Wood Wharf: major expansion of Canary Wharf | 200m/187m/182m/154m | Approved

[ill tonkso]

I actually prefer this plan, it steps down to the River quite nicely and provides a great active High Street linking the Riverside to the Commercial Centre. I hope to see a few more brick and earthern materials to soften the harsh glass and steel, cold tones of the Offices.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

The Amsterdam canals fair enough in terms of public space but I was thinking more the architecture of the Amsterdam Eastern docks, not necessarily the Java Island canalside residentials that many post here but the larger structures similar to say Rotterdam's docks that are almost OMA-esque in their use of shifted blocks and cantilevering.

These seem quite old-fashioned to me (but not in a good way). We've done to death the 'arrange a few boxes, some sticking out a bit', but there's more interest to be had..

Canary wharf's buildings are - in general - hugely conservative, and it'd be nice to have something a bit more avante-garde to look at... Something like this perhaps?



In the 21st century, we can mix up forms, introduce dynamic lighting and all sorts...

[kerouac1848]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

Wood Wharf is becoming increasingly underwhelming and disappointing. The original vision for CW was of a development of grand scale, with very powerful axial east-west neoclassical planning, akin to a modern day hybrid of Greenwich a la Rockerfeller Ctr. This new Wood Wharf proposal aka CW east, displays little grand vision, rather it seems to be "infill" ad-hoc low to medium rise redevelopment akin to projects north of Kings Cross. This is fine in many locations in London, but with such a close juxtaposition with CW, it seems to smack of a failure of planning and vision. One does not expect East CW to mirror West CW, but it would be good to see some form of planned relationship featuring large scale elements. Why not explore a series of projects/developments with large commercial podiums at the base, with residential towers rising above each block, akin in form to the soaring NY or Chicago towers of the 20s and 30s, laid out based on turn of the century "City-Beautiful" planning.

The one nice element of the most recent replanning is the linear waterfront park along the south side and sense that natural light and views is finally being considered.

Disagree, the old plan (if it's the one's I'm thinking of...) was just the original CW jazzed up a bit: a bunch of towers surrounding a square which was supposedly going to be the high street. The links to CW were two small bridges, whilst the buildings themselves were just the usual boxy style.





Sure the park in the east was nice and the steps down to water from some buildings cool, but that's not enough I think. All those little public spaces are likely to become dead zones rather than lively squares given the reality of the IoD and the likely character to come from this plan.




The high street in this vision is superior to the square imo in the sense it will work better as an outside retail area. Also, with the water square concept and single bridge, the links are better to the original estate. There is a simple linear path from the eastern end of WW to the JL station and shopping centre, with a chance to perhaps bring some more life to Montgomery Square. The canal junction is also a nice touch, although I prefer the park in the old plans to the green patches in the south and east of the site.

[Rational Plan]

The new plan is far superior. A proper pattern of streets instead of plazas and multi level walkways. Those little green islands look funky but destined to remain empty for most of the day as they are not on the way to anywhere else and in a poorer area I'd steer well clear as there is only one exit and entrance. A perfect little mugging trap.

The old plan also had the same pattern as the rest of the wharf with shopping centre on the lower level and with large pedestrian walkways above.

In addition the new plan has a simple street from the East to the heart of the Wharf, it will be a straightforward walk or cycle and now buses will have a direct and more logical entrance from the Eastside.

[DarJoLe]

But the Wharf is on two levels.

[SkyScraperRaper]

Originally Posted by cnapan

In the 21st century, we can mix up forms, introduce dynamic lighting and all sorts...

These kind of buildings are pretty cool. Not sure they would fit within Canary Wharf. I quite like the consistency of silver block shaped towers in a type of grid structure. I think funky buildings like that would mess that up.

I think these types of buildings would be more suited to the other side of the river by the 02 Arena. The buildings echo this lively entertainment part of London.

[Loathing]

I don't know why we're quibbling over the masterplan. Wood Wharf will be made or broken by the architecture of the individual buildings, and at present we have no renders thereof.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

But the Wharf is on two levels.

So, only the central part is.

I thought some of the biggest criticisms people have made of the Wharf is that the Shopping is all underground and confined to Malls rather than the streets. It makes it look like a stage set at times, because though there people out and about on the streets, it is massively underpopulated. The only bit that is alive is entrance to the tube.

[DarJoLe]

Yes but how do you get 'down' to Wood Wharf from the existing Wharf? Farrell's masterplan (which fair enough I concede isn't at a detailed stage yet) just shows it connecting to Montgomery Square (which it seems has now got cars going through it!) at the higher level. So is this bridge on a slope? Or is Wood Wharf built on a podium?

Rogers 'high street' was more mall like, but not contained like a Westfield but more like a Liverpool One. It also didn't have a road running through the centre of it, which Farrell's seems to suggest does.

[Maxakoff]

This bridge between WW and Montgomery - will it be pedestrian or transport? The latter would be a huge bonus. I will tell you my opinion - like some I was initially very disappointed. Now I am more warming up to it BUT they need to have at least a couple more higher buildings in there.

[DarJoLe]

Okay so I found the answer to my question, it's a transport bridge that slops down from the edge of Montgomery Square. How that will work when it needs to be opened is another guess.

First of all, Farrell is proposing carving up the pedestrianised Montgomery Square to put in roads to link to this new bridge. Not convinced this will be allowed as Montogmery Square is a fire evacuation point for the neighbouring buildings so losing space like that might not be on the cards.

Secondly the masterplan now links Canary Wharf with the outside world, there doesn't seem to be any security check point built in. Rogers proposal treated the canal as a marker between the private estate and the rest of the Isle of Dogs by diverting roads from Cartier Circle within the secure zone, I'm not sure how CWG will feel about this as essentially any vehicle can now enter unsecured, or they will need to pay for another check point.

