I know this was talked about in the 201 Bishopsgate thread but thought I'd post it in its own thread


This from Hammersons website (there recent accounts)

Hammerson has paid £4.1 million to Hackney Council for an option for three years to acquire the Northgate land, which currently has planning consent for 71,500 m² (770,000 ft²) of office space. Further amounts will be payable to Hackney Council on exercise of the option and on the granting of planning and the development and leasing phases of the scheme.

Hammerson has also entered into a contract with Lehman Brothers to terminate the latter’s current option arrangement over the Northgate site with Hackney Council.

Hammerson’s revised proposals for the enlarged Northgate scheme, which will include the group’s adjoining Norton Folgate site, are for a mixed-use development of 79,000 m² (850,000 ft²), incorporating around 43,000 m² (463,000 ft²) of office accommodation, residential units, a hotel and public spaces. Hammerson is currently progressing the scheme proposals in consultation with Hackney Council, with a view to submitting a planning application at the end of 2005.

Hammerson acquired the Norton Folgate site, which currently has planning consent for an 18,600 m² (200,000 ft²) office scheme, as part of its acquisition of the Railtrack portfolio in 2002. In addition to Norton Folgate, the group has two further potential office and mixed-use schemes in the area at Bishopsgate Goodsyard and on Shoreditch High Street.


I also came across a pic in there lastest financial reports- Looks like this is now 90,000 sqm half offices & the rest apartments & htoels- Theres even a pic on pg 37 although its not too clear.

The report also mentions they will be submitting a planning app in the next few months.

http://www.hammerson.co.uk/presentations.jsp?pdf=20060227_presentation&title=2005%20Preliminary%20results

http://i2.************/t03xmq.jpg

I just croped & edited the brightness but its still not much better so we cant really judge it untill we see some better pics- Look as tall as 201 broadgate though.

http://i2.************/t0411i.jpg

That's going to be in one hell of a tight relationship with Broadgate Tower. Looks to me like it's been overdeveloped, so to speak.

I don't think we can tell much till we get a better render, but from that it looks OK, seems to have some grass on the smaller roof?

Excited I opened this topic, just to find THAT image... sorry, _Thumbnail_ :D

Looks like this is now 90,000 sqm half offices & the rest apartments & hotels
Blimey, that's huge. Nearly a million square feet.

Excited I opened this topic, just to find THAT image... sorry, _Thumbnail_ :D

Get yourself a magnifying glass then ;)

Bit of none to encouraging news on building.co.uk- Seems this might not be as tall as first thought- mainly due to those f****rs at EH complaining about the height (surprise surprise)

Hammerson to push on with £180m Bishopsgate scheme

Developer to put 100,000 m2 mixed-use City scheme in for planning, despite jitters in the speculative market

21 April, 2006

By George Hay

Developer Hammerson is to continue its £180m Northgate scheme around Bishopsgate Goods Yard in the City of London, despite signs of a market slowdown.

The developer will submit a planning application to Hackney council in the next few months for a 100,000 m2 scheme that could rise to 25 storeys.

The news comes amid reports last week that developer Minerva could shelve plans for its 50-storey skyscraper at nearby Aldgate in east London. The Minerva Tower, designed by Grimshaw, could be built as a 50,000 m2 low-rise scheme, rather than the current 100,000 m² design.

Vacancy levels for offices in the City are still thought to be in the region of 10%, making developers nervous about bringing speculative schemes to the market. The Minerva Tower would face competition from other large office developments being planned by Heron, Difa and British Land.

At Northgate, Hammerson will link two sites on which it already has planning consent - Norton Folgate, which has planning permission for a 100 m tall tower designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox, and another plot of land close to the railway line. If developed it would be one of the first large developments in the City fringe north of Liverpool Street Station.

The scheme will include offices, shops, flats and a hotel, and because of its range of uses could come to the market sooner than a dedicated office scheme.

Foster and Partners took over the scheme in April 2005 and since then it has been reworked a number of times. English Heritage is thought to have objected to the height of the scheme.
“Vacancy levels for offices in the City are thought to be in the region of 10%”

One source close to Hammerson said the start of the scheme would depend on the state of the market.

The source said: "We have the two consents and we're combining Norton Folgate with the site over the railway line. The scheme is roughly the same size as Bishops Square nearby."

The Foster team is led by partner Grant Brooker and is working with consultant Davis Langdon and engineers WSP and Hoare Lea.

Hammerson is hoping to get consent by this autumn, but it is difficult to be specific about a date to start construction because major schemes in the City are dependent on the market.

Minerva refused to comment on whether it would reduce the scope of the Minerva Tower development.

Nice depressing article.

We won't see any of these fabulous skyscrapers go up whilst groundscrapers keep appearing (or not) on the skyline. They seem to be the bane of the City.

There should be a height limit saying that no building can be between 30 and 150 meters high :lol:

Presumably EH would want all buildings to be 20m in that case ;)

The thing thats bugs me is EH gets all rabid about height & we get left with stumpy inelegant mid-rises which instead of soaring towers with a bit of grace. As a result we get an inelegant skyline not soaring or lowrise but a middle ground fudge that does nothing for anybody.

It would seem EH dont care what a building looks like so long as its not tall. Dont they release a small stumpy half hearted compromise does nothing for the local enviroment & just means we end up with maxium density groundscrapers that do far more damage to the local area at street level.

It would seem EH dont care what a building looks like so long as its not tall. Dont they release a small stumpy half hearted compromise does nothing for the local enviroment & just means we end up with maxium density groundscrapers that do far more damage to the local area at street level.

I couldn't agree more. Developers aren't going to curtail the amount of office space they want per a plot ratio, which EH seems to want happen, but will simply when they can't get the height squish the building down and produce a heavy stumpy block which soaks up open space.

However, we can't have unlimited towers popping up everywhere with large amounts of open space beneath which is un-used due to being too windswept ala Canary Wharf.

We need a direct balance and I think (I hope) the City is on the pulse with this one.

I couldn't agree more. Developers aren't going to curtail the amount of office space they want per a plot ratio, which EH seems to want happen, but will simply when they can't get the height squish the building down and produce a heavy stumpy block which soaks up open space.

However, we can't have unlimited towers popping up everywhere with large amounts of open space beneath which is un-used due to being too windswept ala Canary Wharf.

We need a direct balance and I think (I hope) the City is on the pulse with this one.

I think the city & both architects & developers of DIFA & 122LH have al designed the scheme in relation to each other & I think we should see some interesting ground space. With regard Heron, they & the corp of London will see the road around it pedestrianinesed & should be a pleasant ground/city scape to compliment their Heron plaza scheme.

EH dont seem to care what the alternative is & dont seem to offer any sugestions instead they just say - we can see the top from one of our parks,churches etc- go back & make it shorter & screw the city scape at st level of whatevers proposed. Same with Westminster -any proposed of a decent slender heigh they throw back & then give planning to the stumper more dense alternative & seem smug in the knowledge that they have skain the skyscraper & bugger the consequences at ground level ( & there beloved skyline as what were left with is a massive stumpy mid-rise which can still be seen on the skyline)

Apoligy's to those expecting more news on this proposed tower (its been well overdue ) but I found this article which I first read a while back but lost. It shows how this area of the city should be pretty well redeveloped in the comming years & hopefully 201 Bishopsgate wont be the only tower.

Heres a pic of Hammersons holdings in the area, including Northgate & the 80's rec brick building directly opposite to 201 BG. This area could potentialy be a dramatic entrance into the city of London.

It also mentions Bishopsgate goodsyard having up to 7million sq ft of development which is a helluva lot- Thats bound to equate to a few high rise office or resi towers.

Anyway Hammersons holdings in the area (practically surrounds 201 BG) & an old news story on it.

I just hope that it doesn't encroah further on shoreditch & destroy more victorian & georgian buildings though. I know northgate & bishopsgaate are empty plots & the one oppo 201bg is 80's architecture but im not to sure what else comprises the plot.

http://i7.************/21mdahg.gif


Developer teams up with City to develop huge mixed scheme


17.12.2004

By Tim Danaher

Hammerson is set to consolidate its control of the north-eastern fringe of the City of London by developing a vast site in Spitalfields.

The quoted developer is working with the Corporation of London to draw up plans for the 5 acre (2 ha) site, which sits between Hammerson’s developments at Spitalfields and Bishopsgate Goodsyard.

City sources say the site could easily accommodate several million square feet of development. Hammerson already owns part of the site – the air rights over the railway lines into Liverpool Street, which would form part of the scheme.

The scheme will be one of the biggest to come forward in the next development cycle, and could form a key outlet for the next upturn in the City’s fortunes.

Although its lies within the boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Hackney, the Corporation has been acquiring the land over the last three years as part of its bid to provide sites on the City fringe capable of accommodating large buildings.

‘We are in close discussions with Hammerson,’ said deputy City surveyor Peter Bennett. ‘Although this is a long-term scheme, we are aiming to start discussing our ideas with the local authorities as soon as possible.’ No formal joint venture has yet been agreed but Bennett said Hammerson would be taking the scheme forward.

The site – known as the Nicholls & Clarke site after a builders merchant which partly occupies it – is a triangle with Shoreditch High Street and Norton Folgate to the west, Folgate Street to the south and Commercial Street to the east.

While the scheme would include a large office element, other uses are likely to be incorporated. The Corporation knows it has to be be sensitive to be the the local community to avoid the planning battles which dogged the Spitalfields market redevelopment.

Hammerson, which declined to comment, is the most bullish of the developers active in the City, particularly on the eastern fringe. It has developed new buildings for ABN Amro and the Royal Bank of Scotland, at 250 and 280 Bishopsgate, and next year it will complete 1 Bishops Square, Allen & Overy’s new base, on the site of Spitalfields market.

But these schemes are dwarfed by its future development pipeline. Up to 7m sq ft (650,315 sq m) is proposed for Bishopsgate Goodsyard while the company is also poised to buy Lehman Brothers’ option over the Northgate site, opposite the Nicholls & Clarke site.

Sorry to bring this thread back to the top, but i noticed something on the render:::

The render shows the broadgate tower/201 bishopsgate in the wrong location, they should be on the brown patch directly beneath it in the pic, also rotated 90 degree clockwise.

Why is this relevant??? it's not really, it does mean however that the relationship between Folgate and broadgate tower will not seem so over-developed though, and will strech the cluster further north away from the main city cluster.

http://i2.************/t03xmq.jpg

There is also the possibilty that what i'm percieving as the broadgate tower/201 bg is actually the new tower (folgate...) in which case the towers would be right besides one another.

Hard to tell with the small render.

The Broadgate tower will be right in front of Norton Folgate tower

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/7246/t03xmqph0.jpg

Well in that case there appears to be two towers in that render???

could be or it might just be one tower steeped back .

If you look at the 201 Bishgate webcam you can see the derelict land to the north which Hammerson own & are drawing up plans for a mixed use scheme. So there will potentially be 2 towers along this strecth of Bishopsgate, 201 & the norton folgate one.

The Broadgate tower will be right in front of Norton Folgate tower

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/7246/t03xmqph0.jpg

okay, I see. The Hammerson site, and the site of the tower and the low rise development on this little image is currently the home of the indoor football sheds, and the across to Shoreditch High Street, the home of the rather funky 'Light' Bar, north of Worship Street. Rather interestingly, the website has an appeal for online support against some 'developers' who are threatening the lease and want to demolish the building. Now that all makes sense.

The Light Bar (http://www.thelighte1.com/)

What do we want, retention of the old warehouse conversion and a fine city drinking den, or a high rise hotel / residential / commercial development to add to the London skyline. Its a toughie, dilemma overload!

From Pipers, Broadgate and Hammerson Norton Folgate:

http://i8.************/259iqdz.jpg

http://i7.************/259iur5.jpg

http://i8.************/259iw6f.jpg

So does that mean the tower isn't 180m+? Or is it just a mock-up to show that something will be built there?

That tower design was cancelled, I'm sure of it.

Those models are really old. I thought they were planning a 50-storey tower for that site - Northgate?

Could it be to show the footprint of the tower, if you remember there was a minerva one like that.

thats cancelled norton folgate tower. you can see the site is only one of the unified current sites.

We all know that is cancelled. It is just to illustrate the location in response to previous messages ...

That model really shows how awful the low rise portion of the Broadgate Tower facing Bishopsgate really is.

But that is a just about a carbon copy of 201 Broadgate!

Found this from developing news from September

http://developingnews.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_developingnews_archive.html

"Hammerson are moving forward with Foster & Partners to develop yet more of the north side of the City, actually breaking the boundary by buying some land off cash-strapped Hackney to add to their Norton Folgate sites. They've stuck with Fosters (who designed their controversial Bishops Square development just down the road). Expect a 40 storey tower which, interestingly, will have not only offices, but a hotel and apartments on top. They've also got the Bishopsgate Goodsyard to come, to complete their monopoly over the northern City Fringe."

