SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1M views 4K replies 259 participants last post by  geogregor 
#1 · (Edited)
No skyscrapers planned, but plenty of interesting mid-rise projects. Notably:

http://www.thewatergardens.co.uk/ - still under construction

http://www.chambers-wharf.co.uk/ - finally a planning application for this crucial site

http://www.canadawater-southwark.co.uk/ - regeneration project around Canada Water - to include a distinctive new library by Piers Gough, a revamp of the mall (no info yet at http://www.surreyquaysshoppingcentre.co.uk/redevelopment.html), new restaurants, cafes, residential buildings

http://www.bermondseyspa.co.uk/site/bs_home.html - big regeneration project, mostly now in early stages of construction

Transport-wise, the East London Line (stops at Rotherhithe and Canada Water) shuts at the end of this year, to reopen two and a half years later with extensions north and south, new trains, and a rebrand as London Overground (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/2105.aspx)

And there's a feasibility study underway for a cycling and pedestrian bridge to link Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/default.asp?sID=1093338220720), which would be very welcome as the Rotherhithe Tunnel is no fun if you're not in a car.
 
See less See more
#2,554 ·
New housing project next to the Greenwich comedy club, that includes renovation of the comedy club. I hope they don't get ride of the purple exterior as it would appear in the renders!

Bouygues UK has bagged a £20m job to build more than 80 homes for housing association Family Mosaic in Greenwich.

The design and build scheme at Creek Road will feature 83 homes, of which 62 will be offered as affordable rent.

The development will also include 1800 sqm of commercial space at ground level.

The demolition and excavation work of derelict homes and a disused car wash on site is currently underway.

Construction is scheduled to begin early next year, with the new homes due for completion in late 2016.

Bouygues UK’s regional director for housing in London, John Campion, said: “This is a complex project, which will involve careful and sensitive removal of existing buildings and structures on the site and the construction of 83 new homes with a combination of tenures to address different housing needs.

“We are committed to working with social housing providers to deliver high quality homes as part of economically viable mixed-use housing schemes in the capital.”
http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/sector...l-housing-contract/8674493.article#.VJqroV4gE



 
#2,557 ·
Would it be worthwhile splitting Southwark away from this thread, as about half of the projects here seem to be in that borough, and because areas like Camberwell and Peckham don't seem to fit that well into this thread but would in a Southwark thread?

EDIT: I was also thinking renaming the Clapham & Brixton thread that I started as a Lambeth thread might be a good idea at the same time.
 
#2,566 ·
33 subforums would discourage people using the forum. Most projects would get a single post and never any replies, and activity generally would decrease. Threads make sense for documenting small projects, just this one has become a little bit unwieldly given how much of London it encompasses. Maybe a single sub-forum for Borough specific threads with a thread for each borough would be a good in between point. We already have a few borough specific threads, such as the Wandsworth one, that could populate it.
 
#2,567 · (Edited)
Having a sub-forum for each borough would make cataloguing/indexing much simpler thereby reducing the likelihood of duplicate posts and the "Not sure if this one has been posted before" comment.

Also, having ONLY project-specific threads within each borough sub-forum would make referencing for height information, renders, etc., much easier as most threads would be very short often just one page, I would imagine.
 
#2,568 ·
I think we should have threads that suit the level of interest in an area of London. London is being rebuilt, but were not interested in the thousands of small infill projects dotted around the suburbs. We only become interested if it above 20 floors. Plus in it's nature most people are only going to provide updates of central locations. So we have saturation coverage of the City and Docklands, relatively little of the West End (no talls and lots of deathmasking). With lots of redevelopment in the Dogs and surrounding areas it's easy to hit a lot of projects in one go.

All over London lots of council estates are being redeveloped but only Elephant & Castle has been covered by multiple people.

I tried launching and Isle of Dogs board but that fell flat on it's arse as every proposal there gets it's own thread. Greenwich Peninsula and the Olympic parks areas have worked, because there have not to been too many talls to pull the thread apart.

You could argue about splitting the thread into two smaller chunks, but without Mr Dibbles efforts te thread would die off anyway.
 
#2,573 ·
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/london-regeneration-videos-dan-honcox-374

One corporate video, telling people to invest in Deptford, South London, provoked such a howl of public anguish in the last few weeks that the company behind it, Cathedral, have taken it offline and are refusing to talk to the press about it (fortunately, one public-spirited citizen has re-uploaded it to ​YouTube). These videos are the calling cards of London's gentrifiers, forecasting a depressing, heavily branded vision of London's future as an agglomeration of exclusive "urban villages".
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/02/deptford-apex-of-fashionability

Tim Murphy, the managing director of IP Global, a property investment firm that is promoting Cathedral’s scheme to its clients in East Asia, explains how money can be made.

