevation, which exposes the bland stair core to the roundabout, is an unconvincing gesture at the moment that detracts from, rather than relieves, the breadth of this principal frontage. This device could, however, be used more consistently to define the planes of the elevation, rather than the undifferentiated wrap of the façade currently illustrated. The massing of the built form and its articulation need to work harder to resolve the bulk of the building.

The programming of the façades to respond to orientation, air and acoustic quality, and the specific functions of the building shows a level of sophistication that is to be commended. However, in our view, it will be hard to appreciate these subtle variances across the façades from a distance, as illustrated in the views presented. A more knowing response to aspect and orientation will be required in order to overcome the relentless feel of such expansive elevations. By introducing more pronounced variation across the façades, and more fully reflecting the texture, colour, and depth exhibited by the neighbouring buildings of the conservation area along Featherstone Street, we think the scheme can improve to address this challenge.

Sustainability
The thought given to the long-term flexibility of the tower is to be commended. The combination of generous floor-to-ceiling heights, smart servicing, flexible floor plans, and passive façade design should widen the building’s appeal to a range of occupiers. However, the design team should assure itself that user demand for cellular office spaces will not undermine these laudable aims.

Well it's good to know Islington have their eye on the ball, and know what they are doing since their previous intervention into cancelling the Squire & Partners slim residential tower...

George Allan, a Lib-Dem councillor and the committee chairman, said: "Ken Livingstone must be furious. He wants us to build high rise developments everywhere to reach his excessive housing targets for Islington. We are going to stand up for Islington's environment and character.

Good on ya george- mustn't destroy the 19070/80's office & desolate roundabout character of the area & the lovely environment of a roundabout that resembles slough on a good day.

Bunhill ward councillor Ruth Polling (Lib-Dem) added: "Now the developers can start from scratch to build a development that is more in keeping with Bunhill and what the community wants."

Go tell em Ruth- lets have another 10 storey office block then as you have scared any ambition the developers had & will now put through a safe office block that wont let you score cheap political shots in your little bun fight with Ken. It will do nothing for the local area, but hey at least it wont be tall, right.

Gotta love local councillors.

lol i was just about to quote exactly the same post!

Whilst the tall building has a quality that evokes the office buildings of 1960s Milan

Quite a diplomatic way of saying 'dated'.

Yes, so much for Islingtons plans for the Old St roundabout being a gateway to the borough for 2012.
More of the same dirge just updated for 2010.

Londoners really need to get to grips with understanding the positives that can be harnessed from tall massing particularly with regard to aesthetics. The current neothandral ideology of the blind leading the blind coupled with a negative planning system is not serving us with consistent good results; not good enough for such a bureaucratic and costly system.

Quite a diplomatic way of saying 'dated'.

The 60's Milan reference - seemed random - I found the Pirelli tower but that's been refurbished...although not sure if it had been externally. Perhaps they wanted to say 60's Birmingham - but thought it was a bit unfair...Sorry Brum...:)

It's a pity because this slab of a building doesn't make the most of it's situation on the roundabout. It just looks very uninspiring much like 1 Oxford street. The brick like warehouse building to the rear looks much more of the area, but hides behind this lumpen 60's low rise.

no matter where you view it from this is a slab - pure and simple. it's not pretty and i hope the NIMBYs are happy with what they have done. they have killed a slim tower that has been replaced by a glass wall and it simply overpowers old street roundabout and makes it worse than it was before.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/6474100CityRoad_pic1.jpg

the only redeeming feature is that it replaces a monstrosity with another...great another 50 years of sub standard architecture on the roundabout, what made them think this looked good is beyond me.

no matter where you view it from this is a slab - pure and simple. it's not pretty and i hope the NIMBYs are happy with what they have done. they have killed a slim tower that has been replaced by a glass wall and it simply overpowers old street roundabout and makes it worse than it was before.




Its not really down to the NIMBY's though. The resi tower had planning permission yet Derwent London ( probably the least ambitious developers in London at the moment) have decided to scrap it for there new open office factory concept.