We can expect something huge then. :)

....about 190m?

I'm liking the idea of something residential going up just a few minutes walk from the city. No doubt when the developers decide to market this tower the residential side of things will sell out quick.
As for the office space, is it possible for a potential tenant to take up both 201 Bishopsgate & The Broadgate Tower and the Norton Folgate Tower to increase the overall net office space in an inclined area to suite their needs?

I think this is an ideal place for some mixed use buildings, allmost in Hackey but with a EC2 postcode :)

Early indication of what Ballymore are planning for the Bishopsgate goodsyard- Which should go in for planning this year.

The taller building in this pic is not far from 201BG & Norton folgate (u can see the old norton scheme to the top left of the pic).

http://i3.************/2jacly8.jpg

http://i12.************/2n7hbvl.jpg

pic of site given an indication of the size of the site

http://i10.************/400tvys.jpg

isnt bishopsgate goods yard currently having the east london line extended through it?

Yes - pretty sure the ELL is that groove through the middle with a couple of the blocks extending over it.

isnt bishopsgate goods yard currently having the east london line extended through it?


Yes - this will be built on top of it

hammerson development is to the immediate west of this on the other side of bishopsgate road isnt it?

hammerson development is to the immediate west of this on the other side of bishopsgate road isnt it?

Yes Hammersons norton folgate site is just north of 210BG & almost oppo the road from this.

The corp of London & Hammerson also have substantial land holdings in the area.

http://i14.************/2lnhmh3.gif

Earlt indication of what Ballymore are planning for the Bishopsgate goodsyard- Which should go in for planning this year.

The taller building in this pic is not far from 201BG & Norton folgate (u can see the old norton scheme to the top left of the pic).

http://i3.************/2jacly8.jpg

Great find, Andy.

Looks to be at least 150m.

Hope you don't mind, but I've split your posts from the summary thread into this new thread.

That photo indicates that the main tower will be over 200 metres.

You can see the old cylindrical/oval-like defunct Norton Folgate scheme which I think was around 20 stories and 100 metres tall. 200m is 656ft I think, so HSBC/Citigroup height. North of 650 ft is decent, IMO when scrapers get above 650-700 feet they really start to soar properly. Not too shabby.

great. Where did you find this massing model?

That photo indicates that the main tower will be over 200 metres.

You can see the old cylindrical/oval-like defunct Norton Folgate scheme which I think was around 20 stories and 100 metres tall. 200m is 656ft I think, so HSBC/Citigroup height. North of 650 ft is decent, IMO when scrapers get above 650-700 feet they really start to soar properly. Not too shabby.

That would be great (If it is designed well) but will it get through planning?

I'd say it's between 170m and 190m, there abouts anyway.

Looking forward to seeing the designs for this and for Norton Folgate this year. And that's just in this area!

Bishopsgate goodsyard dev looks pretty dense from the massing model!
The City is really pushing northward with this project!

I hope there wont be in-filling of groundscrapers from Broadgate to the goodsyard...

That photo indicates that the main tower will be over 200 metres.

Actually, I think you're right. Bearing in mind the Norton Folgate scheme was 110m, if you trace a line round from Norton Folgate to the right-hand edge of the pic... then compare it to this tower... it looks seriously big.

Also bear in mind, this would stand outside the viewing corridors of St Paul's, etc.

*renames thread*

So what can we expect in terms of new projects and approvals of the current batch this year, becasue it's all really starting to come together for 2007 and it isn't even February yet! (Personally I want to see the Vauxhall twins approved)

Yabadabadoooo! I haven't heard of any tall new proposals in ages so this is fantastic! Just hope we get some good renders soon and it gets approved with kelly on the block.
And with the height - if this tower is 200 metres or more and gets built it will mean the city will outnumber canary wharf in terms of 200 plus metre towers assuming leadenhall, bishopsgate and heron are built as well , which i think is appropriate since the city is a much more significant financial hub in the world than the wharf. The skyline is gonna be superb.
You go Ballymore! :banana:

Iit is a joint venture with Hammerson. I've read last year that small businesses and retailers are against the proposed redevelopment of the area (too big, step too far, etc). There is also tension between the demands of the Bangladeshi community, who require large affordable family units to build in this area.

I suppose that will be reason enough for Ruth to come along and blow it out of the water. Still we can have our glasses at least a quarter full can't we?

found this website: http://icube.ltd.uk/project_bishopsgate.shtml

has a few more images and a little info

Not sure this is the right place for a 200m tower; don't get me wrong, I love tall towers (that's why I'm here!) but would prefer to see those 200m proposals in the City and CW clusters go ahead and leave BGY with slightly lower development.

My God, another proposal! I had thought we were all done for now!

Lets hope the design is of good quality when the official renders are released.

And looking at that model, even those groundscrapers next to it look very interesting...hanging in the air!

Nice to see they are moving on with this. Superb location and also good transport links with the ELL and the proximity to Liverpool Street.

I would prefer the groundscraper density to be reduced with the main skyscraper to be higher. No flight paths or viewing lines here, so why not go to 300 or 400 m and combine it with some more open space? Together with the Bishopsgate Tower it would create the start for a new mini-cluster, close enough to the City cluster to provide depth to the latter when viewed from the river.

To be honest it looks like an overdeveloped mess, based on that model. The tower's height is obviously very exciting, but the surrounding elements look like they need scaling back. I don't see much public space or room to breathe - it looks like a classic case of developers trying to squeeze every inch of floorspace from the site. Of course, it's early stages and we need proper renderings, but if this model is anything to go by then it's going to be very crowded and dense.

it wont be 200m. anyone can see that that massing model is not to scale, just look at norton folgate and compare it to the height next door which was 65m.

here's another plan for it.
http://icube.ltd.uk/images/bishop_pfull1.jpg

or perhaps youd like to see a couple of twin towers planned for it. the above model im afraid means nothing by itself. stop being so bloody presumptuious about things and read the planning framework first before jumping about saying "oooh 200 metre building".

I've read last year that small businesses and retailers are against the proposed redevelopment of the area (too big, step too far, etc). There is also tension between the demands of the Bangladeshi community, who require large affordable family units to build in this area.

Good. I'm sick of the City muscling in and destroying the buzz of Shoreditch and Whitechapel. The redevelopment of Spitalfields was bad enough.

I thought the idea of proposing skyscrapers in the square mile was to prevent the City spreading outwards. This doesn't seem to be the case.

Jef- The pic was from Ballymores website.

Hammerson/Ballymore have been making plans for this area for a few years now & the designs seem to keep on changing - The tallest elements are to the west as the model shows- We will have to wait untill they actualy submit something before we have an idea of the actual height along there was a rumour of a 40storey tower. Fosters is designing most of it along with dutch masterplanners (forget the name). From what i've read before there should be an office tower to the west , closest to the city & away from the more residential areas to the east of the goodsyard but there should also be a couple of smaller resi towers. It is a huge site & I dont think they would be allowed to over develop the site as seems to the case with most sites on the isle of dogs.

However this , along with Hammersons Northgate proposals is still much unknown . Northgate could be anyything from a 30-40 storey to a massive groundscraper complex as EH have been complaining about the height so we will have to just wait & see (Northgate was supposed to have beenin planning at the end of last year). I dont mind a tall tower at northgate & on this site as they are both flattened sites however I do not want to see the city further encroahing into Shoredtich & Spitalfields as these areas with there narrow lanes & there slightly grimy victorian architeture need to be retained as there give the are its character.

Sorry for my ignorance of London, but where exactly is this going to be located...in relation to other skyscrapers I mean?? Is it around the City cluster...the South Bank? From the 'Bishopsgate' part of the skyscraper name, I would imagine it to be near the DIFA tower??

It's a bit north of the Broadgate Tower.

londonlad, thats basically what im going to write about this on skyscrapernews. first images, yes, but it could end up anything. what we can expect is a tall element on the western edge of the site fronting on to norton folgate and given broadgate tower and hammerson's own plans it is in a good place to be a tall building. its a bit of a non story really though isnt it? i dont expect anything of 200m, id say broadgate tower at the most.

That part of the city would be rong. Except for Leadenhall, bishops and heron there should be no more built in the central part. As Ken has said before-we are not New York. Three great landmark skyscrapers is fine but build any others in Canary wharf.

http://i13.************/2z4eoli.jpg

NEW LONDON

I have ammended this story by cutting out reference to Northgate & posting that in the relevant thread. I have also added some images to the post on the first page


The extra Mile

Hammerson plans to redraw the map of the Square Mile with a Lord Foster-designed scheme in Northgate.


15.09.2006

By Claer Barrett


Hammerson is also working on plans for the triangular Nicholls & Clarke site on the opposite side of Shoreditch High Street, which has lain derelict for years. In a joint venture with the Corporation of London, an office scheme is planned fronting the main road and residential development, including conversion of listed warehouses, is planned behind. It is expected to total 500,000 sq ft (46,450 sq m).

This site is bounded to the north by Commercial Street, beyond which lies one of Hammerson’s biggest London development sites – the Bishopsgate Goodsyard.

This sprawling site, capable of supporting up to 7m sq ft (650,315 sq m) of development, will host the East London Line’s proposed Bishopsgate Tube station, and – if the capital’s proposed east-west rail link is ever built – a Crossrail interchange.

Although a much longer-term project, early indications suggest office development will occupy the third of the site closest to Shoreditch High Street, while mixed use and residential will stretch along the remaining two-thirds down Bethnal Green Road towards Brick Lane.

The development will have to negotiate the Braithwaite Viaduct, which was listed following protests in 2002, and the eastern mainline running out of nearby Liverpool Street station.

Topel says the nature of development at the goodsyard is ‘tied up with the planning strategy of the London Boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets,’ whose boundaries the site bisects.

‘This area is the logical place for the City to extend,’ says Digby Flower, executive director of CB Richard Ellis, which is advising Hammerson on Northgate jointly with BH2. ‘When Broadgate was developed, it was a no-man’s land. I remember going to see Margaret Thatcher digging the first sod of earth. The first deal to Lehman Brothers was seen as pioneering stuff, but the whole axis of the City changed, running from Bishopsgate down to the Bank of England, as opposed to concentric circles around the Bank.’

‘Hammerson can take on the challenge of this major development and do so successfully,’ says Neal Scambler, partner at BH2. ‘People who think it’s a jungle up there are myopic and unable to grasp how tenants think. It’s a question of space over place.’


Roger Lister, CBRE’s executive director, hopes British Land’s decision to take the plunge on the last site in Broadgate will be ‘sufficient encouragement’ for Hammerson to follow, by developing Northgate within the current development cycle.

‘It is important that development follows sequentially,’ he says. ‘The Broadgate Tower and 201 Bishopsgate are the next pieces in the jigsaw, but this opens the path [for Northgate], which could complete by 2009 or 2010.’

Development proposed on the site opposite could follow in 2010-11, with the goodsyard after that. Allsop is advising Hackney council and DP9 is the planning adviser.

Good. I'm sick of the City muscling in and destroying the buzz of Shoreditch and Whitechapel. The redevelopment of Spitalfields was bad enough.

I thought the idea of proposing skyscrapers in the square mile was to prevent the City spreading outwards. This doesn't seem to be the case.
There is way too much romanticising of run-down parts of London, as thought they are cultural beacons that should be preserved. Much of this area is grim and unused, and as for Spitalfields, the wonderful 18thC Georgian houses that have been renovated around Fournier St, Princelet St etc owe their preservation to thoughtful, but commercially viable, redevelopment of the whole area. London is changing, and that's what is making it succesful.

There is way too much romanticising of run-down parts of London, as thought they are cultural beacons that should be preserved. Much of this area is grim and unused, and as for Spitalfields, the wonderful 18thC Georgian houses that have been renovated around Fournier St, Princelet St etc owe their preservation to thoughtful, but commercially viable, redevelopment of the whole area. London is changing, and that's what is making it succesful.

I have to correct you their: the wonderful 18th-century houses of Spitalfields owe their preservation to a handful of campaigners who occupied them and stood in front of the bulldozers when British Land, I think it was, wanted to knock them all down in the 1960s to make way for office development

I have to correct you their: the wonderful 18th-century houses of Spitalfields owe their preservation to a handful of campaigners who occupied them and stood in front of the bulldozers when British Land, I think it was, wanted to knock them all down in the 1960s to make way for office development
which today is considered shocking illegal behaviour. aggravated trespass is a criminal offence now.

which today is considered shocking illegal behaviour. aggravated trespass is a criminal offence now.

Well, the ends justified the means

That part of the city would be rong. Except for Leadenhall, bishops and heron there should be no more built in the central part. As Ken has said before-we are not New York. Three great landmark skyscrapers is fine but build any others in Canary wharf.

