Stratford residential towers | Stratford | Various | U/C

[DarJoLe]

Maybe they're concentrating on the insides.

[DarJoLe]

2-12 Stratford Hgih Street didn't get a glowing CABE review...here's hoping someone at the architects firm is listening.




2-12 High Street, Stratford
Newham

Commercial floor space and 174 apartments in buildings of up to 28 storeys, together with landscaping and a riverside walkway. Designed by Stock Woolstencroft.

Meeting date: 3 March 2009

Tagged with:
Commercial | Design review | Housing | London | National panel | Tall buildings
Summary

The success of this development will depend, in large part, on how astutely it responds to the challenging physical environment and the evolving planning context in this Olympic fringe location. In our view, the design team present a compelling case for locating a tall building on this site. We think the combination of residential and business uses could work well in this location. However, we are unconvinced by the logic for a building of the form proposed. We also think that the scheme’s internal planning should be re-evaluated to ensure that residential use is by in large oriented to the canal rather than the highway, and that at ground level the building takes fuller advantage of its canalside context. We would not support the granting of planning permission for the scheme in its current form.
Built form and massing

The site’s location at a crossroads of major highway infrastructure and waterways on the border of the London Boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets means it is well placed to accommodate a tall building and we agree that this would be most effective at the western end of the site. However, whilst we think the site could accommodate the quantum of development proposed, we find the composition of an interlocking tower, medium and low rise block to be an uncomfortable amalgam of building typologies, resulting in a confused and inelegant form. In our view, there is scope to pursue an alternative approach that promotes a pair of tall buildings on the site. This would necessarily involve a redistribution of the nine or ten residential units located in the ‘neck’ joining the taller and medium rise blocks.

Whilst the stepped massing creates a potentially interesting roofline for the tower and there is merit to its glazed winter garden elevations, we do not believe the building, as proposed, will be read as a series of glazed shards ‘wrapped’ in a perforated façade. Further, in our view, the complexity of the reconstituted stone and rainscreen façade presents two key problems. Firstly, the pattern of fenestration fails to sufficiently express the individual apartments and workspaces behind it and, secondly, how to manage rainwater run-off and streaking on such precisely articulated facades and in these materials, which are especially prone to weathering. Therefore, we would recommend more exploratory thinking on the elevations to achieve a calmer, more expressive architecture and to reinforce its identity. This also might enable the budget to be better spent on higher quality, more hard wearing materials.

The joint CABE/English Heritage Guidance on tall buildings states that a tall building must be of excellent design quality and enhance the qualities of its immediate location and wider setting; an issue of critical importance in this case given the prominence of the site and its visibility in the international coverage of the Olympics. In light of the above comments, we believe the scheme, as currently proposed, does not meet these criteria.
Residential and public amenity

We acknowledge that the proposal maximises dual aspect apartments and provides each with private amenity space as well as access to communal spaces throughout the building. However, we would question the arrangement and quality of some of the shared spaces proposed. In reappraising the distribution of residential units and the internal layout of the building, the opportunity should be taken to ensure that the spaces proposed make better use of the canalside frontage and are easy to manage and maintain throughout the life of the building. In addition, the local authority should assure itself that the proposed ‘skygarden’ will work technically, will function as a space that residents will want to use, and will not become a long-term maintenance and cost liability.

While we welcome the principal of locating residential uses above workspace units, we question how comfortable and pleasant the children’s play spaces and private terrace on level seven will be for residents; in our experience, external noise levels in such hostile environments do not abate at higher level and would not be overcome by a screen of the type proposed. The design team should consider locating these play spaces away from the highway to overlook the canal, either at ground level or in exchange for the second floor outdoor workspace terrace. The workspace terrace, as currently proposed, also raises issues of privacy for the second floor apartment directly facing this space, suggesting that its relocation to ground level may be more sensible.

We are pleased that the scheme provides a publicly accessible canalside walkway connecting with 14-26 High Street. However, we think the design team could consider further how this important waterway could be embraced as a key asset informing the character of this emerging neighbourhood. In re-examining how the employment and residential uses fronting it could better address the water, it may be desirable to relocate the residential entrances from the busy high street to take advantage of, and help give focus to, the canalside frontage. There would also be value in reconsidering external access arrangements to the third floor skygardens; the external staircase winding round the base of the tower is questionable in functional and design terms.
Sustainability

The joint CABE/English Heritage Guidance on tall buildings states that tall buildings should set exemplary standards on sustainability. Based on the material provided, we are not confident that the proposal has demonstrated this. In particular, we are not convinced by the building’s ventilation strategy which relies, in large part, on the skygarden for its success. The local authority should satisfy itself that the proposals are robust enough to meet the high environmental standards now expected of tall buildings.