You would have thought a resi tower on the edge of the city and Shoreditch/Hoxton would have had buyers queuing up but it would seem Derwent think tehy can make more money with this turd.

They will be even more popular soon as they attempt to get the old Turnmills building in Farringdon demolished again, despite losing a PI last time in their attempts to replace it.

I don't think it's hard to design a low rise building at all .The problem lies with the architect and ultimately the developer. The architects AHMM are obviously fixated with a modernist agenda stuck in a 1960's time warp, and the developer thinks its 'modern' for future business use which I'm sure it is, but look at the result!
Maybe there should be a thread on SSC for bad planning application's in Central London and expose them for the poor effort they have made to the urban environment. Obviously it will be very subjective.

From todays AJ

Allford Hall Monaghan Morris (AHMM) has won planning for this 26,800m² redevelopment at City Road Estate next to Old Street roundabout, London

Here's the dull scheme on their website.
http://www.ahmm.co.uk/projectDetails/90/City-Road

disappointing. Thanks EH for another fine mess!

Oh well that's petty borough local politics for you....

This is one of those that I suspect (or rather, hope) will look better in real life than it does in renderings.

I wish somebody would redevelop the site on the opposite side of the roundabout to this, which currently hosts a really shabby row of Victorian shops. The pavement here is way too narrow and frequently piled high with bags of rubbish. I would propose something tall and slim on a small, narrow footprint, set back further from the road than the Victorian buildings (I believe there are small yards to the rear of the shops that could be built upon).

Still looks awful after the redesign...the mews look good though. The real problem lies in the roundabout ,still there looking like a squalid third world country. If the Government are serious about this area becoming a 'silicon roundabout' how about making the environment acceptable first? Is it really that expensive to extensively refurbish this area so to make the area look more inviting.

The 'redesign' (to say the least) is A TRO CIOUS...The tower was slender & really lovely. Those bloody nimbies really are hateful.

This just reminds me of that 70s or 60s office block in Elephant and Castle

Still looks awful after the redesign...the mews look good though. The real problem lies in the roundabout ,still there looking like a squalid third world country. If the Government are serious about this area becoming a 'silicon roundabout' how about making the environment acceptable first? Is it really that expensive to extensively refurbish this area so to make the area look more inviting.

Completely agree. There have been some proposals for the roundabout knocking about for years (PDF here (http://www.islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/Environment/Pdf/ldf_pack/AAP_evidence_base/BCE12_Old_St_Roundabout_Development_Strategy.pdf)) but nothing ever seems to happen...

This just reminds me of that 70s or 60s office block in Elephant and Castle

Makes me think of Hannibal House to.

AHMM are conspiring to bring back crappy, shoddy 60s/70s British architecture. Every single one of their designs appears to be inspired by post-war, rush-built-on-a-budget crap.

They're terrible architects, full stop. Not a single decent design has come from these guys, you only have to look at the academy built by the Athlete's Village to realise their ambitions.

Am I mistaken, or are they also designing the Tottenham Court Road Crossrail station that everyone hates? I find it unbelievable that anyone would choose this practice over any other. There may be budget restraints but come on, this is suposed to be an innovative new tech development area for London, not some 60s throwback to be demolished in 30 years time.

Still looks awful after the redesign...the mews look good though. The real problem lies in the roundabout ,still there looking like a squalid third world country. If the Government are serious about this area becoming a 'silicon roundabout' how about making the environment acceptable first? Is it really that expensive to extensively refurbish this area so to make the area look more inviting.

there was word years ago that TFL investigated proposals to return it to a crossroads, I gather it was deemed too expensive as they recently improved the pedestrian environment and created a foot bridge over the subway ramp by carving away some of the road space on the West side.

The roundabout is such a waste of valuable urban space, sure there are shops underground but on the surface or equal size is an island of no use what so ever.

Sadly I cant see the financial impetus to really change this place as it would presumably require expensive remodelling of the underground station.

there was word years ago that TFL investigated proposals to return it to a crossroads, I gather it was deemed too expensive as they recently improved the pedestrian environment and created a foot bridge over the subway ramp by carving away some of the road space on the West side.