Eh but why? Why restrict such buildings to 2 VERY confined areas? That is crazy. It is the ground-scraper that is just as guilty and is just as likely to create problems and conflict when trying to presere an areas look or identification.

Having said that I think the Spitafields investment has led to a space that is now being successfully used so shouldnt be looked down on, however I feel that it was an ideal space to try out something more adventurous in architectural terms.

The only concern I have regarding the City and its movement outside of the historic boundaries, especially these rougher fringe areas, is that there seems to be a tendancy to allow sub par architecture. I hope that this will not always be the case.

In theory towers can exist anywhere, it is the actual design that results in something that is beautiful or not

But this heap of blocks will over shadow the area, they done it in the 60's with Guys and Holiday inn kensington. I admit that London has some well designed Skyscrapers but lets not plonk them on peoples back doors. Canary Wharf has the infrastructure. The culture should be respected :cheers:

but Canary Wharf is a tiny segment of London with a height limit. It is also unfortunately a private company interested in the office market so the prospect of it helping to solve the housing shortage is relatively small.

Im talking generally here not specifically about this development, but there is no reason why something tall could not go here, it looks like the ground scraper part that will swallow up the georgian houses here though!

http://i1.************/2wdpv9h.jpg

:cheers: :cheers:

[QUOTE=potto;11315071]but Canary Wharf is a tiny segment of London with a height limit. It is also unfortunately a private company interested in the office market so the prospect of it helping to solve the housing shortage is relatively small.

Im talking generally here not specifically about this development, but there is no reason why something tall could not go here, it looks like the ground scraper part that will swallow up the georgian houses here though![/QUOTE
Not just Canary wharf but the Docklands, Thames gateway. Then we can stil keep parts of London the way we know them best. :cheers:

Can we not fill up the thread with photos that have no relevance to the topic please?

That's a terribly conservative attitude.

Can we not fill up the thread with photos that have no relevance to the topic please?

If you read what I have been saying then there is some relevance, If I post a pic of my Gran and Grandad then yes that would be unrelevant :)

I do not believe something taller than the Broadgate Tower will ever be built over there. British Land has committed itself not to build taller than 33 floors in the Broadgate area, in the City core, where there is no height restriction and no nimbys.

This tower would fill the gap between CW and the City when viewed from here.


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/london2012/25.jpg

Take Minerva, Columbus & Heron Quays of that render and that's a pretty accurate and feasible skyline.

I have to correct you their: the wonderful 18th-century houses of Spitalfields owe their preservation to a handful of campaigners who occupied them and stood in front of the bulldozers when British Land, I think it was, wanted to knock them all down in the 1960s to make way for office development

This is hardly a correction - just because these buildings were threatened by developers in the 60's does not invalidate the point I made. It's interesting, but not a logical refutation.

This is hardly a correction - just because these buildings were threatened by developers in the 60's does not invalidate the point I made. It's interesting, but not a logical refutation.

I'm a bit lost in the semantics there

On that render, is that the full-height Bish or the revised, shorter one?

(sorry for the off-topic-ness of this post)

That's the 288m version.

I thought it was the 307m version!!! It still has so much soar

Yup, that's what I was thinking!

from that view the City will actually look better without the Minerva Tower (as long as all the other biggies are built).

and without broadgate! Oh well

Take Minerva, Columbus & Heron Quays of that render and that's a pretty accurate and feasible skyline.

i thought heron quays was still in the planning permision/approved state? or has it been dumped?

I'm a bit lost in the semantics there

He means that both comments respectively were valid and that they were not in any part mutually exclusive. Savvy?

He means that both comments respectively were valid and that they were not in any part mutually exclusive. Savvy?

Oui, je crois. Thanks for the translation!

De rien!

i thought heron quays was still in the planning permision/approved state? or has it been dumped?


Heron Quays is still an active project, but not for another 8 years!

Planning and delivery at Bishops Quarter will be phased over the next ten years.

The first project will be Bishops Place, the 2.7 acre site north of Broadgate Tower. As already explained it is a combination of Northgate and Norton Folgate Properties.

Planning application will be sumitted in 2007 for a 1 mio sq ft mixed use scheme including 650,000 sq ft of offices, a hotel and 310 high-rise residential units.

Potential start for Bishops Place is 2008+ at initial estimated development cost at £700 million. The rendering has been posted by London Lad in another thread.

This rendering also shows what Hammerson and its partners plan to build over the next ten years at Bishopsgate Goodsyard and Storeditch. Full presentation can be found on Hammerson website.

http://i19.************/4lqix55.jpg

I had not realised how tall and dense the Goodsyard development is, when compared to the Tower and 201.Particularly the two tallest towers either side of (I believe) Shoreditch High St. This could be a great cluster and a real benefit to the neighbourhood, especially since most of the plot is currently unused or comprises pretty seedy lowrises.

http://i19.************/4lqix55.jpg

:eek2:

Shoreditch will surely change beyond recognition. Better enjoy it while we can.

That means in about 10 years when when I look towards the City from the north I will only see this cluster instead of the main cluster. Interesting. :weird:

What is this? A new acceptable Berlin Wall ringing the City from its rundown neighbours? Capturing Spitalfields and slowly killing off its lifeblood?

page 35-50 are the interesting bits

http://www.hammerson.com/411

That looks like 2 200m+ towers, and the Northgate scheme looks to include 1 140m-ish tower and a 170m-180m ish tower.

The 2 tallest towers on Bishopsgate Goodsyard look quite original, so that should hopefully come to fruition.

What is this? A new acceptable Berlin Wall ringing the City from its rundown neighbours?

eh?

This area gonna turn into an overdeveloped mess.:ohno:

I've merged the Norton Folgate and Bishopsgate Goodsyard threads. Maybe the Northgate (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=431133) thread should be merged here too?
Bishops Place = Northgate, right?

Why are people against this, saying it will be to overdeveloped? From what I've seen, alot of it is waste land at the moment.

This is meant to be a skyscraper forum, and by the looks of it a rather run down are is about to be redeveloped and have some skyscrapers that could turn out to be quite iconic. What is wrong with that? It's no more than what will be going on in the city or Canary Wharf.

A few weeks ago:

Nice. But I'd like the Bishops Quarter cluster to have at least one tower that is of the iconic factor as the central City cluster.

Now:

What is this? A new acceptable Berlin Wall ringing the City from its rundown neighbours? Capturing Spitalfields and slowly killing off its lifeblood?

It looks like there could very well be some original, iconic, non-box towers in this scheme, possibly the height of Heron or even Leadenhall, so what is the problem?

It's a massing. For all we know there could be loads of shops and open space etc... incorporated into the scheme.

Bishops Place = Northgate, right?

Yep.

possibly the height of Heron or even Leadenhall, so what is the problem?
.

And thats automatically a good thing?



These skyscrapers gonna create wall effect and thats not good.

It looks to me like they are of varying heights?

Waterloo towers will create more of a wall IMO, not these ones.

And thats automatically a good thing?

As I said, it's a skyscraper forum...

It looks like there could very well be some original, iconic, non-box towers in this scheme, possibly the height of Heron or even Leadenhall, so what is the problem?


Because they are creating a wall between two different yet similar areas of London, almost akin to encircling an area.

Well, I personally disagree.

And there's no possibility that the gap between the two clusters will be filled because of St Pauls sight lines.

As I said, it's a skyscraper forum...

Architecture.;)

This is meant to be a skyscraper forum, and by the looks of it a rather run down are is about to be redeveloped and have some skyscrapers that could turn out to be quite iconic. What is wrong with that?

Because I hate the way the City and its endless office blandness is slowly encoraching into Spitalfields and Shoreditch and changing an incredibly diverse, lively and historical area into glass and steel coporate faux-Americana without trying to keep what makes the area so special in the first place.

The Broadgate Tower should have been the northern end of the City and was a landmark enough to represent this. I thought the whole point the City was now acccepting skyscrapers was because we had run out of land and didn't want to push further and further into neighbouring boroughs? It seems now this isn't the case, and want skyscrapers in the City cluster and skyscrapers protruding into low rise residential areas. There is enough dross in the central City cluster that would take decades to redevelopment and we don't need to start spreading towers outward.

Simply because I post on a skyscraper forum does not mean I support the building of skyscrapers in every portion of London. There needs to be a balance.

What percentage of these developments in residential and affordable housing? is there any open space in the scheme?

is there any open space in the scheme?

Dont think so.

Of the Bishops Place scheme, the whole tower is resi, and there is a public square right infront of it. We don't have nearly enough info on the other schemes yet though, I don't think.

You can see quite a bit of public space on here:

http://www.magix-photos.com/mediapool00/54/48/6F/30/77/16/11/DA/85/15/20/23/52/27/29/83/oma/10/EB9C9A800E2511DCAEA948B752273AB1.jpg

A concrete plaza with a couple of token green spaces is not good public space.

What would you prefer then? They just put some grass down and had a field? It's better than what some developers allow from a site.

Again, this is the best render we have got. We'll see when it goes into planning.

What I find a bit puzzling is Hammerson & the corp of London have already submitted a very large 500,000sqft scheme which isn't shown above. I'm a little confused at who owns what land now.

Both the scheme in planning & the Northgate scheme appear to be preserving some of the older buildings on the sites (with the exception of the light bar warehouse for some reason) & opening up these sites with public access & new squarea. I also don't have a probably with height on the western edge of the Bishopsgate goodsyard. There's always going to be a borderline between the city & the poorer surrounding areas. Most of these sites to be developed have been rundown for a number of years so again I see no probably with development.

However so long as this is the extent of which the city will extend, which I think is/will be the case then I am happy. The only way to really stop the halt of the city is develop/refurbish the immediate areas with new housing/shops etc so no one developer can propose a large scheme as the sites will already have been spruced up/redeveloped.

Will- I would rather you didn't merge this with the northgate thread as the northgate thread really only consists of material relating to that sight which should become an active project in planning pretty soon so should have its own thread. The whole redevelopment of Bishopsgate goodyards & the land in between is mostly in pre-planning which may or may not become concrete plans for a good while yet & will take about 10 years.

lawks, interesting news, but its a bit early to draw conclusions based on one render and a massing diagram. Its true, it looks rather intensive, especially as Shoreditch stretches away into a lowrise terraced sprawl (not a bad thing).

I understand why we don't want a uncontrolled spread of towers into the local environs, but surely if they are going to be of a high quality, then why not. Look at Elephant and Castle, Vauxhall Cross and Blackfriars. No history of tall buildings there, but all three to be the focus of quality highrise clusters which we on SSC are supportive of. Couldn't this work at the Bishopsgate / Shoreditch High Street axis?

Maybe developers are now looking to the north of the City to build very tall because it has become too risky and costly in the City itself with all these EH/Unesco legal and political issues. :dunno:

Isn't this only 1 or 2 developers though?

well one of these towers was previously designed by tp bennetts a while ago, its the shoreditch one.
i remember chatting to someone in the city of london planning department about all this a couple of years ago and he was adamant that nothing would go up in bishopsgate goodsyard over about 80m. something to do with sightlines and st pauls i believe. changing sightlines will probably affect this positively.

It is no suprise to me. With sightlines and constraints getting tougher, the only way the city was supposed to grow tall, was towards the north-east.

The massing looks great to me and the territorial contrasts will be sharpen. Should be very interesting but surely negative for the local communities.

Maybe developers are now looking to the north of the City to build very tall because it has become too risky and costly in the City itself with all these EH/Unesco legal and political issues. :dunno:

I don't think the UNESCO thing has anything to do with this. This whole area is a essentially a Hamerson/Corp of London idea/development (with a little bit of Ballymore for the goodsyards) which has been forming for a number of years- at least as long as this forum has been going. I still essentially think the city boundaries will stop progressing further north after these developments. Its worth remembering these new plans are mixed use which in itself will put a constraint on blanket city office development past this area.

Well here is the Hammerson Master Plan for the City Fringe.....courtesy of Skyscrapernews.com

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/989HammersonShowOffCityFringeMasterPlan_pic1.jpg

yeah that was posted yesterday here barret. once again i never read the release from hammerson so didnt realise about it until it was posted here. blah.

here's the old design for one of those towers

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2013CommercialStreetTower_pic1.jpg

yeah that was posted yesterday here barret. once again i never read the release from hammerson so didnt realise about it until it was posted here. blah.

Dam....should always check the previous pages before doing that again!

here's the old design for one of those towers

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2013CommercialStreetTower_pic1.jpg

wow...pretty swish.....but what do you mean old....what is the current design?

I don't think the UNESCO thing has anything to do with this.

As I said one year ago I do not expect any more 150m+ skyscraper proposals in the City of London.

This is because of the absence of clear policies, the constraints of St Pauls and foremost the ongoing threat of EH and Unesco to go to costly PI and place the Tower of London on its endangered list.