“You can just see it [Deptford] hasn’t had all that money thrown at it yet,” Murphy says to camera outside Deptford station.

“And that’s what you want. When you’re investing in property, you don’t want trendy stores … and Starbucks everywhere, because that means the prices have already gone [up].”

On the other hand, “ … when the artists start coming, that’s when you want to get in!”
 
#2,574 ·
Not sure what this vilification of foreign money is all about particularly as all these social commentators don't put up any other viable alternatives. What do they want, half abandoned and derelict sites that will remain undeveloped forever but at least the cheap and dowdy area will still maintain is air of poverty and edginess to keep the very same commentators,who wouldn't live in these areas if they paid them happy.

Cathedral Group are one of the better developers and have done some really good schemes that have by and large been a positive addition to the areas they have invested in.

http://www.cathedralgroup.com/
 
#2,578 · (Edited)
What do they want, half abandoned and derelict sites that will remain undeveloped forever but at least the cheap and dowdy area will still maintain is air of poverty and edginess to keep the very same commentators,who wouldn't live in these areas if they paid them happy.
Yes. Not everywhere should be sanitised within an inch of its life by people who think everywhere should be Prets and Itsus. Too many are happy to see anything new proposed by anyone in the name of 'cleaning up' run down areas, whilst deriding anyone who speaks against that as nimbys or people who want to live in squalor... And yet can never accept that some people are happy with the way things are and don't want their locale swept away under a sea of plastic apartments and happy wholesome marketing speak.
 
#2,575 ·
That video's gone, if you click on the link it says "Removed due to copyright claim". It must have been awful, worse than the Glasshouse Gardens one.

The video was shared on various other places, including the Quay Point and Facebook's I Love Deptford group, where it caused mighty outrage and came to the attention of local resident Maria Livings.

She was so incensed she wrote to Cathedral Group CEO Richard Upton to complain about the company's crass marketing and make some very salient points about the housing issues that dominate our local area.

'The idea that this project is being sold to investors and that the coolness of artists is being touted as the reason why property prices are about to hurtle still further up is completely sickening. None of the interesting, creative people who have contributed to the vibrant culture of the area are able to afford to buy a home and their work spaces are being eliminated wholesale as developers buy up all the land to create yet more unaffordable housing.

I am an artist/designer and have lived and worked in the area for over 30 years. Although I initially lived in a council flat on Pepys Estate I was able eventually to get a shared ownership home in which I still live. As a result of being part of this fascinating creative community I have become quite successful and have developed a thriving business.

However, even though I am relatively well off there is no way I could afford to buy a home at today's prices. Where are the people who work in a coffee bar/Sainsbury's/school/garage in Deptford supposed to live? I don't suppose anyone at Cathedral knows or cares.

You may live in a parallel Universe where moral and social considerations are not an issue and therefore have no interest in anything except making money. However you must know that public opposition to this tastelessly marketed development will be strong. You have made no friends amongst local people and ensured that the cool, friendly vibe that you are using to sell your development will be greatly diminished as a result of your poor grasp of the socio-economic realities of the area.'

The offending video was taken down this morning and Maria has been invited to meet with Cathedral Group to discuss her concerns. She is asking others to join her in writing to the council and meeting with Cathedral - details on the Facebook group.
http://deptforddame.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/rise-marketing-leaves-deptford.html
 
#2,576 ·
Took the gravesend train from London Bridge today as was surprised how much construction I hadn't seen mentioned before was on route. Was also surprised to see a large probably 1960s office block in Sidcup, I guess it was part of the ban on central London offices. Is it still in use? If not are there resi conversion plans?
 
#2,579 ·
There was quite a bit under construction right next to rail lines in the South Bermondsey area including one that was apparently affordable.

Maybe they have been mentioned, would be nice if there was a map of all developments with links to threads/posts.

The further out the train went the more obvious development sites there were, plus lots of what I presume is green belt but isn't exactly green and pleasant countryside - for instance a sand storage facility.
 
#2,580 ·
There is a sizable development going up by the tower block office in Sidcup close to the station. Some images here:

http://www.acorncommercial.co.uk/pr...il-shops-property-to-let-in-sidcup-kent-6387/

http://www.purelake.co.uk/projects.php?project_type=86&project_id=85

"Construction has begun with anticipated completion and hand over of the new units for Summer 2015.

The scheme will comprise a new 9 storey landmark building of c.9,000 sqft ground floor commercial space, a 106 bedroom hotel and 168 student letting rooms.

