SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Landmark Pinnacle | Isle of Dogs | 233m | 75 fl

978K views 2K replies 357 participants last post by  Shadoweb 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)





---


New tower to call time on the City Pride pub?

By John Hill on April 24, 2008 9:00 AM



IT could soon be last orders for the City Pride pub.

The Westferry Road haunt looks set to make way for a flagship tower, with a hotel, apartments and retail space.

Developer Glenkerrin has plans for a large building on the site after snapping up the prime development land for a reported £32million. But it remains tight-lipped on when it hopes to call time on the watering hole.

It has been suggested that Glenkerrin is considering a building rising as high as 55-storeys, with a five-storey hotel and 400 apartments.

The Irish company has already appointed world-renowned architect Foster and Partners to look into options for the site, which is just one of a cluster of proposed high-rise buildings on the western end of the Island.

rest of story: Link
 
See less See more
2
#185 ·
Boris has said he isn't opposed to tall buildings in CW, but he hasn't spelt out what tall means to him... so yeah he could quite conceivably play a role in getting it slashed down to little more than a midrise 100m and still say he is keeping to his promise of supporting tall buildings :(
 
#187 ·
This is a classic example of where we need to "do a China" and totally ignore the wishes of tragic locals in favour of greedy fat-cat 'raper developers. I mean aside from a few old warehouses there's little worth preserving on the Isle of Dogs. If locals get in the way we should simply bulldoze their ugly mediocre homes to make room for more tall 'rapers. :D
 
#188 ·
This is a classic example of where we need to "do a China" and totally ignore the wishes of tragic locals in favour of greedy 'raper developers. I mean aside from a few old warehouses there's little worth preserving on the Isle of Dogs. If locals get in the way we should simply bulldoze their ugly mediocre homes to make room for more tall 'rapers. :D

:eek:kay:
 
#190 ·
^ And you're a humourless idiot. Perhaps you'll be happy when the protocols of "local democracy" have been observed and we get an ugly 100m stump instead of an elegant soaring 200m tower. Perhaps you'd regard such an outcome as a triumph of democratic compromise instead of what it actually is - a total failure of vision in our urban planning.
 
#192 ·
No i dont think thats a triumph but doing a china as you say and throwing people out of their homes is a thousand times worse. I would prefer to see a shorter tower than some sort of mass eviction of people who have lived around there longer than any skyscraper. Which is what you seem to support.
 
#195 ·
^ He was referring, I suppose, to my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that we bulldoze these tiresome nimbies from their miserable homes in order to erect 'rapers across the whole of the Isle of Dogs. ;)

There is value in local consultation and democracy but in this country it has now gone too far. Developers should consult locals but, if their demands are unreasonable, then the planning authorities should support developers in rejecting their demands. Nimbies should not be awarded some kind of power of veto over development proposals. Their objection to a 200m tower so close to others of similar or greater height is simply unreasoanable.
 
#197 ·
Maybe they have been they lived there before there was any tall buildings which is a lot of the people who live on the IOD.

Anyway I would not get to fret up with this just yet as its a typical local news story. Practically every large development will have locals complaining with it being picked up in the local rag with an obligatory local councillor being seen to side with the locals over greedy developers.

When I went to the exhibition I was speaking to one of the people about this tower overshadowing the Landmark in particular & he showed me the path of the sun & how it would intrude very little on it. So if locals are complaining from further south (which incidentally is mostly modern developments built in the last 10 years not older residents further south) then its purely sour grapes & the usual aversion to new development. A sunlight assessment report is pretty much standard for these developments so it should be shown in planning documents that this will overshadow very little.

RS is far taller & bulkier & that got through planning so it would not make sense to demand a height decrease. Remember it is surrounded on all sides by tall buildings. An application for a 40+ tower should be going in for 30 Marsh Wall to the SE of this site & its only a matter of time before somebody buys the Millennium Hotel to the East of the site & proposes something bigger (Arrowhead Quay is next door as well which is no slouch in height terms either). The loss of a local pub is a red herring as well. As has been mentioned nobody forced the owners to sell the site & from being there a few times its not particularly busy & special & had a fair few suits for CW. There are other little pubs nearby with a lot more character.
 
#199 ·
^ I think it's exactly what the Wharf needs. Slender towers have much more vertical "soar" factor than fatter towers of the same height. Canary Wharf also needs more architectural variety.
 
#200 ·
My thoughts exactly. Slimmer towers are generally more pleasing to the eye. At the moment the cluster is far too bulky and fat. This proposal would go some way towards rectifying that.

That said, I don't think it will be approved. I suspect it will get a height decrease - seems like every time we get a "perfect" proposal it's inevitably cut down, butchered or compromised in some way.
 
#201 ·
^^Why are you sure it will get a hieght reduction? Pessimism (which I can understand) or a concrete reason? The 'local residents' - if indeed it is the long established more working class people who have long lived on the IOD are some way off to the south and would not be affected by this, except perhaps by a shadow from the tower, but I doubt it. There are reletively few streets and residents of the pre 80s era, I suspect they will soon be in the minority on the Isle. I do have some symptahy with their loss of tradional territory but times move on, always have and always will.

I was at the City Pride yesterday, they expect to be there until at least next Christmas, and maybe into next spring.
 