Thirdly the 'high street' is essentially a road with some shops down it. Kensington High Street or Oxford Street where pedestrians are second to traffic. The planning documents talk of 'pedestrians treated equally' but we all know this amounts to nothing. Essentially this is a plan driven by vehicles first and pedestrians second.

Farrell is a very status quo architect and masterplanner and he's doing the same with this completely missing the positives of an enclosed secure estate with 24 hour security that Canary Wharf has. This isn't Earls Court or somewhere that needs permeance with the surroundings and I'm not sure why CW are not seeing the issues that this layout of roads will cause.

[ill tonkso]

I can't see how breaking the boundry and merging the estate with the rest of London can be in any way a bad thing. This development feels much more natural and 'streety' than the previous plan. The treelined avenue will be fantastic.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

I can't see how breaking the boundry and merging the estate with the rest of London can be in any way a bad thing.

It's not a bad thing. I just don't understand why no-one's brought it up, seeing as it was a constraint in the original masterplan brief given to Rogers, who managed to execute it into his design.

[kerouac1848]

A high street with cars isn't automatically bad, walk down some of Budapest's or Vienna's wide avenues and tell me it's a horrible experience. Despite having about 8 lanes, Andrassy Way is lovely to walk down. If it was pedestrianized it would feel empty and windswept. The key is pavement width and crowd numbers. If it's just a 1x1 - or even 2x2 - through road flanked by generous pavements cars being there will matter little, especially if trees hide the traffic. Also, from a personal perspective, I quite like the buzz that a street can get from a few vehicles, as long as the walking environment is fine. Too much pedestrianization can make a place appear sterile, it's all about balance. Besides, looking again at the plans shows that there appear to be at least 3x as many routes for pedestrians over cars, especially on N/S streets. The canal route has no cars, neither do the parks/green bits, nor between the bulk of streets linking the buildings.

Rogers' mall might not have been an enclosed box but it was still a type of shopping centre and would have been the third in the area given the crossrail station is going to have a mall above it. That's too many and too uniform. There is also the wider issue that his plan was little more than an extension of the current estate but with a park and a bit more sexed up, meaning it would have done little to dent the cold corporate environment of CW. Fewer but larger buildings arranged around a plaza/square - hardly a plan to bring in some variety and diversity. Whilst I doubt CW will succeed in bringing the start-ups stationed between Clerkenwell and Shoreditch, they may still attract other businesses and outlets who bring something a little different to this area of London. They may also start to appeal to a greater number of residents. Over time this would influence more of the IoD in terms of what developments go up and what services open.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

It's not a bad thing. I just don't understand why no-one's brought it up, seeing as it was a constraint in the original masterplan brief given to Rogers, who managed to execute it into his design.

Well, they changed their plans, banks are out and diversity in the occupier base is in. Only the banks like Canary Wharf, the media and technology crowd aren't keen.

Maybe the felt Rogers was better at large scale corporate with it's requisite showiness and grandness while Farrell is seen as more organic and smaller scale.

The Wharfs roads are not very busy, the security checkpoints put paid to casual visitors.

A new road will provide a clear hierarchy and allow buses a better route in from the East. Low traffic volumes and narrow roads should make it pleasant enough to walk down and across. Since the Wharfs exisiting security points are little more than a hut and some barriers I can't see a problem putting them in here either.

[Loathing]

I dunno, Terry Farrel, in general terms, is a much less talented and much more corporate architect than Rogers + Partners. It is much more likely that the media crowd would warm to a project by Rogers.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by Loathing

I dunno, Terry Farrel, in general terms, is a much less talented and much more corporate architect than Rogers + Partners. It is much more likely that the media crowd would warm to a project by Rogers.

His buildings certainly, I don't know what it is then but Rogers seems to have a lot grand plans announced and then quietly binned.

[woodgnome]

Landscape architects chosen for Wood Wharf scheme

-- Link to Wharf article --

Architects have been appointed to design the waterfront landscape at Wood Wharf.

American-based Peter Walker and Partners Landscape Architecture (PWP) will transform the 20-acre mixed used site into new waterside parks for retail, leisure, cultural and community uses, with European-style streets and squares complementing the environmentally-friendly buildings.

Selected for the project by landowners Canary Wharf Group Plc, PWP has a strong track-record in creating international, high-profile designs including the National 9/11 Memorial in New York and the Sony Center Plaza in Berlin. It will now work with fellow architects from Terry Farrell and Partners, who are currently drawing-up an outline masterplan for Wood Wharf.

Peter Walker, founding principal of PWP, said: "We are excited by the new Wood Wharf project. It is a complex building and open space challenge and we are delighted to have been selected. We look forward to working with Terry Farrell and the Canary Wharf Group."

Robert Maguire, project director for Wood Wharf, added: "PWP will be working closely with Terry Farrell and Partners to help realise our plans for this new creative district, which will contribute materially to the continued regeneration of east London."

The Wood Wharf project will be designed to respond to changing market conditions, with a shift and evolution of commercial buildings towards flexible space for dynamic business growth sectors. The site will be able to cater for a mixture of future tenants, including IT services and new media companies.

Architects for individual buildings will be appointed in coming months, with the development expected to take 10 to 12 years to complete.

[I am he]

so wait instead of a bunch of boxy towers are we going to get a low rise liverpool one type development?

[DarJoLe]

If only! It's duller than Liverpool One and is a run of the mill atypical high street like Northcote Road or Kensington High Street with traffic running down the centre.