[ill tonkso]

Does anyone else want that to be built just so they can zipline down that cable?

[Topol001]

Hi everyone,

If you are planning a journey to Poland come to the most luxury and the tallest apartment building in Poland.

www.***************

Hope to see you soon !

[fitz44]

Probably not news to you guys - but the article is worth a post;


http://www.contractjournal.com/Artic...r-project.html



Work has stopped on one of east London's tallest residential towers next to the London 2012 Olympic site.

Genesis Housing Group has pulled the plug on the 43-storey tower which is part of plans for 650 new homes on the site.

Main contractor Ardmore had only reached the third floor of the £150m building when Genesis called a halt to work last week.

Stratford town centre is being transformed in the runup to the Olympics. But the 2012 boom has not been enough to offset the dire state of the housing market.

One source close to the project explained: "Genesis can no longer finance the project. The Stratford High Street site, which is very close to the location of the 2012 Olympics, was the group's biggest-ever land acquisition and maybe Genesis paid too much for the site in the first place.

"Ardmore did all it could to keep the scheme going -even offering to lower its prices, but to no avail."

Private housing woes
The mothballingof the Stratford scheme could herald the spread of private housing's woes to the social housing sector.

One industry expert said: "Housing trusts like them are now starting to behave like a lot of house builders because the cash is drying up."

Genesis had planned to build 650 new homes alongside a hotel and retail and commercial units. At least one third of the homes were for social rent or shared ownership.

A Genesis spokeswoman said: "Genesis Housing Group is still firmly committed to the Stratford site.

"We have temporarily suspended work to review the design with stakeholders and ensure that we continue to meet the needs of customers. We will recommence work shortly."

The source said: "There were design issues before the job started and it was called in by CABE.

"But that was all sorted before building began, so to talk about design issues now is just a smokescreen to disguise the simple fact they have no money."

[chest]

there is an article in tonights Evening Standards business section about the Genesis developed tower. According to Peter Bill the business property writer ,Genesis has applied for a £48m loan from the Governments Homes and Communities Agency - but are reviewing the scheme - which Peter Bill takes to mean the tiny flats the tower contained are to be made bigger.

[london lad]

Boris the Bold has put paid to capital’s rabbit hutches
Peter Bill Peter Bill
08.05.09

Hooray for Boris. Make the Mayor of London Prime Minister, no, King. For our hero seems to have faced down penny-pinching housebuilders to insist no more rabbit-hutch homes be built for sale in London.

This news is tucked away on page 44 of an otherwise dull 88-page review of London's planning laws that was published last week.

After some preliminary waffle about requiring the “highest-quality design standards”, Boris Johnson is fairly specific: “these new requirements will include minimum space standards.”

The minimum space standards the Mayor is talking about will outlaw the 300 square foot studio flat and ban builders from squeezing two bedrooms into flats sometimes as small as 500 sq ft. Instead the minimum size for a one-bed flat will be 550 sq ft. Those with two bedrooms must be no smaller than 770 sq ft.

Housebuilders who have run an underground campaign against the idea will be furious. For it will cost them around £150 for every extra square foot to comply with the “Parker Morris plus 10%” rule.

This was so called after Sir Parker Morris, the senior civil servant who drew up the original space standards in 1961 for council houses.

The proposals won't gain legal force for at least two years. But, if Boris sticks to his pledge, it will become difficult after 2011 to get planning permission to build homes fit for rabbits.

There is some wriggle room in what should surely be dubbed the Parker-Boris Standard in honour of our hero. But, if the development contains private and housing association flats, the private flats will have to be at least as big as the flats subsidised with Government money.

The Parker-Boris standard has already been adopted by the biggest builder of new homes in London today: the government's very own Homes and Communities Agency. It's an agency with leverage, for the HCA is pouring tens of millions in public money into dozens of developments stalled by the credit crunch.

One such stalled development stands at 150 High Street, Stratford, close to the entrance to the Olympic Games. Here the Genesis Housing Association had begun work on 655 new homes, including several hundred which are stacked in a 400-foot tall Olympic Gateway tower.

A third of the 655 units are destined for Genesis clients. But more than 400 were supposed to be for private buyers. That prospect has evaporated. Genesis is in deep trouble. It has turned to the HCA for a £48 million bailout loan.

Part of the price paid for the loan is the enlargement of the private flats in the tower, which has only reached the third of its 43 storeys.

