SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Elizabeth House redevelopment | Waterloo | 125m | 31 fl | Approved

328K views 1K replies 209 participants last post by  gravesVpelli 
#1 ·
P&O Estates and Morgan Stanley have today submit planning applications for three skyscrapers for a site next to Waterloo Station at Elizabeth House.

The two office buildings are 28 and 22 floors and are due to be built speculatively. There is a 33-storey residential tower on the site. The scheme would habve 1.4 m sq ft of space in total.

Here is the story in the FT. Pictures are available in this week's Property Week.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d456ff9e-25dd-11dc-b338-000b5df10621.html
Three skyscrapers planned for site next to Waterloo station
By Jim Pickard,Property Correspondent

Published: June 29 2007 03:00 | Last updated: June 29 2007 03:00

Plans for a £1bn scheme featuring three skyscrapers will today be unveiled for a site next to Waterloo station currently occupied by a 1960s eyesore.

Elizabeth House, just to the edge of Waterloo, is a multi-let 1960s office block that vies with the likes of Centerpoint as London's least charming modern building.


ADVERTISEMENT
It was built to house government workers by architect John Poulson, whowas later jailed for corruption relating to the building of council housing in the north of England.

P&O Estates and Morgan Stanley, the owners, have submitted plans to Lambeth council for two speculative office blocks of 28 and 22 floors apiece and a 33-storey residential tower on the site. The scheme would have 1.4m sq ft of space in total - the equivalent of nearly three Gherkins.

The project is one of a series of schemes that are set to breathe new life into the area. Shell is expectedto embark on a revamp ofits South Bank complex this summer by inviting developers to build around its landmark tower. Meanwhile,Network Rail is poised to carry out a redevelopmentof Waterloo station.

The new plan for Elizabeth House is the third proposal from its owners in only a few years. At first P&O hired RHWL, the architects, to build a 33-storey, sail-shaped structure that proved controversial and was dropped.

The group then wonplanning permission three years ago for a "three sisters" scheme that would have included a 460ft tower with 32 stories.

However, it subsequently dropped this plan and asked Allies & Morrison, the architects, to come up with a new plan. The new trio of towers are significantly shorter at 295ft, 350ft and 383ft.

The ports company, which agreed a takeover bid byDP World more than a year ago, sold a 90 per centstake in Elizabeth Houseto Morgan Stanley Real Estate Funds in February last year.
 
See less See more
#151 ·
The towers high on Boris Johnson's agenda
Mira Bar-Hillel and Katharine Barney
30.05.08

Boris Johnson's policy on skyscrapers will face its first test this summer.

Conservation groups and protesters are calling on the Mayor to use his powers to halt two projects - three new towers proposed for the heart of the South Bank and a high-rise block in north-east London.



The Mayor is consulted on all major development schemes and, if he wishes, can order councils to refuse planning permission.

English Heritage is leading the campaign against plans for three towers adjacent to Waterloo station, which Lambeth council has indicated it intends to approve.

Dubbed the "Three Ugly Sisters", they would stand between 20 and 33 storeys high.

English Heritage is concerned they will ruin views of Big Ben, Westminster Abbey and the Royal Festival Hall.

It has objected against the "incongruous, dominant and visually obtrusive" plans. In a letter of objection, Paddy Pugh, director of English Heritage London, said: "Commissioners were particularly concerned about the harm which would be caused to the setting and views, of and from, the Westminster World Heritage Site.

"The issues are of national importance."

Objections have also been received from Westminster council, the Westminster Society, the Urban Initiative Authority and residents. David Hudson, project director for developer P&O Estates, said the buildings would be in keeping with the London Plan - which was approved by pro-skyscraper former mayor Ken Livingstone.

He said: "The site does not appear in any of the London picture-postcard scenes and is an important part in the first stage of the regeneration of Waterloo, benefiting several thousands of Londoners."

A Lambeth spokeswoman said the application would be decided on its merits.

