London - Full Summary of Projects 20

[london lad]

Right so a conceptual idea with no backing is set to be built in time for the 2012 Olympics.

Its got as much legs as the cable car thats supposed to be built in time for 2012 and not forgetting the "cloud" that was to be built for the Olympics.

Remember the plan to have a pedestrian walkway attached to Cannon St railway bridge that was supposed to built for another landmark date.

Not a bad idea but I do wish the media wouldn't just regurgitate a bit of PR fluff for Boris's planning awards and Gensler.

[Ciudad Bristol]

Here is a bridge that did get built. The new ped crossing at Canary Wharf.

[DarJoLe]

That part of the Wharf is a real blip in terms of the masterplan. The walkways on the western side run along the back end of the Waitrose and don't really lead anywhere, and people get completely lost and then end up in the Barclays building! The eastern semi circle mall is okay, obviously a bit dead as it's not connected well to the rest but hopefully will become a bit more lively when Wood Wharf kicks off.

I presume that new bridge lifts up somehow?

[DarJoLe]

Mayor won't get Royal Parks until after Olympics and Diamond Jubilee
20 January 2011 8:42 AM

It has all the makings of a thoroughly bad idea. In the name of "democratic accountability", the Government is pressing ahead with plans to transfer control of the Royal Parks to the Mayor of London.

But such is the (lack of) confidence of ministers in the Mayor and Greater London Authority that this will not happen to "post 2012" to prevent cocking-up the Olympics and Queen's Diamond Jubilee. (This also means after the 2012 mayoral election, which could be won by Ken Livingstone.)

The statement accompanying the Department of Culture's decision makes clear that there will be "no negative impacts on delivery of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Diamond Jubilee, ceremonial and other state events".

It adds: "The transfer will not take place until post 2012 to minimise disruption to the Olympic and Paralympic Games."

Labour MP Nick Raynsford, whose constituency includes Greenwich Park, told me this spoke volumes about the concerns surrounding what he believes is a flawed plan. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is his stance - and I couldn't agree more. We're not alone - the Georgian Group called it a "hopelessly bad decision".

As Mr Raynsford warns, transferring the eight (or nine if you count Primrose Hill separately to Regent's Park) parks to the Mayor will place their future funding on a less sure footing - Londoners rather than UK taxpayers will be responsible for their upkeep, and finances at City Hall are always tight (and more likely to favour the Met police and TfL).

Mr Raynsford said of the decision to delay the transfer until after 2012: “I think this is a fig leaf to cover their embarrassment that good sense has prevailed. The Royal Parks are well run and efficiently run.

“I think it’s wholly undesirable and it could cause very serious damage to priceless national assets that are loved by millions of people in this country and visitors from across the world. The real risk, at a time of budget cuts, is that they will become a lesser priority for the GLA.”

It's also notable that the proposed transfer has effectively been kicked into the long grass by the Government's decision not to include it in the Localism Bill currently going through Parliament. A lack of parliamentary time could mean it remains nothing but a daft idea for years.

The counter argument is that Londoners deserve a say in the running of the parks. But can anybody honestly say the Royal Parks Agency makes a hash of their upkeep just now?

Transferring the parks to the Mayor would simply mean setting up a quango chaired by one of the Mayor's flunkeys (or possibly worse, a London Assembly member), and having the assembly "scrutinuise" the Mayor once or twice a year about what is or isn't being done with whichever park its members live nearest.

Earlier this week, Mr Raynsford was involved in a spat with Zac Goldsmith over the parks. The Tory MP for Richmond Park is in favour, saying it would prevent “lunatic proposals” such as the Royal Parks Agency’s plan to introduce car parking charges in Richmond Park (an idea jettisoned by the incoming Tory coalition).

The Commons exchange went as follows: Mr Raynsford: "As a Member who also represents a constituency with a royal park, may I put it to the hon. Gentleman that this is a divisive proposition that will be strongly opposed by those of us who believe that the royal parks are well managed at the moment and that something that is not bust certainly should not be fiddled with?"

Mr Goldsmith: "I profoundly disagree. It makes perfect sense that whoever is responsible for the parks is accountable and answerable to London voters. Democratic accountability is the best, and probably the only, safeguard that we have against lunatic proposals of the sort that we saw last year. The right hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about; I will not go into the details because of the time. I hope that it is not inappropriate for me to say that Members in the neighbouring constituencies of Twickenham, Kingston and Surbiton and Putney-they are all Ministers-are very much in favour of these proposals."

[potto]

it would prevent “lunatic proposals” such as the Royal Parks Agency’s plan to introduce car parking charges in Richmond Park (an idea jettisoned by the incoming Tory coalition).
The Tory MP for Richmond

god where do these people come from.

[bazzup]

Not quite sure where to put this, but Greenwich Hospital has won permission to redevelop the market. Story here.

[Ciudad Bristol]

/\Got a plan of what it (Greenwich Market) will look like (how different to original proposal)?

Meanwhile:

Hammerson and Ballymore to restart Bishopsgate Goodsyard
http://www.building.co.uk/news/break...011903.article


Bishopsgate Goodsyard work will progress in 2011 following talks between developers and architect

Developers Hammerson and Ballymore are to restart work on the controversial £800m Bishopsgate Goodsyard scheme on the edge of the City of London this year.

Building understands Hammerson has re-engaged architect Terry Farrell & Partners, which drew up the original masterplan for 2,000 homes and offices on the site before it was put on hold in the credit crunch.

Farrell is to review the original scheme with a view to restarting work as soon as possible, and the developers are understood to have contacted other consultants about taking the scheme forward.

A spokesperson for the scheme said: “This year we will be undertaking consultation with the local community and key stakeholders on the future for the Goodsyard.”


Related company


Read more: http://www.building.co.uk/news/break...#ixzz1BfmEMRgn
building.co.uk
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

[bazzup]

Originally Posted by Ciudad Bristol

/\Got a plan of what it (Greenwich Market) will look like (how different to original proposal)?

Will try and get one. Interesting about Bishopsgate.

[london lad]

Doesn't seem to be that much different apart from a lowering of height and retaining the original Victorian market roof (although its not exactly up there with Brunels engineering marvels).

Can't really see what all the fuss was about and the comment from the local councillors about how this will drive tourists from the area because it will become a construction site is slightly laughable. I suppose he will be turning down every new application in the area from now on unless the applicant can magically make the building without construction lol

http://www.greenwich.co.uk/news/0457...-the-go-ahead/

[potto]

yes that is particularly exciting. Personally I feel it is the most exciting plot outside of the immediate City cluster in the whole of London.

[bazzup]

Originally Posted by london lad

Doesn't seem to be that much different apart from a lowering of height and retaining the original Victorian market roof (although its not exactly up there with Brunels engineering marvels).

Can't really see what all the fuss was about and the comment from the local councillors about how this will drive tourists from the area because it will become a construction site is slightly laughable. I suppose he will be turning down every new application in the area from now on unless the applicant can magically make the building without construction lol

http://www.greenwich.co.uk/news/0457...-the-go-ahead/

To be fair, Greenwich is a massive building site at the moment, due to a variety of (good) reasons, from the Cutty Sark restoration to the Martime Museum extension.

[london lad]

Oh dear it seems large volume UK housebuilders find modern modular designs common in Europe to complicated

So instead of this


The flagship UK government sponsored scheme is going back to this


Taylor Wimpey is planning to complete its award-winning and ground-breaking Oxley Woods housing development by Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners (RSHP) with 29 traditional, brick-built homes

Rogers' off Oxley Park as Taylor Wimpey proposes traditional finale
21 January, 2011
AJ

The project in Milton Keynes, part of John Prescott’s £60k house initiative to promote off-site construction, won the Manser Medal in 2008 and was hailed as a ‘thoroughgoing attempt at innovation within the all-too risk-averse conventional housebuilders’ market’.

However the housebuilder has now turned to CMYK (Planning and Design) to deliver the final element of the previously pre-fabricated development in a similar traditional style to Taylor Wimpey’s nearby Oxley Gate development.

The move has angered residents, in particular Taylor Wimpey’s attempts at consultation. The housebuilder has told them it ‘was not seeking comments on the principles of development’ because the scheme already had outline permission

One resident on the Oxley Woods Living website responded saying: ‘Surely the principles of this development are fundamental to any changes Taylor Wimpey wish to make? Surely you cannot simply switch from award-winning, Government-backed, sustainable house construction, to higher density, brick built houses without re-apply for planning?’

‘[This] goes beyond the face value interpretation of “design”. Taylor Wimpey and CMYK are failing to see or acknowledge this. This highlights the threat to the development. I truly hope RSHP come back on board, and save us from this disaster waiting to happen.’

In 2009 residents complained about manufacturing faults at the development which caused leaks in some homes and it is understood a number of the windows and doors installed were found to be faulty.

However, according to Paul Mullett who lives on the development, these issues have now been ironed out. he said: ‘There have been no problems with latest incarnation of the windows.

‘Eventually Taylor Wimpey replaced all ours with a modified design, which works 100 per cent as far as our experience goes. It took them time, and several attempts, but it looks like they’ve nailed just about all their build issues. Which makes dropping the scheme even more disappointing really.’


Peter Gurr, regional managing director for Taylor Wimpey, said: ‘I can confirm that we are in the process of exploring new designs for the final two phases of 29 homes at Oxley Woods with CMYK (Design and Planning, a company with whom we work regularly in the design of our more traditional property types.

‘This process is being carried out with the full knowledge of RSHP and we are also seeking feedback from residents on the new designs, which are still at the conceptual stage.

‘We hope residents realise that this is not a decision which has been taken lightly. We remain as committed as ever to building sustainable homes and communities and all Taylor Wimpey homes are highly energy and water-efficient.’

[hellolazyness]

Really quite depressing. The top render is clearly the superior

[delores]

The bottom one looks horrendous. But the rogers scheme is not perfect. How would you ever be able to change or add too that design in future without making a mess of it? I think it's too prescriptive.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

That part of the Wharf is a real blip in terms of the masterplan. The walkways on the western side run along the back end of the Waitrose and don't really lead anywhere, and people get completely lost and then end up in the Barclays building! The eastern semi circle mall is okay, obviously a bit dead as it's not connected well to the rest but hopefully will become a bit more lively when Wood Wharf kicks off.

I presume that new bridge lifts up somehow?

I was thinking that but I can see no mechanism for it. There is a large power box on the west side but that's the only clue I can see.

I still can't help but feel CW's waterways are dreadfully underused. What it needs (in my opinion at least) is a better connection to the canal network. Would be prime narrowboat mooring space, and can you imagine the colour that would bring to the wharf?

[FutureImperfect]

Originally Posted by london lad

Doesn't seem to be that much different apart from a lowering of height and retaining the original Victorian market roof (although its not exactly up there with Brunels engineering marvels).

Can't really see what all the fuss was about and the comment from the local councillors about how this will drive tourists from the area because it will become a construction site is slightly laughable. I suppose he will be turning down every new application in the area from now on unless the applicant can magically make the building without construction lol

http://www.greenwich.co.uk/news/0457...-the-go-ahead/

The Greenwich Market scheme involves removing the original rough cobble flooring (to be replaced with a smoother modern replica), demolishing all the buildings around the western edge and building a modern 'boutique hotel' on the site, removing all existing styles of temporary stalls and replacing with permanent modern efforts.

A previous plan involved replacing the roof with a modern, plastic version, akin to the temporary effort in Borough, and removing the cobbles altogether, to be replaced by textured tarmac (?).

Already achieved is the permanent eviction of most of the extremely popular food stalls as they were stealing custom from the landlord's chain tenants.

During the two year construction, the market will be relocated onto an outdoor grassy stretch in the adjacent ORNC.

None of the above is popular. The council unanimously rejected it, as did the vast majority of the residents. The local MP (chair of the local construction association) was the sole supporter other than the site's owner.

[The Champ]

I notice in the business pages of the Standard tonight a very small render of the replacement building for Tate & Lyles Sugar Quay building next to the Custom House, anyone seen any larger pictures?



http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...sugar-daddy.do

[gothicform]

yeah.. larger image here -
http://www.twitpic.com/photos/skyscrapernews

[Rational Plan]

Hmm, Stones and glass, square, no random window patterns, a setback. Bizarre!

[DarJoLe]

The new Sugar Quay House is average humdrum. By contributing nothing to the riverside except bland stone and glass, no animated front, no attempt to display the important history of the site, a cheesy zig zag facade and a 'back of house' that has turned this end of Lower Thames Street into a grim delivery zone, it makes the under construction hotel and apartments next door look like an architectural and urban masterpiece.