Developers have to find other suitable locations in fringe areas where they could develop very tall buildings to accomodate rising demand for office space. Hammerson - one of the biggest property developer, Corp and Ballymore have identified Bishops Place, Storedich and Goodsyard and Wood Wharf where they own lands and plan to submit proposals. British Land has identified the northern part of Broadgate and Canary Wharf whereas Land Securities is focused on Victoria and the South Bank.

That's how I see things happening.

Looking at the shorter Bishops Place Tower on the Masterplan it appears to have a massive overhang.

Thats the kind of tower Canary Wharf needs to break up the blockyness.

the overhang would come frmo the fact the railway tracks cut right under it. a nice piece of air-rights in action there :)

Hmm, it's a tricky one this. The goodsyard's derelict land and clearly a no brainer for development but I share the concerns that intensive development will ruin the character of Shoreditch.

However isn't that how London always evolves? No Shoreditch buildings will be lost just the vibe and by then Nathan Barley and his Nailgun Arms posse will have doubtless moved on to another part of town.

Safest not to get opinionated until we know the detailed plans.

I like this plan, and the rendering above looks attractive.

As I said, it's a skyscraper forum...

I think you'll find that the majority of us on these forums are slightly more discerning than more metres equals better. :ohno:

Oh I know, London enthusiasts here are all about iconic development.

But as I said, it is called SKYSCRAPERcity, and the meters certainly help. This could turn out to be an iconic, tall development. And I PERSONALLY don't see the problem.

I do think you will find the majority of the people here were attracted to the idea of skyscrapers. I know I certainly was. I'm not saying I want HUGE, stupidly tall towers in London, but to me the heights that have been proposed for most projects are in keeping with the development path London is taking, and I think these are to.

I expect ALOT more space would be taken up were the schemes shorter, and it would create much more of a dreadful, flat wall. Soaring elegant towers that incorporate paths and roads throught the sites as well as public space IMO do more than a series of groundscrapers with similar space and pretty much zilch in the public space department EVER could.

I think this looks like a stunning development, and i'm all for tall skyscrapers in London. It's great that they have found an area in the north of the City where they can build big, and don't have wankers like EH on there cases.

It's great that they have found an area in the north of the City where they can build big, and don't have wankers like EH on there cases.

Oh don't be so sure. They'll be complaining the development ruins views of Battersea Powerstation from Granny Anne's loft extension. Or views of Westminister Abbey from Gerry Hyde's tool shed. Or something.:ohno:

Yeah your probably right! Or some sightline from there mansions in Essex of there beloved tower of london.

Or 'it ruins... views of... the White Cliffs... from France! DO NOT BUILD!!!'

Seriously. Wouldn't suprise me.

Oh I know, London enthusiasts here are all about iconic development.

But as I said, it is called SKYSCRAPERcity, and the meters certainly help. This could turn out to be an iconic, tall development. And I PERSONALLY don't see the problem.

I do think you will find the majority of the people here were attracted to the idea of skyscrapers. I know I certainly was. I'm not saying I want HUGE, stupidly tall towers in London, but to me the heights that have been proposed for most projects are in keeping with the development path London is taking, and I think these are to.

I expect ALOT more space would be taken up were the schemes shorter, and it would create much more of a dreadful, flat wall. Soaring elegant towers that incorporate paths and roads throught the sites as well as public space IMO do more than a series of groundscrapers with similar space and pretty much zilch in the public space department EVER could.

Out of interest, do you know the area? Have you ever walked around Shoreditch?

IMO it's pretty difficult to be able to give a convincing argument of the benefits or otherwise of a scheme unless you know the area.

I know this area well and am not jumping to conclusions as to whether it is appropriate or not until more detailed plans come out. It seems to me that you naively come out with the same generic arguments in favour of each and every high rise scheme.

I know this area well and am not jumping to conclusions as to whether it is appropriate or not until more detailed plans come out. It seems to me that you naively come out with the same generic arguments in favour of each and every high rise scheme.

Do you see me jumping to the defence of the towers recently proposed new Waterloo/London Eye? No, you don't.

But sorry, didn't know I wasn't allowed to think differently than you without flying down to London and checking over the area before making my mind on an opinion. I would Smoggie, JUST to make you happy, but frankly I don't have the money to waste.

I've been to London once, and sorry to say Shoreditch wasn't on the top of my 'to do list'.

Maybe it is a really nice area. I'm just going on what I have seen of it, AKA Bishopsgate Goodsyard, and the run down Northgate site.

I just stand by my ideology that elegant high rise schemes with trough ways and public space are much preferable to area hogging ground scrapers.

Do you see me jumping to the defence of the towers recently proposed new Waterloo/London Eye? No, you don't.

I guess because they arent tall enough.

Maybe it is a really nice area. I'm just going on what I have seen of it, AKA Bishopsgate Goodsyard, and the run down Northgate site.
I just stand by my ideology that elegant high rise schemes with trough ways and public space are much preferable to area hogging ground scrapers.

Yes it is very nice area and it should be skyscraper free and as DarJole said - concrete plaza with two trees is not good public space.

Do you see me jumping to the defence of the towers recently proposed new Waterloo/London Eye? No, you don't.

But sorry, didn't know I wasn't allowed to think differently than you without flying down to London and checking over the area before making my mind on an opinion. I would Smoggie, JUST to make you happy, but frankly I don't have the money to waste.

That's not what I said, I clearly stated that I have no view on whether this scheme is appropriate for this location or not based on the limited information that has been given out.

However based on this limited information you have concluded that it is a good scheme and that it will be less intense than a groundscraper. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, it could equally be an overbearing groundscraper type floorplate extended to 20 floors. We simply don't know.

That's my point, I'm not saying that your opinions are wrong, far from it I applaud your enthusiasm but to conclude on a scheme based on very limited public domain information is dangerous and can make people take your other more valid points less seriously.

Regarding knowing the area, I'm not saying that you need to know an area in detail to give an opinion but if I were to post on say the Paris forum about a scheme in an area which I had not visited, I would fully expect my opinion to be considered as less informed than someone who knows the area. This is because so much about architecture is related to how it fits into its surrounding area, the context if you like.

Take the Potters Field daleks for instance, if I was shown a render of them without knowing they were next to Tower Bridge, I'd say 'nice, I like them' if I saw the Chambers Wharf render without knowing the area I'd probably say 'boring glass box, don't like them' yet knowing the context of these schemes my opinions are reversed.

I wouldn't exactly call it "very nice" - it's a fairly rough and tatty area. It does have character though.

I just stand by my ideology that elegant high rise schemes with trough ways and public space are much preferable to area hogging ground scrapers.

And again, how do you know that they'll be elegant? We have one old render that won't be built.

It is not as simple as skyscraper = elegant and good, groundscraper = ugly and bad, I can show you some hideous talls and some very elegant midrises.


But sorry, didn't know I wasn't allowed to think differently than you without flying down to London and checking over the area before making my mind on an opinion. I would Smoggie, JUST to make you happy, but frankly I don't have the money to waste.

Short haul flights? Tut tut! Think of your carbon footprint. It's cheap and quick by GNER if you book in advance. ;)

I wouldn't exactly call it "very nice" - it's a fairly rough and tatty area. It does have character though.

Yep that's a fair assessment!

I'm just going on what I have seen of it, AKA Bishopsgate Goodsyard, and the run down Northgate site.

But the reason why the area is trendy and enjoyable is because of that derelict and run down nature of it. Sure, it's being gentrified beyond belief thanks to the Essex boys and girls hearing it's the cool place to be and buying up new apartments and opening up Starbucks, but it's the volatile nature of the place where artists and the City collide. By pushing in corporate office blocks into this area you're killing off the main reason why it is what it is.

I hate the way the City is going. It should be the other way round, the art and local residents should be the ones pushing into the City, bringing a bit more of a laid back attitude into the surroundings of the office schemes, with maybe garden allotments or market stalls on the periphery of Spitalfields and Bishopsgate. But it isn't, and you've got schemes like Spitalfields, which yes, I agree have made more people aware of the old market and has made it a much safer place, but at the expense of turning it into a chain store and yuppie apartment conglomeration.

The point I'm trying to make is the City needs to organically end at this point, not keep pushing further and further outwards. I don't support more office space here, whether it be skyscrapers or groundscrapers. This area needs more community schemes to raise it out of its abject poverty, but not at the expense of gentrifying it and killing off its edgy and multicultural vibe.

I wouldn't exactly call it "very nice" - it's a fairly rough and tatty area. It does have character though.

If you were me you would understand what I meant by 'very nice'. :)

Well here is the Hammerson Master Plan for the City Fringe.....courtesy of Skyscrapernews.com

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/989HammersonShowOffCityFringeMasterPlan_pic1.jpg

That's got to be the dumbest plan i've ever seen.

250m+ office tower sitting on its own little island away from everything else: Really looks rubbish after seeing how well 122 Leadenhall and The Pinnacle are integrated into the city.
Residential/hotel tower on a huge podium: It's the 60's again?
Stumpy office blocks that block all the light from their neighbors: Duh....

They really are trying to pack too much into the area IMO.

:ohno:

^^ I think this looks pretty exciting as far as I'm concerned. This is very run down and dreary area. The above master plan looks good, extending the city north, and some cool new talls to look forward to! How can you be so negative with so little to go on?

This is very run down and dreary area.

So automatically the answer is to spring up some corporate office towers and bland concrete plazas?

What about the radical idea of keeping an area run down and dreary and let the place allow for its own regeneration?

Wow, talk about dense...looks like it could be pretty sterile.

I agree with everything Darjole has said in this thread.

as for Spitalfields market, i don't know what it was like beforehand but the present scheme is not too bad. It can feel bit sterile and "corporate" tho some of the interesting tenants (Canteen etc) do help. the north and western ends of the market, which should be vibrant pedestrian plazas that gradually turn into little winding alleys and so on, are completely dead and bit of a disaster in terms of connecting with the wider area. very worrying to hear that the existing market area facing commercial street is under threat.

very worrying to hear that the existing market area facing commercial street is under threat.

The market is listed isnt it?

^^ I think this looks pretty exciting as far as I'm concerned. This is very run down and dreary area. The above master plan looks good, extending the city north, and some cool new talls to look forward to! How can you be so negative with so little to go on?

Ok I was a little over negative about it.

But how is the development going to connect the surrounding areas when all the buildings sit on their own little islands?

It looks like they want to build a highrise version of More London, and couldn't give a shit about the surrounding community.

I agree with everything Darjole has said in this thread.

as for Spitalfields market, i don't know what it was like beforehand but the present scheme is not too bad. It can feel bit sterile and "corporate" tho some of the interesting tenants (Canteen etc) do help. the north and western ends of the market, which should be vibrant pedestrian plazas that gradually turn into little winding alleys and so on, are completely dead and bit of a disaster in terms of connecting with the wider area. very worrying to hear that the existing market area facing commercial street is under threat.

The market's under threat? :eek: I thought that they were in the middle of refurbishing the Commercial Street end?

I'm losing track of the amount of buildings that I'm going to have to chain myself to in order to prevent demolition, parts of both Spitalfields and Smithfields Markets, Milton Court and the row of shops at the end of Bermondsey Street, I'm going to need some volunteers to help me! ;)

Agree that Spitalfields Market is slightly sterile and it does seems to peter out slightly behind the RBS and ABN Ambro buildings rather than linking into the wonderful streets north of the market but overall it's a pleasant area IMO, I particularly love Bohemia the little retro furniture shop at the front of Spitalfields, I periodically go in there and imagine being able to furnish my flat with Eames furniture and a set of tulip chairs, nice!

I thought that they were in the middle of refurbishing the Commercial Street end?

They are. But they're evicting all the current tenants so they can refurbish the shops to allow chain stores to occupy them in the future.

I'm going to need some volunteers to help me! ;)


Im with you!

They are. But they're evicting all the current tenants so they can refurbish the shops to allow chain stores to occupy them in the future.

These little shops?

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/66503441_3443ae45e5_b.jpg

I just hope they keep the shopfronts...

they cant get rid of that fairy shop!

Thats silly, little unique shops are appealing! People dont want the same old crap. Hence the Brighton lanes are so popular.

As far I'm aware the tenants are being evicted; The Spitz is running a donation on its website to find a new venue.

http://www.spitz.co.uk/

hmm not very inspiring. I have warmed to the development on the other end of the market and acknowledged the new high class retail that appeared along side. However I wouldnt want to see the entire place turn out like that. I`ll take the fairy shop as an example, i cant imagine the thrill that this shop packed with mysterious creatures from floor to ceiling would bring to children who visit, something to really remember and want to see again, a landmark. Regeneration of retail units is vital for the industry but retail should be treated like housing, they should give new homes in the same development or across the street to those evicted, yes give them a new unit. This would spread the regeneration even further. This is not a new concept even the Building centre in their current retail exhibition acknowledges that as with housing developers should offer a percentage of affordable retail units otherwise regeneration will end up with as many negatives as it does positives.