She added: "In principle our administration is very supportive of the scheme in terms of the regeneration benefits it will bring to the Waterloo area and to Lambeth as a whole." The application will be decided on 23 July.

Meanwhile, protesters are fighting proposals for an 18-storey block near Walthamstow Market, Europe's longest street market.



Waltham Forest council owns the derelict site and has selected a firm, St Modwen, to redevelop it. The scheme will be submitted to council planners next month, at which time the Mayor will be consulted.

At present the tallest building in the area is just nine storeys, and a consultation report concedes the majority of residents are opposed to high-rise development.

During his election campaign, Mr Johnson said he would resist the building of skyscrapers in inappropriate locations and where there was a large body of local objectors.

Simon Munk, of action group Fight The Height, said: "We're asking Boris Johnson to stick to his election pledges on towers in the suburbs.

"This is a clear example which he should intervene to stop: an 18-storey tower in an inappropriate, low-rise area, opposed by the overwhelming majority of local residents.

"We will be watching closely to see if he delivers on his election promise."
 
#156 ·
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
I would not support impressive stunning skyscrapers in this spot, but even if I did these are ugly bulky ground scrapers creating a wall like effect. No thanks.

- Stephen, London

Stop whining about development, you people who already have nice homes and jobs. It's not about preserving views from your Georgian terraces (not that these buildings would do any such thing). It's about making sure there is enough opportunity for all who live in our city to work in it and all who work in it to live in it.

- James Taylor, Camden Lock

Please stop destroying London with these dreadful buildings - we are not New York, but old London and that is the charm of our city. Our tourists come here to see the differences not yet another tower block which they can probably see in their own country. Build them in the country, if people really want them where they can look stunning on their own and not spoil the skyline, which is what they are doing here.

- Jane Heany, London SW1

People are naturally not comfortable with change. Skyscrapers aren't that bad.

Just come to Hong Kong and see how amazing the views can be.

- Cookie, Hong Kong

If the proposal is for a London specific business, fair enough, but if it's just a scheme to enrich some Monaco residents,then that should also be taken into account.
This will be a real test for the power of Boris.
I hope he uses this instance as a test case for who is "the guvnor", Ken did, often.

- Frank H, London.

The only benefits that a high-rise tower can deliver are to those who own it. For the rest of us it is a charmless, wind-creating eyesore. London's ancient streets are not suited to this kind of development. If towers have to be built, then they should be built well away from the city centre. Let the architects come up with a distinctive low-rise style for the early 21st century, the same as the Victorians, Edwardians, Georgians etc managed to do. Most of today's city-centre architecture is soulless junk.

- Ken, Bexleyheath
 
#160 ·
Please stop destroying London with these dreadful buildings - we are not New York, but old London and that is the charm of our city. Our tourists come here to see the differences not yet another tower block which they can probably see in their own country. Build them in the country, if people really want them where they can look stunning on their own and not spoil the skyline, which is what they are doing here.

- Jane Heany, London SW1
Well done to Jane for getting the editor of the standard to publish her enlightened thoughts on the letters page tonight.

Maybe now her tourists can continue to revel in the post war charms that York road truely is .

Heres to seeing these huge NY towers being put up in a field in Tunbridge Wells!!:nuts:
 
#158 ·
Please stop destroying London with these dreadful buildings - we are not New York, but old London and that is the charm of our city. Our tourists come here to see the differences not yet another tower block which they can probably see in their own country. Build them in the country, if people really want them where they can look stunning on their own and not spoil the skyline, which is what they are doing here.

- Jane Heany, London SW1
Well you see...umm.....there is so many things I need to say here but...umm...well....

WHAT A **** ! YOU LIVE IN A MAJOR WORLD CITY, AN ALPHA WORLD BLOODY CITY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT CENTURY THIS IS! DOES HE KNOW THAT OLD BUILDINGS ARE ALSO FOUND IN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES ! DOES HE KNOW ABOUT GLOBALISATION THE STUPID PRAT! Oh yes I do love the endless charm of that ffing area.