The roundabout is such a waste of valuable urban space, sure there are shops underground but on the surface or equal size is an island of no use what so ever.

Sadly I cant see the financial impetus to really change this place as it would presumably require expensive remodelling of the underground station.

The cost of the realignment of the roads and pedestrianization of certain area's plus remodeling of the entrance area's to the tube station is small compared to the investment that would ensue if something was done. I would say the conservatives are expecting this cost to paid by developers but sometimes the government or local council have to bite the bullet and invest to bring future growth. It's just the typical bureaucratic argument over private and public infrastructure funding.

AHMM are conspiring to bring back crappy, shoddy 60s/70s British architecture. Every single one of their designs appears to be inspired by post-war, rush-built-on-a-budget crap.

They're terrible architects, full stop. Not a single decent design has come from these guys, you only have to look at the academy built by the Athlete's Village to realise their ambitions.

Am I mistaken, or are they also designing the Tottenham Court Road Crossrail station that everyone hates? I find it unbelievable that anyone would choose this practice over any other. There may be budget restraints but come on, this is suposed to be an innovative new tech development area for London, not some 60s throwback to be demolished in 30 years time.

I think they are rather poor architects too good at interior spaces but their buildings seem to lack any real contextual quality. A developers dream really because they build basic structures to house glossy offices within.

no matter where you view it from this is a slab - pure and simple. it's not pretty and i hope the NIMBYs are happy with what they have done. they have killed a slim tower that has been replaced by a glass wall and it simply overpowers old street roundabout and makes it worse than it was before.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/6474100CityRoad_pic1.jpg

Its hard to believe that this is a design of today - it is so E&C or East Croydon that one has to rub one's eyes with shock. It is even sadder to know that there was a really nice design proposed, which may have been tall but was elegant and possessed that Vitruvian quality entitled "delight". Now all the positive work to remould the Old Street roundabout and its surrounds is being destroyed by this ugly lump of an office building that just reminds the general public of the worst aspects of modernism.

Anyone know what building this is supposed to be? Considering that Derwent are planning to kick start construction, this must have already been approved? The article doesn't give any more details. If there is an existing thread for this then mods feel free to move this.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/uk-derwentlondon-outlook-idUKBRE91R0EF20130228

Derwent to build new London block with no pre-lets

Thu Feb 28, 2013

British landlord Derwent London is to start work on a new office site close to London's so-called 'Silicon Roundabout' tech hub, encouraged by appetite for space from expanding technology firms.

The 17-storey, 289,000 square feet complex will house 2,500 workers and be worth 200 million pounds ($303 million) when completed in 2016, said John Burns, chief executive of Derwent whose tenants include Expedia and Publicis.

The decision to start work without a tenant was driven by demand Derwent has been seeing from technology companies for space in the east London belt from Whitechapel to Kings Cross, where Google is developing its new headquarters.

"The area around Silicon Roundabout, Tech City, is doing really well ... you have now got a lot of serious companies looking in that area," Burns said. "There has been considerable success and we think that it is time to build this."

The expanding technology sector and government moves to market the east London area as a home for start-ups has helped Derwent which posted an 11 percent increase in full-year EPRA net asset value - a key industry measure of performance - and said it expected rents to rise 4-6 percent in 2013.

Its move contrasts with other London developers, many of whom are choosing to build only after securing a pre-let agreement because of the gloomy economic outlook and difficult bank lettings market.

Technology and telecom companies rented more new office space in Europe than banking and finance firms for the first time in the first half of last year, property consultancy CBRE Group said in November.

A planned skyscraper at 100 Bishopsgate in London's City financial district is still searching for its first letting to trigger construction and the nearby Pinnacle skyscraper has stalled as a stump in the ground after failing to sign a major tenant amid a legal row between the developer and builder.

The Shard, the European Union's tallest skyscraper which opened to great fanfare in the British capital in July, has yet to sign an office tenant.

Shares in Derwent, which also said it was starting its largest redevelopment project of advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi's headquarters in the West End, were up 1.9 percent to 2,170 pence at 0955 GMT.