I am not sure I have understood. Do you guys mean they plan to demolish those shops? I hope I mis-understood. If not, this can't be tolerated. They are so "British". Excatly the architectural style we the continentals like so much to see in England. I say NO.

no i think they are planning to evict the current tennents, refurb them and offer them to the types of retail companies that operate in the new units along the road and in the new bit of the market, mainly aimed at the City folk basically, jewellery shops from san francisco patisserie valerie and the such like

This is what is planned for the site oppo 201BG- a mix of new build, refurbished & public space.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/strategic_dev/2007/20070410/nicholls_&_clarke_site_norton_folgate_report.pdf

Im not happy that that row of Georgian townhouses at the bottom of Shoreditch High Street will be demolished to make way for this.

I don´t get it. Aren´t all buildings from the Georgian era listed?

Nope. These ones in particular are very run down, but could be refurbished in nice apartments. It's the two awful red-brick 80s offices blocks immediately to the south that need to redeveloped.

I also very much like that gritty backstreet charm of Bloomsom Street and Fleur De Liz Street, oh well.

I posted the planning application elsewhere- cant remember where.

Looks like it got refused

http://194.201.98.213/WAM/doc/416836-Page-1.pdf?extension=.pdf&page=1&id=416836&contentType=application/pdf&location=VOLUME4

http://194.201.98.213/WAM/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=PA/06/02333&action4=Search

There's a good view of the sites in this Broadgate aerial -


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Broadgate_aerial_2.jpg

That's a great shot dissappearing off towards Bethnal Green.

I also very much like that gritty backstreet charm of Bloomsom Street and Fleur De Liz Street, oh well.

Fleur De Lis will be demolished?Oh no...

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6629/fleurdelisstreethb7ia0.jpg

^Great pic.

Theres some more info on Bishopsgate goodsyard here

http://www.maccreanorlavington.com/website/en/project_803.html#

Interesting, well that's cleared up any concerns that Fleur De Lis Street could be included, there's clearly no development south of the railway lines. Hurrah!

The only existing buildings affected are those immediately on Shoreditch High Street between Commercial Street and Bethnal Green Road. I can't offhand recall what these buildings are, I can't visualise the Georgian Townhouses that GazKinz mentions but I seem to think that most of the row is fairly crappy. Any pics Gaz?

There's also a fairly big site just north of the Goodsyard between Sclater Street, Bethnal Green Road and Brick Lane, there are however a couple of lovely old buildings amongst the wasteland and metal sheds, I've got some pics of them somewhere but am off to bed so will post them some other time.

The townhouses I was talking about have nothing to do with Bishopsgate Goodsyard, I mentioned them in regard to London Lads post #165, the mixed use scheme opposite 201 Bishopsgate, I do have a picture somewhere I think, I won't be near my computer for a week though. The are no buildings between Commercial Street and Bethnal Green Road on Shoreditch High Street, just some old railway arches a wall and the site of Shoreditch High Street Station.

Apologies, I missed post #165 and got completely the wrong end of the stick!

Wil try and cycle home that way and have a nose around.

There's a good view of the sites in this Broadgate aerial -


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Broadgate_aerial_2.jpg

Does that market still operate along that viaduct wall in the pic? As I type I see much of if has gone...I call it a market, it was more like a street drinkers bric-a-brac collection. I used to walk that way to get to Columbia Road Flower Market.

they cant get rid of that fairy shop! |

You can buy fairies?
I want some for the end of my garden.

I see there has been concerns about commercial road talked about ealier in the thread...I think there are two markets there....one is more or less opposite Liverpool St isnt it?

Does that market still operate along that viaduct wall in the pic? As I type I see much of if has gone...I call it a market, it was more like a street drinkers bric-a-brac collection. I used to walk that way to get to Columbia Road Flower Market.

It was still going a year or so ago, on a Saturday morning IIRC. The viaduct wall along Sclater Street is a wall of graffiti, there's normally some good stuff up there and it changes everytime I see it.

OK, just had a cycle around to check out what is on the Norton Folgate site, i.e. not Bishopsgate Goodsyard. The townhouses are indeed nice, the rest of the row less so, although I like the vaguely art deco brick building. However the Fleur de Lis warehouse are directly behind and judging from the plans they are to be demolished. This site has so much potential for sympathetic restoration of the existing historic buildings with low rise new builds on the empty land and replacing the poor quality newer buildings on Norton Folgate. What could be nicer these restored historic buildings juxtaposing with surrounding high quality modern highrise schemes.

Sadly as per usual the City of London are too greedy, ignorant and shortsighted to see that this juxtaposition is what gives the City it's USP compared to Canary Wharf. The floor space created by this scheme is a drop in the ocean compared to the large City schemes yet the history that is being lost is irreplacable. The CoL would be happy to see all history obliterated it seems.

Sorry for the lack of photos, I didn't have my camera, especially gutting as there is some great graffiti at the other end of Fleur de Lis Street.

Isn't Norton Folgate just beyond the Square Mile border? If so the Corporation won't be the ones awarding or refusing planning permission.

Isn't Norton Folgate just beyond the Square Mile border? If so the Corporation won't be the ones awarding or refusing planning permission.

The planning app is in the name of 'The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London' which I took to be the Corporation of London but it's in the LB of Tower Hamlets. Confusing!

If it's private developers then my sentiments hold but I take it as read that they're greedy, ignorant and shortsighted!

Most of the warehouse in the planning application, which incidentally was refused by TH were to be retained it was mostly the boarded up buildings fronting Norton Folgate that was to be demolished to make way for an office block around the 12 storey mark.

The older elements around the back were, mostly to be retained & squares opened up to the public- check the planning application link I posted way back.

Most of the warehouse in the planning application, which incidentally was refused by TH were to be retained it was mostly the boarded up buildings fronting Norton Folgate that was to be demolished to make way for an office block around the 12 storey mark.

The older elements around the back were, mostly to be retained & squares opened up to the public- check the planning application link I posted way back.

I read the planning app and the diagram made it look like the warehouses were going. Reading section 8 in more detail makes me think I may be wrong. Great news if so, although it would be a pity to see the townhouses on Norton Folgate go.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6629/fleurdelisstreethb7ia0.jpg

From this picture of El Grecos, I think that the LH warehouse will go and the RH warehouse will stay?

they should keep as much as possible, Paddington was derided as too sterile because they wiped everything of interest away.

It was still going a year or so ago, on a Saturday morning IIRC. The viaduct wall along Sclater Street is a wall of graffiti, there's normally some good stuff up there and it changes everytime I see it.

thanks..I only ever saw tatt...but one mans tatt is anothers treasure :)

With regard to the mixed used development planned opposite 201 bishopsgate, here is a hastily taken photo in todays rain of the site from Shoreditch High Street

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/SUC50096.jpg

The 4 red brick townhouses on the left should surely be retained, seems to be pure greed why they're not, they provide a very interested juxapostion with the large office blocks nearby.

The ground floor would make a very nice Boots or Sainsbury's Local!!!

Or a starbucks I don't think there is a single one in Shoreditch . . . yet, I'll give it 6 months before there is

There's also a fairly big site just north of the Goodsyard between Sclater Street, Bethnal Green Road and Brick Lane, there are however a couple of lovely old buildings amongst the wasteland and metal sheds, I've got some pics of them somewhere but am off to bed so will post them some other time.

Right, very belatedly here's the 2 buildings that I was referring to as being just opposite Bishopsgate Goodyard.

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v116/155/39/638555881/n638555881_248494_8102.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v116/155/39/638555881/n638555881_248495_8477.jpg

Beauties both of them.

How long has the top one been like that, is it still bomb damage from the war?

How long has the top one been like that, is it still bomb damage from the war?

I don't think so. I would imagine that the rest of the building was knocked down to maximise the car park area. Shame.

http://www.joynergroup.co.uk/altolusso1.jpg
How about do something like the Altolusso in Cardiff...

Oh I do love a good juxstaposition!

Planning application for this has been submitted, it's in todays ES

good spot but its actually for this site (& thread)

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=431133&page=5

How long has the top one been like that, is it still bomb damage from the war?

It amazes me that you can still see the scorch marks on the neighbours of the buildings that didnt burn down in that area during the war.


There is a single art Deco office buiding around here somewhere standing all on its own and empty. The buildings neighbours, having had wooden rafters and floors all burned down in the blitz...the scorches left on it remind me of the Horishima shadows (respectfully)

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/SUC50096.jpg

^^^ The x's on the white building in Smoggis pic are very common.
Although they were used before the war also, they were utilised extensively after the blitz. The concussion from exploding bombs caused much loss of structural integrity in brick built buidings across London. These x's (sometimes circle cups) show where steel rods have been punched through the building and tied at the X, to stop the walls from falling outward.




I do hope some of these mediochre edwardian/victorian buildings are renovated. Its so much nicer to see a variety of styles.

So any updates on this one ?

http://www.qsweek.com/nav?page=qsweek.gen_obj_redirects.news&fixture_news=7152672&resource=7152672&view_resource=7152672

28/05/2008

Commercial sector: the worse is over

RICS president David Tuffin this week said the bottom of the downturn in the commercial construction market may have already passed.

Speaking at Construction News's Opportunities in Commercial Construction conference, Mr Tuffin said that while the market had been dragged down in the wake of the credit crunch last year, there was evidence that the availability of credit was on the rise.

Describing market conditions as being at a "correction stage", he said confidence of -investors and developers would be key to the market returning to health.

He said: "The market is active. The real smart money has already started to do deals on property. While some of the larger, more inflexible property companies have been selling property, they are only doing so to ensure they have funds to buy more attractive sites that may become available."

Mr Tuffin believed clever property investors would start putting their money back into real estate as he anticipated that "when the herd wakes up there will be a weight of money that will drive values in the market up".

Vinod Thakrar, project management director at developer Hammerson, was also confident about the commercial market going forward, saying his firm had a "fantastic" pipeline of projects in both the retail and office sectors.

These include a 335,000 sq m mixed-use development at Bishopsgate Goods Yard on the borders of the City of London that he anticipated would go in for planning within the next 12 months.

But Developments Securities projects director Duncan Trench sounded a note of caution about the sector's prospects. His firm has a series of major schemes that are ready for construction but awaiting an improvement of market conditions before they get the go-ahead.

He said: "I'm not sure there has been enough blood on the walls yet. A few people perhaps need to hurt a bit more. I think by 2009 we should start to see a recovery."

335,000 sq m


That's a massive amount of floorspace - equivalent to three Canada Square towers.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3117979&c=1&encCode=00000000017c8fe5

Row erupts over 'secret' plan for East End towers

11 July 2008

By Will Henley

Critics round on ‘astonishing secrecy’ over proposed cluster of skyscrapers in Shoreditch

Two local authorities stand accused of “astonishing secrecy” over plans for a cluster of skyscrapers by architects Foster & Partners, KPF and Allies & Morrison in London’s East End.

Save Britain’s Heritage this week revealed artist impressions of four Shoreditch towers more than 50 storeys high, which it claims are being kept from the public.

[Look at the drawing]

Joint developers Hammerson and Ballymore are understood to be behind two Allies & Morrison-and one Foster-designed tower on the largely derelict Bishopsgate Goods Yard, while Hammerson is also working on a KPF skyscraper planned for the adjacent Norton Folgate site.

Critics claim that despite pre-application discussions involving many organisations — including local councils Hackney and Tower Hamlets, Cabe and English Heritage — two public drop-in sessions last week on plans for the Goods Yard site made no reference to the towers.

“The level of secrecy is astonishing,” said architectural historian and local resident Dan Cruickshank. “These towers will create monumental shadows.

“People want to know what is going on. It will so fundamentally change the experience of living in that area that people’s views need to be gathered and responded to.”

Save’s secretary William Palin described the towers as “tentacles” threatening a historic low-rise residential area.

“These proposals are a monstrous assault on the special character of this district and the skyline of the capital,” he said. “We call on the mayor to stop this madness.”

The developers and councils’ consultation process was blasted as “paranoid, secretive and lacking transparency” by Rebecca Colllings, chair of the Save Shoreditch campaign.

“It is a complete waste of public money to consult over matters that are already decided,” she added.

Save Shoreditch, which includes artists Tracey Emin and Rachel Whiteread, has previously battled plans by Hammerson and Foster’s for the nearby high-rise Bishop’s Place scheme, which could demolish the Light Bar on Shoreditch High Street.

The Bishopsgate Goodsyard site itself is identified within the existing London Plan as a “city fringe opportunity area” for mixed-use development, but may face an uphill struggle given the credit crunch and proposed changes to the capital’s overarching planning document, the London Plan.