Genesis was coy when asked, but admits “it is true that we are reviewing this scheme…and are working with the HCA to achieve the right scheme”.

What this means in practice is that a new firm of architects has been brought in to turn some two-bed flats into one-bed flats and enlarge the one-bed rabbit hutches that Genesis (which really, really should have known better) was going to foist on private buyers.

[NothingBetterToDo]

Credit where it's due, minimum space requirements are a good thing as far as i'm concerned.

[delores]

absolutely and developers should stick to decent living standards, I'm very surprised this legislation was never enforced before to be honest. Another consideration should be to increase the average floor to ceiling height in apartments.

[Newcastle Guy]

It's a good thing, but this...

Originally Posted by london lad

Hooray for Boris. Make the Mayor of London Prime Minister, no, King. For our hero seems to have...

makes me feel sick.

[Madman]

Originally Posted by NothingBetterToDo

Credit where it's due, minimum space requirements are a good thing as far as i'm concerned.

Indeed if anyone went to the Venice biennale lst year, the focus of the British pavilion was on housing. one of the most shocking exhibits was a wall diagram that measured the average living room of a new build house in each EU country. Britain (followed closely by ireland), surprise surprise, came by far the lowest and considering we have the highest house prices showed a real lack of care from the developers in the homes and communities they are creating...

image hosted on flickr

[Officer Dibble]

Interesting, but I don't think the developers are entirely to blame for that. Buyers like big rooms, and do pay more for them - in that respect, as in many others (e.g. people like high ceilings and, problematically for many on this site, classical features), the market sends clear signals and developers generally respond by giving them the opposite of what they want. It's a dysfunctional market, and needs either freeing up (i.e. dismantle much of the planning system) or tougher regulation (e.g. mandate bigger rooms - 'Parker Boris' here we come...). Stratford would have been an excellent place to start, but I fear it's already too late.

[gothicform]

funny then isn't it how here developers follow the law, and developers follow the law in europe. just in europe they have larger minimums than here where the govt believes we shouldn't interfere and the market will build what the market wants. not the fault of developers at all is it that with a complete lack of regulation developers CHOOSE to build stuff of this size.

[potto]

exactly you just need to lay down minimum living space in law, its not exactly rocket science, although the industry has been trying its hardest to convince us it is. Everyone should be entitled to decent living space not treat it as some pathetic value added extra, leave that for the motion sensor light switches. This aint the Victorian era where surveys found landlords filling houses with multiple families in each room, although apparantly we all love Victorian buildings. With enforced minimum space we'll soon have the UK falling in love with modern architecture once again. Because well they`ll be able to actually have famillies and swing cats etc just need to sort out the traffic, pollution, crime and low-achievement.

[pmun]

Originally Posted by Madman

one of the most shocking exhibits was a wall diagram that measured the average living room of a new build house in each EU country. Britain (followed closely by ireland), surprise surprise, came by far the lowest and considering we have the highest house prices showed a real lack of care from the developers in the homes and communities they are creating...

To be fair Britain is also one of the most densley populated countries in Europe and is heavily populated by people who feel threatened by any building over three stories, especially if it's at all modern.

[Madman]

^ The Netherlands and Belgium have similar population densities to England and they arent exactly known for their skyscraper metropoli. Germany in addition has a population density similar to that of the UK too.

Small room sizes as others have pointed out are down more to the seemingly unquestioning acceptance of the British public to them and the desire for increased profit margins by developers et al. I'm not really blaming anyone specifically (after reflection its all too easy to have a go at the developers), but more a dire situation we all compound.

[pmun]

Originally Posted by Madman

^ The Netherlands and Belgium have similar population densities to England and they arent exactly known for their skyscraper metropoli. Germany in addition has a population density similar to that of the UK too.

Good point.

But I can't help thinking that it's much easier and cheaper for developers to build in those countries. Britain seems to have endless enquires, call-ins and appeals when a major housing development is proposed and we've only recently started to embrace the idea of flats anyway. Even then most people probably still want or feel they have to live in houses.

In Brighton people think it's cool to live in tiny ex-fisherman’s cottages or ex-railway workers cottages for £350k! But there's uproar when a couple of Frank Gehry designed towers are proposed.

[DarJoLe]

Athena

image hosted on flickr


Stratford Eye

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr

[NothingBetterToDo]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Athen
image hosted on flickr

I can't quite figure out what's going on here - looks like a ghost building??

[delores]

That car parks going to look lovely to visitors of the games, I don't think it's going either which is a real shame. I wonder if there any plans to tart up the council blocks? or has that already happened?