#202 ·
This shouldn't get cut down. There are two 100m+ buildings right next door, and then across the road there will be two 186m and 236m buildings. the opposite way, there will be Heron Quays West and then we have 1 Park Place not too far away either.

I highly doubt this will be cut down. It REALLY wouldn't make sense.
 
#209 · (Edited)
Lol- we should make a game on how often the following nimby phrases pop up for new developments. 1 pt for each of the following,

"Carbuncle"
"Over development"
"We support redevelopment ....but"

Its funny how people use the excuse that there's either to much affordable housing or to little dependin on which phrase they can get away with.

Didn't Ballymore offset its affordable housing for PanP to the Mastmaker Rd development so this Glenkerrin development is not setting a " very dangerous precedent" as its already been done by Ballymore & they doesn't seem to be have incurred the wrath of local residents or local councillors.

Not sure if its a good idea that the developers are linking the two projects as the issues for the island point seem quite contentious to local residents so to load this with the pride developments seems like doubling the amount of trouble.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -

http://www.wharf.co.uk/2008/07/island-scheme-to-set-dangerous.html

Island scheme to set "dangerous precedent"?
By John Hill on July 31, 2008 10:48 AM |
Tagged with:

GLENKERRIN could shift its required social housing from the City Pride tower to a scheme down the road.

Government regulations require any developer to provide 40 per cent social housing on a scheme. But the Irish developer is looking to transfer the majority of its affordable units to Island Point, a residential project further down Westferry Road.

Of the 189 homes planned for the site, 118 would be social rented, a percentage of 62 per cent. Key worker and shared ownership allocation would account for another 48 units, leaving just 23 homes for private sale, or 12 per cent.

Interest in the Pride development has been high since Glenkerrin paid £32million for the site of the former dock worker's pub this spring, and it unveiled a 63-storey tower designed by Foster and Partners.

Glenkerrin has argued that the decision to load the social housing onto Island Point was made as the tower would not be suitable for families.

It earmarked two floors for social housing in its plans last month, but many of the units will accommodate between one and three bedrooms. Island Point would feature 20 five beds, 44 four beds, 40 three beds, 49 two beds and 36 one beds.

Critics fear the shifting of affordable housing will disrupt the balance of diversity in the development.

Blackwall and Cubitt Town councillor Phil Briscoe said: "It seems like an unusual amount to push off-site. It's a very dangerous precedent. Everyone wants a mixed and sustainable community, and this doesn't seem to offer that."

Glenkerrin is hoping to submit applications for both the Pride and Island Point development in the next week, implying that the two are to be considered as linked projects.


While the Pride scheme is relatively new, Island Point has already sparked bad blood in the local area. Resident outrage scuppered a previous 337-unit application early this year, and locals were still unimpressed at a public forum held on Monday July 28.

As well as a reduction on units, the new plan reduces the number of buildings from seven to six and sees the tallest tower shrink from 12 to eight storeys.

Further towers were reduced from eight to six storeys, seven to five storeys, six to four and four to three.
Nearby resident Richard Tolchard said: "The first scheme was outrageous. The current one is merely unacceptable.

"I would say the current scheme is not sympathetic to the conservation area. It would be a carbuncle on the site and on the surrounding area.
"It's glass, white concrete and wood in a neighbourhood which is generally brick. Residents fear that the high levels of social housing mean that locals wouldn't have the chance to buy them if they wanted to."

The site at 443-451 Westferry Road - which was formerly occupied by travellers - would feature 1.62 acres of open space, 0.87 acres of public space and 0.74 acres of private garden. It will be powered by bio-fuels and provide 100 car spaces, with no street parking permits available to homeowners.

But locals remain unconvinced by the density of the project, which stands at 548 habitable rooms per hectare. They also highlighted issues with the vehicle access point on the bend of Westferry Road.

Gill Crawford said: "We have grave concerns about the development. It's still a dense development, which could have up to 1,000 people there.
"We're worried that they may market the Pride development as a prestigious site, and we might be the cheaper option. It just doesn't seem equitable, and we're worried about the mix.
"I think eight storeys is still far too much. There are no buildings of eight storeys here apart from on the riverside.
"We want to see that area developed, but we want something we as residents can be proud of, which will be around for many years. We don't think this is very well worked out."

Glenkerrin commented that the public forum was the third it had provided for residents, and that all three had been "constructive".
 
#216 ·
Whys that then?

The developer have already bought the pub & the lease & plan to submit an application that would probably mean the pub being demolished next year. Remember these developers have bought this pub & come up with these plans & a development timetable knowing full well the current economic climate ( as with individuals, other companies & developers just because there is current economic strife it doesn't mean everyones effected in the same way).

Something tells me it wont take much to persuade a major hotel operator to sign up to the scheme or much for somebody to shell out for a 200m high penthouse in a Foster designed tower.

So i'd enjoy the pints of fosters, jukebox & fruit machines while they you can.
 
#221 ·
Is it just me or is this proposal really, really boring.
I mean it's really pretty dull. I'm guessing it was drawn up on a Friday afternoon.
The guy who was asked to draft up the concept drawings was the last one in the office. All the rest of the team had buggered off down the boozer and he thought "balls to this",... drew up a thin box,...emailed it off to the client and joined the gang just in time to get included in the second round.
Yep,..that's what happenned.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top