Premier Inn have a long lease on the hotel element whilst Rose Bruford College have a long lease on the student accommodation element and ground floor studio space within the scheme."

With the new laws on quick and easy conversions of offices to flats that block is the type that could be converted in the near future. I'm not sure about that specific one and if it has a long lease, but similar past zone 2 look very likely.
 
#2,582 · (Edited)
The Olympics took an area that was dangerously polluted and brought it back to life as a living and breathing amenity that works as a space for everyone. Unfortunately what is being built around it lacks any of that vision. You can't keep mining London for these rundown areas and expect the people who already live there to accept throwing up apartment blocks after apartment blocks whilst opening Starbucks and trendy bars is going to transform their lives for the better. London is going through hyper-regeneration, far, far too quickly for what has gone before and the results of people being priced out further and further is totally damaging its wellbeing.

You can improve areas with sensitive development that caters for all and clean up areas but you have to understand the culture of the place before dumping down blocks of overpriced apartments and hyping them up online with ridiculous aspirational marketing bullshit that pisses off the existing locals. How about asking them first what they feel would improve their area? Why are people generally so anti-anything as seems to be the case? Might it be because they see the effects first hand as the area they knew becomes further and further away from their lifestyle and financial status through no fault of their own? A few years later those original people who lived there are forced out, again, because the area is too expensive to live in. How far does it go? I've already heard agents sizing up Barking as a 'super investment opportunity' for the long term; where do people go once that's Gucci ghettos? Wickford?
 
#2,583 · (Edited)
I agree that there should be some strategy from the Mayors office regarding potential negative impacts of "hyper-regeneration", we all know the potential pit falls and I would imagine they would be quite easy to legislate at a London wide level if minds were put to it. The current Mayors office is far too laissez faire, especially in terms of design quality and often reminds me of 1980s London after the GLC was disbanded, mostly lurching from one random private development proposal to the other leaving it up to the boroughs to do (or not as in some cases) most of the dull Town and Country act planning bits, despite the all-talk good intentions of the additional London plan layer.

Even something as simple as implementing a visibly generous minimum space standard in London has seen a slow and under achieving birth (one of the first things to be impacted by hyper-inflation land costs is room size) which would do far more for public relations than chopping 2 sub-standard floors off here and there. Westminster council has some sort of rent protection for certain businesses that provide local "character" but it feels quite flimsy and is obviously only aimed at those that don't cause a late night headache.

One thing that has been banded about for a while and would be useful is a quota of affordable retail/work units in such developments. Each one is quite a simple concept and might have better impact at a London wide level so that all boroughs are working together with the same approach.

However I find it difficult to equate such concerns with the typical anti-development campaigns that have weight. Lets face it the shape and size of a building has zero impact on any of this and vicious media campaigns are usually waged by home owners with an eye on keeping their house price rising who have bought into one of the previous regeneration process already. The battle of area character is still merely facadism based, even perversely with people on housing subsidy clinging on to inefficient and outdated post war estates. At the crux the majority still drive to their local supermarket. Relatively recently the concept of local skylines has been thrown into the mix for good measure. I don't have much time for most anti-development campaigns as it is mostly irrelevant and often hypocritical and worse doesn't get us where we need to be especially with the double subsidy burden of conservation areas and the vast tracts of large scale inefficient post war estates.

Where we need to be ultimately is regarding housing, we need a huge a prolonged development campaign. We are in a situation where even professional couples can not find or afford a house for an expanding family. The pressure is coming from demographic changes of people living alone for longer while being highly transient coupled with a steadily increasing population (I find the word boom a bit politically loaded when you look at what London had to deal with in the past!) which has sucked up vast tracts of the outmoded but static housing stock under an inefficient unregulated private rent sector in turn fueling house price increases. If we talk of an urban mix rather than segregation being the most sustainable long term view (educational aspiration, policing costs, upkeep costs etc) then we have to be comfortable with the general flow of wealthy people moving into areas that are ripe for greatest change as well as be concerned about what I would call soft issues, those that can be tackled with legislation etc. I think it is safe to merely forget the super prime areas as quirks of a global economy.

I would rather see the wealthy move into tall glamorous towers by famous architects in new areas, using the value added aspect of views and closeness to transport interchanges to fund the steep service charges while new money flows into local businesses and services and go some way to drip drip into the house space deficit than endless legal battles over arguments of local character based on facades and bizarre positions on skylines. But yes there needs to be a concerted building campaign, verging on a free-for-all but protected by minimum space standards at all price points and some sort of local business legislation. I think the queasy slick marketing campaigns are a symptom of developers getting away with drip feeding supply and knowing that ultimately you are not getting much bang for your buck!
 
Top