One Tower Bridge | Southwark | U/C - Page 3

Mikey · October 12th, 2005, 04:46 PM

Prescott has just given these the go ahead

DarJoLe · October 12th, 2005, 04:50 PM

Jonny 5 · October 12th, 2005, 04:52 PM

Eastender · October 12th, 2005, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uk2012

London is not as compact as HongKong and they dont have any green!!!

what the hell are you talking about? have you ever been to hongkong (duh, obviously not). hongkong is very green.

DarJoLe · October 12th, 2005, 04:59 PM

What English Heritage had to say about the scheme

"1.12 The Potters Field site sits in a highly sensitive location, with the fortress of the Tower of London World Heritage Site across the River Thames and the grade I listed Tower Bridge close by. Fortress, bridge and river together form a cultural site that more than any other says ‘this is London’. Just to the north east of the development and to the east of the site is one of the most evocative remnants of narrow streets and warehouses redolent of London’s great docks, Shad Thames. In my view the Potters Field site requires a development that will “successfully reconcile the complexities of the site, including its relationship with the Thames, adjacent listed buildings and conservation areas, and the context generally” (Potters Field Planning Brief paragraph 7.1 CD5/19).

1.13 The proposed development before this inquiry introduces a form of development alien to the existing context, eight separate towers, in a landscape setting, rising above all other development in the area. Four of these towers break through the development plane of the protected strategic viewing corridor of St Paul’s Cathedral from Blackheath Point. The eight towers will undermine “the unique status and dignity” of The Tower of London World Heritage Site and harm the setting of this Grade 1 listed building. The combined effect of the eight towers will undermine the iconic status of Tower Bridge, also a grade I listed building and the second most visited tourist attraction in the capital. The development has a devastating impact on Tooley Street and the setting, in particular, of the grade II listed former Lambeth College.

The Potter’s Field site is of the utmost importance to London, in heritage terms and as the last link in the chain of regeneration of the former docklands on the south side of the river in central London. It demands a development of quality to stitch in a seamless link between the diverse character of its neighbours. In the words of the Inspector for the Royal Opera House inquiry, it demands a design “of strong and restrained character” (para. 20.21, CD14/4). The Inspector also wrote that “a markedly flamboyant design on the application site might be ‘overegging the pudding’.” (para. 20.20). What is proposed here is too big and too striking to be an appropriate infil of this, last and most sensitive of riverside sites and to make the transition between the scale and character of the carefully considered More London Development and the scale and character of the archetypal ‘historic docklands’ environment of Shad Thames. I would ask the Inspector to recommend to the First Secretary of State that these appeals be dismissed."

potto · October 12th, 2005, 05:11 PM

haha Prescott doesnt like poor EH. One thing i do like about this development is that they look good from a distance and add a pleasing skyline to an existing flat one

lyonsdown · October 12th, 2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

The Inspector also wrote that “a markedly flamboyant design on the application site might be ‘overegging the pudding’.” (para. 20.20). What is proposed here is too big and too striking to be an appropriate infil of this, last and most sensitive of riverside sites and to make the transition between the scale and character of the carefully considered More London Development and the scale and character of the archetypal ‘historic docklands’ environment of Shad Thames. I would ask the Inspector to recommend to the First Secretary of State that these appeals be dismissed."

Not sure I agree with the bolded statement but everything else they say is spot on.

Peyre · October 12th, 2005, 05:29 PM

Prescott you fat gimp

London · October 12th, 2005, 06:45 PM

Finally!

Chief Gherkin · October 12th, 2005, 08:22 PM

Shit!!!!

Nice buildings but not there please!!!!!!

Sparks · October 12th, 2005, 08:26 PM

oh dear....

JDRS · October 12th, 2005, 08:40 PM

Wrong location for those

GazKinz · October 13th, 2005, 03:01 AM

Really can't disagree with EH on this one, they're pretty much spot on, these buildings wouldnt really look good anywhere, but here there impact is terrible, something some much better could have been proposed here, shame.

london lad · October 13th, 2005, 11:04 AM

I think these towers look good next to More London, City hall & eventually LBT in the backdrop. If EH is that bothered about the setting of Tower bridge they should demand the Thistle hotel gets demolished or at least redeveloped as this has a far bigger detrimental impact on Tower bridge than these towers.