Due to speak on Wednesday night as BD went to press, mayor Boris Johnson was expected to unveil a strategy document giving support for clusters of tall buildings only “where they are in context with their surroundings”.

A spokeswoman from Tower Hamlets confirmed it had not yet received any planning applications for the Goods Yard. “Tower Hamlets Council is not engaged in any formal pre-application discussions,” she added.

A Hackney spokeswoman insisted statutory public consultation on the draft masterplan would follow later in the year, adding: “This is an open process.”

Robert Allan, assistant director for Hammerson, said: “Hammerson and Ballymore are in the early stages of preparing proposals for the Bishopsgate Goods Yard site. The local authority is preparing and consulting on the draft supplementary planning document, and following its consultation, we will develop our options for the scheme further.

“As with all our projects, we remain committed to ensuring the local community and stakeholders are consulted on our proposals.”

“paranoid, secretive and lacking transparency” by Rebecca Colllings, chair of the Save Shoreditch campaign.

If she is honest with herself then she will see that is an allegation that can be thrown at both sides of the arguement!

Considering tis been known for years that tall buildings have been planned for this site its not the best open secret.

http://xs129.xs.to/xs129/08285/shoreditch_towers_ready925.jpg (http://xs.to)

Looks good. Love the juxtaposition and drama. Gives meaning to the Broadgate Tower, gives the City much needed large-scale expansion on a relatively small plot size to the benefit of the whole of London.

I have little sympathy or understanding of people arguing about intensification of completely derelict land. Again we end up arguing on purely aesthetic grounds with concepts of overshadowing and views. This is just snobbery from the self-proclaimed artistic and conservation community who seem to be running the paranoid campaigns.

I love the way Tracey Emin asks us to challenge our perceptions with her messy bed (I enjoy her work and enjoy her contribution to the community there) and yet she can't step out of the safety zone when it comes to a skyline or view of sharing space with other types of workers. Or does she really think that the current sites in anyway add to her community or London as a whole?

Imagine the relief in pressure on nearby sites and London as a whole if this plan went a head. I think Spitalfields development has worked really well as a clarification of the edge City zone. It has pretty much solidified now, with some concerns over the wool exchange lingering, but its not going any further. Here we are talking about something even less contraversial, the development of derelict land!

Sure fight to get some additional community benefits but this complete hysteria over things exisiting as new visual expressions juxtaposed with interesting but ultimately forgettable skyline profiles from a seemingly never-ending supply of conservationist groups is utterly tedious and stinks of fraud.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/Graphic/u/w/u/BD-July-11;-01.jpg

While I do agree the scale of this seems huge its only there to meet demand that exists. By the way hardly world heritage stuff in the foreground but still some areas of Shoreditch do have a gritty appeal.

yes it is worth reitterating that the foreground is indeed fascinating and has a beauty worth preserving just that the skyline it currently presents is utterly forgettable and can easily hold a dramatic juxtaposition as found in the new plans.

I do love the area around brick lane. It has gritty appeal as do Hoxton and other areas around. But whole post code is not going. The areas around will work well in juxtaposition. And yes over the long term 20-30 years a development of this scale will effect Shoreditch. Mainly by raising the comparative wealth in the area.

These proposals have about a 1.5% chance of gaining planning permission. Honestly, you really think these are going to go ahead? The people of Shoreditch have been galvanized, and any politician who supports these will just get voted out of office.

The time of the skyscraper is dead in London.

I'm sure this area will be redeveloped, but it certainly won't look anything like the diagram above.

Most likely scenario: height reduction + fatter, bulkier redesign.

Have to agree there wjfox.

TH Consultation

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/templates/news/detail.cfm?newsid=9547

These proposals have about a 1.5% chance of gaining planning permission. Honestly, you really think these are going to go ahead? The people of Shoreditch have been galvanized, and any politician who supports these will just get voted out of office.

The time of the skyscraper is dead in London.

The people of Shoreditch should really stop acting like its some sort of Village. Yes it has pockets that are really good, but this development is not hurting their precious historical buildings. Its a large vacant plot that needs to be developed for Londons expanding City. If its all lowered to a stumpy like Broadgate development I fear we are regressing rather than progressing.

The trouble is that if these developments get squashed into groundscrapers etc. then the wall when you look up will be smaller but that wall will probably be much less penetrable than one with the taller buildings which can afford to have public spaces at the bottom, squares and streetlettes.
Which ever way, some sort of wall effect is fairly inevitable I think, because of the long narrow development region, just depends on if you want a shorter physical wall or a higher varied and more permeable wall.

Would be nice to have some curves and/or spires in some of the buildings that go up.

How is this area affected by the viewing corridors?

I have to say if the developers were smart they would produce a decreasing gradient on the height of the towers further away from Shoreditch High St.

I used to live across the road from the goods yard but moved because the new ELL bridge would literally go in front of my flat. They would need to be sensitive and protect the dodgy market, and or pay homage to the industrial heritage of the area.

Why do we have to accept that 50 stories is the only way of getting any decent public realm? That seems to be the argument being made.

Councils control planning approval - we control councils. If you want to insist that there is a height limit of 20 meters and a requirement for 40% public space then you could do so - prices for land would fall as less profit can be made and prices for office space and flats would rise as there are less of them.

I don't want to be a nimby but that many 40+ buildings in that arrangement is not a decent solution to that site. They should step up to the city in the south and step down toward the Tea Building in the north. Alternatively stick one amazing 400 meter tower up and turn the rest into city farms, parks, primary schools and homes for injured kittens to convince everyone that it's ok...

Amazing conjectured skyline, echoes a little like La Defence. However, there seems to be an issue of how does the City cluster tail off in a NE direction into the Shoreditch area whilst respecting its character. There are large sites like the goods yard which can handle tall buildings to the SE and we should also see some lower scaled buildings towards the NE and towards sensitive streetscapes. However, large groundscrapers without street level activity and blank facades are not the answer IMO. Here's another test for Boris!

Why do we have to accept that 50 stories is the only way of getting any decent public realm? That seems to be the argument being made.

Councils control planning approval - we control councils. If you want to insist that there is a height limit of 20 meters and a requirement for 40% public space then you could do so - prices for land would fall as less profit can be made and prices for office space and flats would rise as there are less of them.


But that's the problem we've always had - Britain and London are constrained land areas, so without being able to build tall we end up with very expensive office and housing prices. I don't see why that's a good thing. This just ends up feeding through into high costs of living, and large, bulky groundscapers which take up all their land, and eventually more pressure on the greenbelt. If we demand developers build parks and squares everywhere, and only allow them to build small then development will just dry up and we will have a stagnating city.:(

had a walk around yesterday and it really is an interesting counterpoint between modern soaring office towers and 2-3 storey cobbled streets and alleys. The Brick Lane / Bacon Street / Sclater Street area is fantastic and plonking towers right on the doorstep does seem incongruous. However, Great Eastern Street is an absolute hovel in my view (Rivington Street and Curtain Road excluded from this) and prime for some major work.

I actually think Bishops Place and Norton Folgate (presuming this is the site of the tired and knackered lowrise blocks fronting Bishopsgate opposite 201 Bis?!?!) would work fine (retention of the Light Bar is no reason for canning an entire scheme IMO). Its the Bishopsgate Goods Yard scheme that seems to really transgress into Shoreditch (I'm going on info from this thread and the massing image, so half blinkered in terms of the actual tower sitings).

Need to see better plans really.

Interestingly, Ballymore have laid off a shedload of their workforce in recent weeks, so belt tightening might put a couple of these on the backburner anyway.

I went to the Save Shoreditch exhibition yesterday in Charlotte Street. There seems to be a massive resistance to tall buildings, and the locals have been galvanized. It will be interesting to see how the council go with this.

YeQU22OTq0w

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3080/2664007189_d836069a7e_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2663980309_757ddc3aab_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3257/2663987999_502e8a249b_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2664820054_9883ce9149_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/2664821204_715880fcdf_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2664822458_7f8d1ae8fa_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3251/2664004409_c27ebcbc46_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/2664005781_f4a2db3c41_b.jpg

*sigh*

What utter pillocks.

I don't want to suggest letterbombing...but...

;) lol


(If any lawyers are watching...that was a joke)

UN-BELIEVABLE!

I really don't know what to say. Even though it is my personal opinion that Shoreditch is a very sensitive location, and building high-rise towers there is not a good idea unless it's done right on the fringes of the area, seeing the reaction by some of the residents has left me banging my head against a wall. It's childish, and very embarrassing to think that I live in the same city as these people. They must want to pause London in time, store it in a glass bottle and prevent it from ever being changed again. I would love to actually meet some of them and see how well they can back up their arguments. Why are so much Londoners utterly terrified of tall buildings? Not even just tall buildings, but new ideas, innovation and new design in general. People are simply petrified, it's depressing and really starting to piss me off. Yes, we had some nasty tower blocks go up in the 60's, get over it, most of them are really not that bad. I was hoping that the Gherkin coupled with The Shard might have started a slow process of people becoming more accepting of tall buildings, but this seems to have proven the opposite. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON.

Ideally I would love to see 3 or 4 skyscrapers for Shoreditch, but no more. Their locations would have to make sense in terms of the impact on the area, and they would have to be inspiring, high-quality designs. If more cheap junk gets built in places where it doesn't belong, then it's only going to make people more and more afraid of new architecture (is that even possible at this stage?). Some kind of compromise is going to have to be made at some point. Saving the Light Bar is the right thing to do, but I doubt it's enough. The towers should be kept way out of the center of Shoreditch, surely there are other corners of Central London where they would fit in better with much less fuss?

Why do we have to accept that 50 stories is the only way of getting any decent public realm? That seems to be the argument being made.

Councils control planning approval - we control councils. If you want to insist that there is a height limit of 20 meters and a requirement for 40% public space then you could do so - prices for land would fall as less profit can be made and prices for office space and flats would rise as there are less of them.

I don't want to be a nimby but that many 40+ buildings in that arrangement is not a decent solution to that site. They should step up to the city in the south and step down toward the Tea Building in the north. Alternatively stick one amazing 400 meter tower up and turn the rest into city farms, parks, primary schools and homes for injured kittens to convince everyone that it's ok...

trouble is a 400m would get even more a hysteric response including from the national media too!

Tracy Emin would probably spread her lubricant and numerous ex's semen over the site and declare it her art and not for sale. Anyway think of the even longer shadow!

'Shadow' always makes me laugh as if we exist or even want to exist in maximum sunlight everywhere, perhaps instead the shoreditch crew should just put away their sunglasses.

Sunlight access is considered and has legal requirements in the planning system. If it is proven to be detrimental then the scheme wont go through. Its simple. But banding around the word 'shadow' as though it were a disease spread by boring office workers is as about as much use as that exhibition.

I agree that ultimately we control the planning system, but then I consider what our situation is here. Derelict land = opportunity without destruction.

Shoreditch and its community kicks off far beyond this immediate site, the site is actually fringe in every consideration of the word. Sometimes the fringe creates something interesting and unusual but in this perculiar instance of haphazard offices and services in a long forgotten area the result is well a complete anti-climax. It is dead space. In part due to the lack of clarity, a bit like how Aldgate suffers as a dumping ground.

To feel this walk West from the new Broadgate Tower and see the anticlimax in visual form! Im assuming that once the more recent offices tried to be 'respectful' but it doesnt do actually anything for the area. In this respect the Broadgate tower and Spitalfields are the best thing to have happened in a long long time!

An office is an office so why not finish the city off with a bang? The clarification of the City with Spitalfields has been a success and is a vibrant space during weekdays and weekends so I see Northgate and Bishopsgate goodsyard as a natural progression of that new found confidence. I cant imagine why we would really want to dedicate such valuable land to some guys selling pirated porn DVDs?

Now considering whether the City should expand or not and I would say an unresounding yes! The piecemeal expansion of the City after the shock competition from Canary Wharf in the late eighties WAS damaging certainly to the skyline of a much admired historic part of London.

Now we talk of London attracting investment from Russia and China well lets do it properly this time round! Here is some extremely rare derelict land so lets end the City with a bang, something exciting that can have some hope of containing any future expansion requirements, let alone the natural desire of improving office stock without taking to much of it out of the market at any point in time.

Now if you are really really concerned about saving Shorditch you would allow the City to build 6 x 600m towers on this site just to kill off any future pressure for further horizontal expansion, you know the City is the driving force of the UK economy blah blah, they really think the light bar and beyond is going to stop that with any moral right?

To suggest as some of the slogans do that Shoreditch skyline is in anyway remembered or treasured is laughable. When I think of the shit that the Embankment along the City has had to put up with because of all these stupid nimby attitudes in other locations in the city, well then that nimby showroom really pisses me off!

From looking at the massing I think that this could look quite light and delicate rather than a wall, certainly an obvious marker of the City but then the City exists in reality and we shouldnt be embarrassed about Office workers any more than we shouldnt feel embarrased about artists. It is certainly the sort of confidence missing in the massing in Waterloo and Victoria. Now that Waterloo proposal WAS a wall and all because of conservation! Lesson to be leant? Lets keep things in perspective here.

The towers should be kept way out of the center of Shoreditch, surely there are other corners of Central London where they would fit in better with much less fuss?

What do you mean? Should be kept way out of the centre? The proposal is right on the edge of Shoreditch/the City on derelict land. That is the reality that we are dealing with.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with having tall buildings in the background/skyline? No seriously I want to know, because they seem to simply replace areas of sky. I love the quote that says 'please dont ruin shoreditch, and our lives also'. It proves to me that people will resort to serious melodrama and outright delusion over matters not normally important to them. Hysteria is common, especially amongst the idiotic common people. People are strange...people are stupid.

Yer but I...like errr....I read once in a newspaper like, think it was The Sun or Daily Mail, that these skyscrapers are like really bad and are gonna blot out all sunlight round our area and are gonna wreck out community, plus I read about them demolishing loads of victorian architecture to build them and that's wrong! I never really noticed much victorian architecture round our area like, but I'm sure it's there and if they are gonna demolish it then it aint right!

I was watching this sci-fi movie as well recently, about how greedy corporations were taking over the world, and that's like what's happening round our area now, we're the small opressed minority, the last defenders against the evil 21st century coporations. I don't really know much about where they are building these towers but it must be bad because I saw a campaign poster saying 'Stop the Shoreditch destruction', and I've seen them tower blocks from the 60's, terrible things them, so I don't want none of them things round here destroying our heritgae!

What's that...they wanna buy my house....for £20m?....errr....well I guess it would benefit the community for new buildings to be put round here.....

Very good :lol: Too true :ohno:

What do you mean? Should be kept way out of the centre? The proposal is right on the edge of Shoreditch/the City on derelict land. That is the reality that we are dealing with.

I mean that I think skyscrapers should not be built in the center of Shoreditch, what else could I possible mean by that?

It really depends on the design though. We haven't even seen any proper renderings of the towers yet! So how can we possibly be making final opinions on whether we like them at this stage... Also I didn't actually state that I was opposed to the proposals, I basically said that IF skyscrapers were to be built in the middle of Shoreditch, then my backing of them would depend entirely on the quality of the design. Is that really such a big deal? Take that new MOMA tower they're building in NYC for example, something like that would obviously look incredible on Shoreditch High Street. But boring, boxy office blocks built for the sake of office space, would certainly not be a good addition to the area as far as I am concerned.

I think the shadow argument is much easier to understand if you are the one that is going to be living in it. If I liked sitting out in my garden on a Friday afternoon drinking a beer in the evening summer sunlight, and I knew I was no longer going to be able to do that because of some monster office block being built at the end of my road, I would be pretty pissed off about it. I am not saying that any negative shadow impact should give a homeowner a right to veto a project like this, just that it is a valid complaint.

True up to a point Bena but there aren't any gardens in this area of London - in fact I haven't really noticed much in the way of balconies/outdoor living space etc.
As for light issues and shadows well the same argument could be applied to trees. They cast shadows for at least half the year - lets cut them all down if access to sunlight is the issue.

Actually what I think is more important here is how the City treats those semi-residential areas on its fringe borders. Is the City doing enough to integrate these buildings and knit them into the surrounding fabric. By the looks of it - probably not.

Trees cast dappled shadow ;-)

On there end- the exhibition looks great- smart idea.....it would be great to organise a counter exhibition. ...Also there really isnt that many signatures and it all looks kind of fake

Any Facebook member can join.

I used to live in the area and my old place has a perfect view of the proposed skyline. It is an opportunity for a real masterpiece to link the City organically to Shoreditch while at the same time delineating the boundaries between the 2 - like Spitalfields has done. If done badly it will be shit, of course. Those Nimbys should apply pressure to ensuring the job is done well, rather than done or not done at all...

I think the shadow argument is much easier to understand if you are the one that is going to be living in it. If I liked sitting out in my garden on a Friday afternoon drinking a beer in the evening summer sunlight, and I knew I was no longer going to be able to do that because of some monster office block being built at the end of my road, I would be pretty pissed off about it. I am not saying that any negative shadow impact should give a homeowner a right to veto a project like this, just that it is a valid complaint.

The whole point i was making is that 'shadow' is banded about like 'political correctness gone mad' and 'sustainability'. We even have had the normally feet-on-the-ground say-it-as-it-is George Galloway shrieking about entire swathes of land being covered in eternal darkness like Quatermass and the Pit.

Look at the Ealing protestors moaning about the shadow of a planned tower appearing in a park and then accidently failing to notice that the sun actually constantly changes location in the sky. Even the term shadow is used completely out of context, about buildings merely appearing visually in a view made up of lots of other buildings often used by governmental bodies such as English Heritage to the bewilderment of the legal process.

The only time shadow is quantified and studied scientifically is during the professional planning process, outside of this it appears like accusations of witch craft against women who like black hats and black cats.

I mean that I think skyscrapers should not be built in the center of Shoreditch, what else could I possible mean by that?

Well lets cross that bridge when we reach it in 20 years time

Jesus - reading up this thread really depresses me. The sort of condescending "they don't know what's good for them" attitude that permeates most of the posts above is not really excused by the fact this is a skyscraper forum. It's that sort of attitude that gets local community's backs up in the first place.

The whole problem with the tall building debate in this country is that everyone takes polarised positions. Insisting that anyone who objects to a tall building in their neighbourhood doesn't know what's good for them or perhaps just doesn't understand is no less unreasonable that insisting that we never build tall and should preserve our cities in aspic.

I challenge everyone here to intelligently comment on what is actually proposed, not just to take umbrage at the admittedly fairly childish anti-views that have been levelled at it.

My view, for what it's worth, is that this site is not right for tall buildings, at least in the height and density that is shown in the current proposals. It's too far adrift from the City cluster and surrounded on all sides by existing low-rise, tight grain urban areas with existing communities who don't want what is proposed. Neither is it right for groundscrapers, but I don't accept that my first statement automatically means that the second should follow.

We have some of the best architects and masterplanners in this country, we must be able to do better than this developer wet-dream shite. I admit that what's being shown is pretty vague, but it doesn't give the impression that the local community, urban grain, regeneration or sustainable mixed-use urban development are at the core of what's going on. One major reason why the area feels so run down at the moment is precsiely because of major developers bundling parcels of land together and leaving buildings vacant to go derelict while it happens.

Anyway, like Will, I don't think you're looking at what will happen. I suspect it's an opening negotiating position as much as anything. Hopefully it will evolve into something at bit more imaginative.

Well I think I have argued quite logically.

It all boils down to what is it about derelict ex-railway land on the edge of an-over bulked engine of the UK economy that can not be grapsed?

Why the fuck should some resident in the vague vicinity have as much right over the land as we do on here. They have as about as much connection to this plot as does a City Executive in New York!

Its not building over a park!

Jesus - reading up this thread really depresses me. The sort of condescending "they don't know what's good for them" attitude that permeates most of the posts above is not really excused by the fact this is a skyscraper forum. It's that sort of attitude that gets local community's backs up in the first place.

The whole problem with the tall building debate in this country is that everyone takes polarised positions. Insisting that anyone who objects to a tall building in their neighbourhood doesn't know what's good for them or perhaps just doesn't understand is no less unreasonable that insisting that we never build tall and should preserve our cities in aspic.

I challenge everyone here to intelligently comment on what is actually proposed, not just to take umbrage at the admittedly fairly childish anti-views that have been levelled at it.

My view, for what it's worth, is that this site is not right for tall buildings, at least in the height and density that is shown in the current proposals. It's too far adrift from the City cluster and surrounded on all sides by existing low-rise, tight grain urban areas with existing communities who don't want what is proposed. Neither is it right for groundscrapers, but I don't accept that my first statement automatically means that the second should follow.

We have some of the best architects and masterplanners in this country, we must be able to do better than this developer wet-dream shite. I admit that what's being shown is pretty vague, but it doesn't give the impression that the local community, urban grain, regeneration or sustainable mixed-use urban development are at the core of what's going on. One major reason why the area feels so run down at the moment is precsiely because of major developers bundling parcels of land together and leaving buildings vacant to go derelict while it happens.

Anyway, like Will, I don't think you're looking at what will happen. I suspect it's an opening negotiating position as much as anything. Hopefully it will evolve into something at bit more imaginative.

:applause: point well made

It all boils down to what is it about derelict ex-railway land on the edge of an-over bulked engine of the UK economy that can not be grapsed?

Not sure if you noticed, but Shoreditch just happens to be one of the main epicenter's of the UK's art scene, and these towers would be placed well within it's area. To be honest, I don't share much in common with the local Shoreditch kids who think it's cool to walk down the street with day-glow paint in their hair and skull's hanging from their neck, but I do recognize the importance of the area's status as one of the leading art scenes in the world, and thus it's ongoing contribution towards modern London.

The site is close to the city, yes, but it isn't IN the city, it's in Shoreditch/Norton Folgate. So why must the City spill into Shoreditch? What rights does it have to do this? Last time I checked, Shoreditch was not trying to invade the City. I would love to see skyscrapers in Shoreditch designed FOR Shoreditch, you understand. Towers which are inspired by Shoreditch, serving a good purpose for Shoreditch, and which eventually come to be loved by Shoreditch. As I said though, at this point we still don't really know too much about this development, so who knows.

I know this is derelict ex-railway land, but there are a whole range of interesting things which could be done with the area, not just limited to the building of mass skyscrapers. In my opinion, there are much more fertile and suitable areas for the expansion of the City. Along The Highway for example (in Wapping/Shadwell), where the local scene is not quite so unique and delicate as in Shoreditch, Spitalfields etc. Basically there is a long, wide, busy road connecting Canary Wharf to the City, very commercial with plenty of locations ripe for redevelopment. If a development similar to Bishopsgate Goodsyard was proposed for The Highway, then i'd be getting very excited indeed.

Why the fuck should some resident in the vague vicinity have as much right over the land as we do on here. They have as about as much connection to this plot as does a City Executive in New York!

Its not building over a park!

I dunno, despite the ridiculous and pathetic nature of the protests in this case, I still feel that despite everything, you've always got to have SOME element of respect for the local resident's views on the matter, whenever anything is being built in their area. Now I am the last person in the world to associate with anti-skyscraper sympathies, or nimbyism in general, but at the same time I don't feel that nowhere in London is sacred, and that skyscrapers should just be built anywhere there might happen to be a scrap of derelict land.

With most developments and proposals in London, I feel that the architecture and location is excellent. Thinking about what The Shard will bring to the surrounding area, how Strata will help to revolutionize the E&C, and how the Pinnacle and Heron tower will completely enhance Bishopsgate, almost sends chills up my spine. Sometimes though, you look at a development and think "yeah, despite the impressive height of the buildings, what will this actually BRING to the area?", and it's really hard to see any obvious benefits. I'm still undecided on Bishopsgate Goodyard, but I do hope that when unveiled, the final designs are top-notch, complete with jaw-dropping renderings. :cheers:

Not sure if you noticed, but Shoreditch just happens to be one of the main epicenter's of the UK's art scene, and these towers would be placed well within it's area. To be honest, I don't share much in common with the local Shoreditch kids who think it's cool to walk down the street with day-glow paint in their hair and skull's hanging from their neck, but I do recognize the importance of the area's status as one of the leading art scenes in the world, and thus it's ongoing contribution towards modern London.

But it's only been like that for the last decade or so. It was around 1993 when the Britartists such as Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst starting moving to Hoxton attracted by the cheap rents and then-abandoned industrial spaces. Before then the area was incredibly grotty- there's still one of the abandoned fire damaged buildings on Great Eastern Street which to this day hasn't been redeveloped. This was pretty much the norm- a sort of edgy area of London which saw artists rubbing shoulders with the local council estates and poorer members of society. It was in 2000 when the White Cube gallery opened in Hoxton Square that the area exploded and became the cool part of town, and when the clubs started moving in around 2004ish the area became what we see today as the trendy area. But that in turn attracts developers; and it's already happening with new hotels and flash apartments springing up- the new Shoreditch House opened last year which is the epitome that an area is now for the rich boys.

What I'm trying to get at is that this area, just as others in London, are always in a state of flux in terms of what they attract. In fact, Shoreditch is becoming incredibly expensive for the artists and clubbers, and in the last six months a lot of them have moved further out to Haggerston, Bethnal Green, even Deptford, which will go through the same journey as Shoreditch did in the nineties.

I think what got me about the exhibition was that they portrayed Shoreditch as being this sort of cool vibey non-chain store area that should be kept in some kind of bubble, when it's impossible to do that. I walked out of the exhibition and looked around, and there's now on Great Eastern Street an Eat, a Pret and in Hoxton Square a Wagamama's and futher up a Nandos. The time has passed and I don't think the area they are trying to save exists anymore.