Its the slab proposed for old st roundabout- there is a thread for it somewhere.

That bulky, boring box that replaced the 130m resi tower?

it's huge news though because it's the first scheme of this size built speculatively in london for some time.

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/public/img-cache/270x180_1318408813_derwent.jpg

http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/derwents-105m-old-street-scheme-clears-planners

So it's replacing this lump of crap?

http://www.derwentlondon.com/images/sized/assets/uploads/properties/City_Rd_82-100_Transworld_House/CR82_N21_medium_536_500_60_c1.jpg

Bigger render of new building:

http://www.islingtontribune.com/sites/all/files/nj_islington/imagecache/main_img/images/news/inews101411_14.jpg

it's huge news though because it's the first scheme of this size built speculatively in london for some time.

Not really there's a number of big spec builds in the west end and in they City of similar , if not bigger size.

such as?

Render looks crap but that doesn't mean the end result will be.

i think we can all be fairly sure it won't look amazing. it's derwent!

I cant say its much of an improvement :(

As bland as it is I think it's a huge improvement. The current building is particularly dire at street level.

the previous proposal was far superior but it ruined the old street village (sic) atmosphere (thank the Islington lib dem MP for that one) and EH got the height reduced and the amount of affordable units reduced because it appeared in views behind the Royal Artillery Barracks from a piece of land that is inaccessible to the public.

But yes there is boarding going up around the Western side of the existing building as we speak,

Replacing modernist garbage with a new generation of modernist garbage... :|

Yep and us philistines won't stop until the whole of London is under our straight lined glass and steel boxy pedestrianised latte drinking open plan Victoriana-free utopia.

Trouble is we can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not.

huh, it is a hell of an improvement. Yeah the new building is not as eye catching as the girkin, shard, etc, but it is inoffensive, modern, and fresh. There is nothing wrong with it.

Just look at what is there now! A very bland, lifeless black box, a bloody nasty looking pale slab at the lower level and yet another lifeless building to the left. They are all going!

This is bloody great news!! All of these types of buildings need to be removed from London.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/uk-derwentlondon-outlook-idUKBRE91R0EF20130228

Relevant...
http://www.derwentlondon.com/properties/city-road-estate
http://www.derwentlondon.com/assets/uploads/pdf/120408_White_Collar_Factory.pdf


As someone who lives in the very near, I will be eagerly awaiting this one. With plans for the roundabout itself and 207 City road on the NW corner underway(http://helical.co.uk/property-portfolio/o/207-old-street-london.aspx) in a few years the area will finally live up to it's potential.

There are two threads for this same building (100 City Road). It looks pretty innocuous to me but difficult to tell from such a poor render. Dozens of other nondescript buildings in London similar to this and not even worthy of discussion.

Thanks for the update, djs1!

I wasn't enamoured with 100 City Road at first, but I like the look of the overall scheme, and seeing the interior is making the new building grow on me.

Intriguing news about the NW corner... I just hope that they don't knock down Shoreditch Grind!

I've been watching this for the past couple of months as a lot of steel work has been going up in the middle of the existing cluster of buildings. Then just recently, the building closest to the petrol station had some hoarding put up around it - only to then have it removed again revealing a shiny new paint job! So, no demolition going on, just a random hidden steel structure and renovations to the existing building. Make of it what you will...

Not as impressive as it could have been. Such a huge shame.

Looking at those docs it would appear that the design has changed. Still naff but a marginal improvement:

Before
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/6474100CityRoad_pic1.jpg

After
http://www.derwentlondon.com/images/sized/assets/uploads/properties/City_Road_Estate/ZZZ078_N20_medium_373_488.jpg

This sort of building would look good mirrored to create a bit of symmetry around here but alone its incredibly awkward and clumsy massing.

Hmmmm.... really don't know what's going on. Just had a wander around the area and had a closer look at the hidden steel structure that i mentioned they were building - it looks like they've built a space pod on stilts!

From the roundabout you can just make out the scaffolding poking out the top:

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/100%20City%20Road/Photo09-03-2013132209.jpg

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/100%20City%20Road/Photo09-03-2013132401.jpg

This is the building that they're renovating, they've painted all the lower sections black and there's lots of activity inside tidying it up.

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/100%20City%20Road/Photo09-03-2013132905.jpg

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/100%20City%20Road/Photo09-03-2013132903.jpg

Down the side street you have the entrance to the elevated pod.... what is it??

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/100%20City%20Road/Photo09-03-2013132642.jpg

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/100%20City%20Road/Photo09-03-2013132713.jpg

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/100%20City%20Road/Photo09-03-2013132723.jpg

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/100%20City%20Road/Photo09-03-2013132747.jpg

It's the marketing suite for prospective tenants.

ah ok, that makes sense, thought it looked a bit too flash for a site office. To me though, it did appear to be in the way of where the tower is supposed to be. Glad to see things are progressing, hope to see some full on demolition soon

Here's the other thread: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=361792&page=19

If it relates more effectively to the street than the existing horror, then that will be a big step forward. For most users (ie the general public), the streetscape, access, facilities etc matter much more than whether this is a world-shaking piece of architecture. One of the biggest failings of so much 60s-70s architecture was to ignore the street level, and alienate the public.

White Collar Factory marketing suite looking almost ready for visitors...

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/Photo30-03-2013170709.jpg

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/Photo30-03-2013170627.jpg

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/Photo30-03-2013170639.jpg

http://i594.photobucket.com/albums/tt28/clubbernut/100%20City%20Road/2013-04-10184132.jpg (http://s594.photobucket.com/user/clubbernut/media/100%20City%20Road/2013-04-10184132.jpg.html)

Shoreditch meets City as beach ball comes to rest on Silicon Roundabout
Evening Standard (http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/property-shoreditch-meets-city-as-beach-ball-comes-to-rest-on-silicon-roundabout-8590102.html)
26 April 2013
A giant beach ball has been tethered to the roof of an empty building on Old Street roundabout.

The 10-metre diameter sphere marks the spot of a £200 million development by Derwent London. They say a planned 15-storey tower will save 180 giant beach balls full of CO2 each year compared with a conventional block.

Nice gimmick. But what’s nicer is the 228,000-square-foot “white-collar factory” is designed by architects AHMM to attract big Tech-centric tenants happy to pay between £40 and £50 per square foot for high-ceilinged space.

The feel on Wednesday during a tour with Derwent’s development director Simon Silver was Shoreditch-meets-City.

[continued in link]

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9661/100cityrd.jpg

Looks like the whole place might get spruced up a bit. If we're lucky, that is.
Foster & Partners submits City Road towers plan
Practice is third in three years to work on site

Foster & Partners has submitted plans for a site on City Road in Islington previously worked on by two other practices.

BUJ Architects won planning for previous owner Land Securitites in 2010 before the 1.9ha triangular site was bought by a consortium including Berkeley Homes who hired DSDHA.

Deborah Saunt and David Hills’ practice was later dropped - reportedly because it did not provide Berkeley’s required densities - and Foster & Partners brought in.

Foster’s scheme proposes four blocks of seven to nine storeys and two towers of 36 and 42 storeys rising to a high point of 155m.

The existing 1980s business park would be replaced by nearly 1,000 residential units, office and affordable workspace, a data centre, hotel, creche and retail space.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/g/k/r/Foster_Partners_City_Road_london1WE_230.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/pictures/741x405/0/5/5/1760055_Foster_Partners_City_Road_london_Courtyard-WEB.jpg

I for one would be sad to see the business park go. Business parks brings jobs to the city. Who will want to buy a home in London once all the jobs have disappeared?

Indeed, city road is a bit of a hot spot at the moment! And whilst I agree that the business park is good for jobs, the buildings have been half empty for ages and its location next to the basin is a waste. This new development puts the space to much better use and it's incorporation of retail and offices will ensure that there's still plenty of jobs whilst looking MUCH better :)

For those who don't know, the site is 250 city road (city forum). Here's the link with the full planning application: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=834722&page=2

Good images by the way vnofd5! You should post them on the link above :)