Bob · October 13th, 2005, 12:43 PM

I have thought long and hard about what I would put there that would be better and have drawn a blank. Even if someone came up with the cash to build a museum (to what??) like say the Guggenheim in Bilbao I don't think it would fit in any more. A mock classical pile, for what exactly? They are only a little taller than city hall and are further back from the bank so from the north will look the same height from all but a long way away. I think they will be the most interesting buildings between tower bridge and london bridge. Plus they enable a few more thousand people to live in central London and walk to work.

Peyre · October 13th, 2005, 01:01 PM

I'm having second thoughts myself, these could be brilliant additions once we see them in the flesh, its just the fact that its taking away a nice bit of public space in a core area of London

Bob · October 13th, 2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peyre

I'm having second thoughts myself, these could be brilliant additions once we see them in the flesh, its just the fact that its taking away a nice bit of public space in a core area of London

The land is currently fenced off. It was used for many years as a coach park and occasionally for a fair. This development does not build on the park.

London · October 13th, 2005, 05:11 PM

Well.... i...... never..........!

You really dont like these pots do you, guy's n gals?
Well, i think that they're at a perfect location, perfect height, and.... there is a perfect number of pots. The whole thing to me is perfect!

But, how is it the wrong location? - so.....you like the project, but hate the location?

fill me in

Monkey · October 13th, 2005, 05:19 PM

I love them. I wasn't sure about them for a while but having visited the site I realised that the carpark is completely underutilised space in a prime location. They are set far enough back from Tower Bridge and the riverfront that they do not impinge.

Peyre · October 13th, 2005, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob

The land is currently fenced off. It was used for many years as a coach park and occasionally for a fair. This development does not build on the park.

oh so its that derelict bit of ground that looks quite awful?

not bad.

View Poll Results: Should the Berkeley Homes towers get the go-ahead?
Yes, build them - they will be a nice addition to the South Bank.	174	42.13%
Yes, build them - but cut them down in height and scale, or modify their design in some way.	40	9.69%
No, don't build them – they will harm the setting of Tower Bridge and the Tower of London.	172	41.65%
Undecided.	27	6.54%
Voters: 413. You may not vote on this poll

October 12th, 2005, 04:46 PM	#41
Mikey Aerial Erector Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 1,495 Likes (Received): 1	Prescott has just given these the go ahead __________________ www.Freshradiouk.com streaming dance music 24/7 catch me every saturday 4-6pm GMT

October 12th, 2005, 04:52 PM	#43
Jonny 5 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,940 Likes (Received): 0	__________________ If you watch the Internet backwards its a story about how a huge population of idiots was overthrown by a group of highly intelligent and sexless geeks. My SSP Diagram------﴾\__/﴿-----﴾\__/﴿----﴾\__/﴿ London Diagram -----﴾='.'=﴿----﴾='.'=﴿---﴾='.'=﴿ -----------------------------﴾"﴿_﴾"﴿---﴾"﴿_﴾"﴿---﴾"﴿_﴾"﴿ v¥v⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v¥v

October 12th, 2005, 05:29 PM	#48
Peyre Waiting for 122 Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Harrow-On-The-Great-Big-Fucking-Hill, London Posts: 3,816 Likes (Received): 0	Prescott you fat gimp __________________ Help Save London's future. Show your opposition to UNESCO attempting to undermine London's sovereignty http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ldntower/

October 12th, 2005, 08:26 PM	#51
Sparks Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne / Bournemouth, UK Posts: 1,070 Likes (Received): 0	oh dear.... __________________ "The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." Sir Winston Churchill

October 12th, 2005, 04:50 PM	#42
DarJoLe Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 15,671 Likes (Received): 397