Please someone tell me what the hell is wrong with your fellow Londoners? I hate this scheme but it is obvious that these people are reffering to all tall development.
 
#159 ·
I agree
What happened to the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans? They stopped moving with the times, resisted change.
America, Japan, Korea, Australia = move with the times, progress, incomes rise, beauty created, only the best of the past kept, positive outlook.
Olde Worlde = overtaken, fear of change, resist future, cling on to past, keep everything from before even the crap, doom and gloom
 
#163 ·
Build them in the country............Stupid woman.
So she would rather keep the sixtys crap in London, and build a skyscraper next to Stone Henge, that's really smart.:bash:

PS I do agree about these buildins being monstrositys, they should either be a lot taller or really short, i actually hope Boris does stop this, so it can be redesigned.
I liked the arch building, which was not choosen
 
#165 ·
It's a no-win situation for us here. If they are approved, we get what is basically three stumpy blocks that do not suit this location. However, if they aren't approved you can bet the bottom dollar we won't see any cluster here.

The ideal situation, if we had a Mayor who understood the project, would be to force a redesign of the towers into something a little bit more landmarkish which would probably mean they could be taller. However, seeing as Westminster only care about height they'd probably complain no matter what the situation.
 
#170 ·
wow have i stepped into some sixties nightmare. this scheme is still horrific. look at the third pic darren posted, is that a mostly blank side wall i see??? they are still inelegant lumpen masses despite trying to mass with the facade overruns to make the buildings a bit less monolithic. people say i am a supporter of tall buildings but these i don't support at all, they are massed horribly, too short, too stumpy, and just generally ugly. we should be leaving the worst of the sixties behind rather than making this architecture that has function so dominate form it's just plonked their, oppressing the upstream building like a bunch of chavs about to beat it up.
 
#173 ·
Because we can't build a St Peter's Square-sized space for a building in the centre and you could never have a building approaching that height unless it was built as a tower? Koolhaas is a great architect but he's designing a brand for CCTV and a major icon for Beijing. We don't need that, just a set of well planned, high quality buildings which don't act as a wall.
 
#176 ·
they wouldnt look so bad if they were half the width. I dont know why poor old Doon St got such a lambasting just because it dared to appear in the view from St James yet these things are deemed ok by EH (not that they should have any say in the first place but we all know how the media runs in this country). Lets face it if we want attractive, economic, lavished buildings we are going to have to put up with seeing them from some locations.

The funny thing is that if Beetham and Doon Street were built at their original heights I reckon the South bank would have got a away with this compromised and confused mess at Waterloo.... food for thought.
 
#178 · (Edited)
This is what Allies and Morrison do, they are from the architectural tradition that believes in boxes (as is Koolhass). As long as they're the architects don't expect big changes. There is a positive side, we can expect the public realm improvements to be well thought out and well executed. That might sound like a small issue but its an area that too many contemporary buildings get wrong. Bankside 123 is turning out very well in this respect. The cladding should look pretty good too, as long as you don't have a personal aversion to fins on your windows.
I don't think the sixties overtones are the real problem here, the trouble here is the massing. A large quantum of space has been squeezed below the line of the shell building, which has forced the architects to go wider, thus exaggerating the boxiness of their designs and creating a skyline that lacks elegance and variety. I'm sure when these began their life they looked pretty good, but various consultations saw them squashed down for fear of 'impacting' sightlines. Allies should really have gone back to the drawing board, but that doesn't seem to be the way these things work, unfortunately.
We can hope that the proposed redevelopment of Waterloo station includes a few buildings which are a bit taller (as has been suggested I think) and which break up the wall effect these three buildings will create.
Am I right in thinking these buildings were originally known as the 'three graces'? How ironic.
 
Top