I've always thought of Shoreditch as London's version of New York's Greenwich Village or the Meat Packing District (I don't know New York that well so maybe completely wrong). I don't think either of these areas suffers because they have towers on their doorstep. If anything it makes them more successful and 'edgy'.

and it's really hard to see any obvious benefits. I'm still undecided on Bishopsgate Goodyard, but I do hope that when unveiled, the final designs are top-notch, complete with jaw-dropping renderings. :cheers:

well yes of course there is a lot of work still to be done, but the overtly negative repsonses from people who should actually know better such as local councillers and George Galloway stoking up unwarranted hysteria (remember the 2-house owner Lib Dem MP in Islington stoking up the fire against the old street proposal) this is unforgivable.

London can do with out all this negative energy.

Sure, after seeing the scale of investment and the types of profits being gained from the development of the land in the borough, fight for more amenities, more local investment, protest to protect some of the warehouses, like the light bar protest and like what happened in Kings Cross Land.

These are all tangiable elements that can be barted, often without any detraction from the overall success aesthetically and financially of a scheme,

but the terror of the tall and being visible in the heart of a metropolis and the snobbery of sharing space, that very destructive territorial attitude found in London (which the City is just as guilty of) these are nonsensical factors and we have proof (the mediocrity that often surrounds us, the wasteful urban fringes and the ghettos) that this in fact is inadvertantly highly damaging eg where low rise sprawl and stunted bulk replaces what was originally proposed. And for what? To feel that everyone can have the last say no matter how irrelevant the idea?

I personally couldnt care less if the goods yard was turned into a fantastical park or a large outdoor lido but this is what has been proposed and invested in and it makes sense for this particular space and the enormous level of investment is there waiting to be evolved into some highly imaginative benefits by the local.

I don't think either of these areas suffers because they have towers on their doorstep. If anything it makes them more successful and 'edgy'.

Exactly there is a lot to be said for drama, in an evolving city the drama isnt forced or false, the appearance of towers next to brick lane has meaning and is incredibly exciting while highlighting the what makes Shoreditch unique. As I said before the current urban fringe is quite wasteful with lots of wasted space, as in not even abandoned buildings but actual wasteland and ad-hoc buildings from the recent past mainly servicing the city in a rather inefficient manner. The current situation is that you have to travel through quite a bit of land before you find the true essence of each area. This proposal is just bringing that journey closer together.

Jesus - reading up this thread really depresses me. The sort of condescending "they don't know what's good for them" attitude that permeates most of the posts above is not really excused by the fact this is a skyscraper forum. It's that sort of attitude that gets local community's backs up in the first place.

The whole problem with the tall building debate in this country is that everyone takes polarised positions. Insisting that anyone who objects to a tall building in their neighbourhood doesn't know what's good for them or perhaps just doesn't understand is no less unreasonable that insisting that we never build tall and should preserve our cities in aspic.

I challenge everyone here to intelligently comment on what is actually proposed, not just to take umbrage at the admittedly fairly childish anti-views that have been levelled at it.

My view, for what it's worth, is that this site is not right for tall buildings, at least in the height and density that is shown in the current proposals. It's too far adrift from the City cluster and surrounded on all sides by existing low-rise, tight grain urban areas with existing communities who don't want what is proposed. Neither is it right for groundscrapers, but I don't accept that my first statement automatically means that the second should follow.

We have some of the best architects and masterplanners in this country, we must be able to do better than this developer wet-dream shite. I admit that what's being shown is pretty vague, but it doesn't give the impression that the local community, urban grain, regeneration or sustainable mixed-use urban development are at the core of what's going on. One major reason why the area feels so run down at the moment is precsiely because of major developers bundling parcels of land together and leaving buildings vacant to go derelict while it happens.

Anyway, like Will, I don't think you're looking at what will happen. I suspect it's an opening negotiating position as much as anything. Hopefully it will evolve into something at bit more imaginative.

I agree 100%, you've summarised my feelings on these proposals far more eloquently than I could!

Let's just wait and see what actually goes in for planning, safe to say it won't be 50 storey bad boys and in the current climate I think it will be a long wait anyway! Lovers of Shoreditch in its current form can sleep easy for a while longer I feel.

I was in SCP on Curtain Road on Saturday and noticed a Save Shoreditch from Skyscrapers poster behind the till, was tempted to get it as my SSC avatar for a bit of controversy! ;)

For all those up in arms about how these towers will supposedly destroy the vibe of Shoreditch lets look at what's proposed.where & how exactly this is going to destroy this " edgy vibe".

Firstly Norton folgate- Bishops quarter. This is a site that has been derelict for decades on a site with a 20+ tower & another large office block already consented. It is cut of from most of the area by the busy road that runs up from Liverpool St & railway tracks. Apart from the loss of the light bar (which if Hammerson had any sense they could have nipped all this local action in the bud by incorporating it in their plans) it merely extends the city along with its neighbour 201 BG. The light bar in any case , although I still like the place is long past its cool prime of the last ten years & is more of a city bar these days.

Th Norton folgate/Commercial Rd site is on the other side of Bishopsgate & is a gateway site to the city & is largely derelict & dilapidated warehouses. By developing this site will effect very little local residents & does nothing to effect Shoreditchs edgy vibe.

The other proposals are in the Bishopsgate goodyard. Its been envisaged for years that taller buildings will occupy the western site gradually dropping back in size to the East (although it would appear this is being questioned with some tall A& M towers to the East). To say it will overshadow the local area & somehow destroy the local character is slight hyperbole. The site has cut off Bethnal Green Rd with the area around Brick lane & the Truman Brewery for decades along with the railway tracks that also cut the area in two. The listed goodsyard will remain & an elevated ELL is being built along the centre of the site (not to mention the new bridges that are already in place & dominate the street) so low rise building is unsuitable for the site as it will be overshadowed by the goodsyard & railway viaduct hence the need to build above & up. The site has a brand new station & is not far from Liverpool St & the city so is an ideal site for high density development.

Looking at the Foster building planned for the Western edge it is bordered by Bethnal Green Rd & Shoreditch High Rd so will do very little to effect the rest of the local population. This whole area has narrow tight , compact streets & adding a few tall buildings will not overshadow the area.Most streets are over shadowed by buildings a few stories tall so in a lot of streets you wont even see the towers. Where you do you will have the effect 201BG has when viewed from somewhere like Folgate St which makes a great composition of old & new.

It strikes me as slight cultural snobbery with the artistic comunity up in arms about capitalist development destroying an areas soul- The very same people who love the edgy vibe & dilapidated area very rarely do more than pop into one of the trendy bars & about the only extent of interaction they have with the local population is when they are served in a late night eatery or restaurant & get a late night cab home. Plenty of areas have been redeveloped & there is plenty of smart low rise new & converted apartments which are not cheap & don't house people from the local comunity.

The Bishopsgate goodyards has been seen for years as a full stop as far as city development to the North & East & this is about the extent of high rise development as the areas to the North & East are largely residential (both public & private ) & contains large converted buildings already redeveloped such as Shoreditch House.This is a development of an empty brownfield site that has the potential to add a great deal to the area. To say that a few tall buildings will somehow destroy the artistic & cool vibe of the area is quite frankly a false assumption. The whole area around Spitalfields has been redeveloped the last ten years & although I have some reservations about some of the newer developments & the ongoing replacement of buildings with character in the area such as the gun & Wool exchange threatened it has on the whole been a success blending the trendy elements of the area with the city elements. The Bishopsgate Goodsyard is essentially a blank slate & the typical death by a thousand cuts with everyone attacking these proposals purely because they are tall will leave everyone with the usual half arsed compromise that suits no one such as we can see happening in places like the South Bank. Say for arguments sake that tall building are thrown out what then? You will still get the same expensive apartments/offices except in smaller/bulkier blocks & they will still rise above the goodsyard & railway viaduct so will still dominate the local area. We can all bemoan greedy developers but who has been building the new contemporary apartments & refurbished warehouses in the area??

But it's only been like that for the last decade or so. It was around 1993 when the Britartists such as Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst starting moving to Hoxton attracted by the cheap rents and then-abandoned industrial spaces. Before then the area was incredibly grotty- there's still one of the abandoned fire damaged buildings on Great Eastern Street which to this day hasn't been redeveloped. This was pretty much the norm- a sort of edgy area of London which saw artists rubbing shoulders with the local council estates and poorer members of society. It was in 2000 when the White Cube gallery opened in Hoxton Square that the area exploded and became the cool part of town, and when the clubs started moving in around 2004ish the area became what we see today as the trendy area. But that in turn attracts developers; and it's already happening with new hotels and flash apartments springing up- the new Shoreditch House opened last year which is the epitome that an area is now for the rich boys.

What I'm trying to get at is that this area, just as others in London, are always in a state of flux in terms of what they attract. In fact, Shoreditch is becoming incredibly expensive for the artists and clubbers, and in the last six months a lot of them have moved further out to Haggerston, Bethnal Green, even Deptford, which will go through the same journey as Shoreditch did in the nineties.

Yes, i'm well aware of this. When I was growing up my mother worked in a building on Hoxton Square, just a stone's throw from where the White Cube Gallery now is. I know the area very well, and can distinctly remember the brick buildings all looking like they were on the verge of collapse, and even one or two buildings which were more or less completely derelict. Now those offices are no doubt refurbished and worth several millions. I took her on a little tour of the area a few weeks back and she couldn't believe how much it had changed.

And this element of change, which is so ingrained into London's genetics, is something which I love about London very much. Obviously, with or without skyscrapers in it's midst, Shoreditch is already an upmarket and expensive area. The local art scene has long been expanding further into north-easternly outposts of Hackney for a while now, a good thing no doubt. My main concern though, is not socio-economic but more related to the location of the towers in contrast to their surroundings. At this point in time i'm just not convinced that they will compliment each other, although as has been stated already, we still do not know enough about them to be completely sure yet.

I think what got me about the exhibition was that they portrayed Shoreditch as being this sort of cool vibey non-chain store area that should be kept in some kind of bubble, when it's impossible to do that. I walked out of the exhibition and looked around, and there's now on Great Eastern Street an Eat, a Pret and in Hoxton Square a Wagamama's and futher up a Nandos. The time has passed and I don't think the area they are trying to save exists anymore.

I've always thought of Shoreditch as London's version of New York's Greenwich Village or the Meat Packing District (I don't know New York that well so maybe completely wrong). I don't think either of these areas suffers because they have towers on their doorstep. If anything it makes them more successful and 'edgy'.

Interesting. Does Greenwich Village really have towers? I thought it was supposed to be one of the few areas of Manhattan which was moreso low/mid-rise.

Of course, you can not keep any particular area of London in a "bubble", I thoroughly agree that such notions are ridiculous. Look at Notting Hill in the 70's compared with now, for instance. But I find that the logic of this also works both ways, in that you also can not change an area of London too quickly. As you say, Shoreditch has only just gained it's new identity in the last decade. Is it too early for this kind of development? You're talking about plonking several towers down in the middle of it's High Street, surely it would be careless for the developers to do this without first seriously considering the impact on the surrounding area? It's a debate which should be open for all, because Shoreditch is still a residential area. As you know, the City is not a naturally residential area, but if the City is to expand into Shoreditch, then you're entering different territory and things will work differently there.

There are parts of London now which are being "regenerated" so quickly, that i'm suspicious if anything on a wider scale is actually being changed at all. Developers seem to believe that a cafe nero here, a starbucks there, a tesco express and some modern apartments splattered about makes an area regenerated. But is this too much too soon? It seems like a very forced, take-it-or-leave-it way of changing things, and I certainly don't see how the majority of local people are supposed to benefit from it. Despite the fact that Hoxton, Haggerston and Bethnal Green are all very close to the City, the vast majority of these areas are still very much poor and working class. I would argue that their image of being arty and trendy, whilst somewhat true, is a tad too premature at this stage and that the area's real identity is still one of impoverishment and deprivation. Shoreditch is the only one which has been more or less completely changed beyond recognition, but I still think at this stage, it is too early for mass commercialism and City-style development.

I still think at this stage, it is too early for mass commercialism and City-style development.

Well I doubt any of these bigger towers will be built for at least a decade yet, and even then I doubt they will all be built in one big project.

Excellent post London Lad

The so called arty scene already co -exists with the city - look at Spitalfields market - a true merging of the two worlds. This site is in a identityless hinterland between Hoxton and Spital fields/Brick Lane , but in fact is part of niether. I don't see how this kind of development will harm the vibe of either area - if anything it will jumble things up a bit more in quite an intersting way. There really is nothing about that site that merits concern over it's development. As to Hoxton being at the epicentre of the UK arts scene wait ten years and it will be in Deptford!