October 12th, 2005, 04:59 PM	#45
DarJoLe Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 15,671 Likes (Received): 397	What English Heritage had to say about the scheme "1.12 The Potters Field site sits in a highly sensitive location, with the fortress of the Tower of London World Heritage Site across the River Thames and the grade I listed Tower Bridge close by. Fortress, bridge and river together form a cultural site that more than any other says ‘this is London’. Just to the north east of the development and to the east of the site is one of the most evocative remnants of narrow streets and warehouses redolent of London’s great docks, Shad Thames. In my view the Potters Field site requires a development that will “successfully reconcile the complexities of the site, including its relationship with the Thames, adjacent listed buildings and conservation areas, and the context generally” (Potters Field Planning Brief paragraph 7.1 CD5/19). 1.13 The proposed development before this inquiry introduces a form of development alien to the existing context, eight separate towers, in a landscape setting, rising above all other development in the area. Four of these towers break through the development plane of the protected strategic viewing corridor of St Paul’s Cathedral from Blackheath Point. The eight towers will undermine “the unique status and dignity” of The Tower of London World Heritage Site and harm the setting of this Grade 1 listed building. The combined effect of the eight towers will undermine the iconic status of Tower Bridge, also a grade I listed building and the second most visited tourist attraction in the capital. The development has a devastating impact on Tooley Street and the setting, in particular, of the grade II listed former Lambeth College. The Potter’s Field site is of the utmost importance to London, in heritage terms and as the last link in the chain of regeneration of the former docklands on the south side of the river in central London. It demands a development of quality to stitch in a seamless link between the diverse character of its neighbours. In the words of the Inspector for the Royal Opera House inquiry, it demands a design “of strong and restrained character” (para. 20.21, CD14/4). The Inspector also wrote that “a markedly flamboyant design on the application site might be ‘overegging the pudding’.” (para. 20.20). What is proposed here is too big and too striking to be an appropriate infil of this, last and most sensitive of riverside sites and to make the transition between the scale and character of the carefully considered More London Development and the scale and character of the archetypal ‘historic docklands’ environment of Shad Thames. I would ask the Inspector to recommend to the First Secretary of State that these appeals be dismissed."

October 12th, 2005, 05:11 PM	#46
potto Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 13,506 Likes (Received): 255	haha Prescott doesnt like poor EH. One thing i do like about this development is that they look good from a distance and add a pleasing skyline to an existing flat one

October 12th, 2005, 06:45 PM	#49
London New York Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London Posts: 1,121 Likes (Received): 0	Finally!

October 12th, 2005, 08:22 PM	#50
Chief Gherkin The "original" Gherkin Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Northern Tundra Posts: 117 Likes (Received): 0	Shit!!!! Nice buildings but not there please!!!!!!

October 12th, 2005, 08:40 PM	#52
JDRS Against ID Cards Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Manchester Posts: 9,823 Likes (Received): 0	Wrong location for those

October 13th, 2005, 03:01 AM	#53
GazKinz Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Camden Town Posts: 2,185 Likes (Received): 0	Really can't disagree with EH on this one, they're pretty much spot on, these buildings wouldnt really look good anywhere, but here there impact is terrible, something some much better could have been proposed here, shame.

October 13th, 2005, 11:04 AM	#54
london lad Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: London Posts: 8,155 Likes (Received): 45	I think these towers look good next to More London, City hall & eventually LBT in the backdrop. If EH is that bothered about the setting of Tower bridge they should demand the Thistle hotel gets demolished or at least redeveloped as this has a far bigger detrimental impact on Tower bridge than these towers.

October 13th, 2005, 12:43 PM	#55
Bob Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 2,321 Likes (Received): 3	I have thought long and hard about what I would put there that would be better and have drawn a blank. Even if someone came up with the cash to build a museum (to what??) like say the Guggenheim in Bilbao I don't think it would fit in any more. A mock classical pile, for what exactly? They are only a little taller than city hall and are further back from the bank so from the north will look the same height from all but a long way away. I think they will be the most interesting buildings between tower bridge and london bridge. Plus they enable a few more thousand people to live in central London and walk to work.

October 13th, 2005, 01:01 PM	#56
Peyre Waiting for 122 Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Harrow-On-The-Great-Big-Fucking-Hill, London Posts: 3,816 Likes (Received): 0	I'm having second thoughts myself, these could be brilliant additions once we see them in the flesh, its just the fact that its taking away a nice bit of public space in a core area of London __________________ Help Save London's future. Show your opposition to UNESCO attempting to undermine London's sovereignty http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ldntower/

October 13th, 2005, 05:11 PM	#58
London New York Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London Posts: 1,121 Likes (Received): 0	Well.... i...... never..........! You really dont like these pots do you, guy's n gals? Well, i think that they're at a perfect location, perfect height, and.... there is a perfect number of pots. The whole thing to me is perfect! But, how is it the wrong location? - so.....you like the project, but hate the location? fill me in

October 13th, 2005, 05:19 PM	#59
Monkey Londinium langur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Londinium Posts: 14,616 Likes (Received): 1	I love them. I wasn't sure about them for a while but having visited the site I realised that the carpark is completely underutilised space in a prime location. They are set far enough back from Tower Bridge and the riverfront that they do not impinge.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: