Stratford residential towers | Stratford | Various | U/C

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by jdjones

The carpenter's estate is to be demolished, it's too expensive apparently to renovate them. One of the towers is already empty, awaiting demolition.

Ha Ha, I can't even believe the council can keep a straight face when they push that line. All they see is the pound signs that the land is worth. Whole scale demolition will prove easier to develop than try and get private investors to live amongst those tower blocks. I wonder if they will finagel a deal for them to move them to the social housing in the athlete village, and go for a clean sweep.

[jdjones]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

Ha Ha, I can't even believe the council can keep a straight face when they push that line. All they see is the pound signs that the land is worth. Whole scale demolition will prove easier to develop than try and get private investors to live amongst those tower blocks. I wonder if they will finagel a deal for them to move them to the social housing in the athlete village, and go for a clean sweep.

Also with the lack of social housing in the area, it does seem odd that they are happy to leave a whole tower empty, it's not as if it has been condemned because the BBC are using the top floors as studios for the Olympics.

[Rational Plan]

Well this looks like the Carpenter estate is a goner.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/staff/staf...ditionalcampus

UCL to explore plans for additional campus in London Borough of Newham
23 November 2011

UCL and London Borough of Newham have today announced that they are working in partnership to explore opportunities for an additional UCL campus in Stratford.


Under the terms of the agreement signed by UCL and Newham, both parties now have six months to develop proposals for the site, which is within the Greater Carpenters Neighbourhood, east of the Olympic Park. If the proposals go ahead it is likely that UCL will develop a significant presence in Stratford over the next 5 years.

Some of the drivers for this opportunity are:

The growth strategy of the recently-published UCL Council White Paper. While implementation of the Bloomsbury Masterplan will accommodate some of this growth in the short to medium term, our central London location offers very limited capacity for the longer term. The opportunities to meet the growing demand for space to support the development of world-class teaching and research are extremely constrained
Stratford, and more specifically the Carpenters Estate, offers particular opportunities and benefits for UCL associated with the Olympic legacy, scale, value and affordability and, importantly, accessibility – Stratford is just 6 minutes from St Pancras on the Javelin service, and Crossrail will provide a fast direct link from Tottenham Court Road.
A UCL presence in Stratford would significantly boost regeneration in the area whilst enhancing the long term sustainability and growth of the university and helping to deliver the Olympic legacy. Our ethos of promoting public benefit and widening opportunity - and our modern-day leadership in fields such as health, engineering, architecture and sustainable development - make us an ideal regeneration partner.
We believe that our involvement would deliver significant economic and social benefits. We would seek to improve opportunity and raise aspiration for higher education in Stratford. UCL is already a major London employer, and an additional campus at Stratford would provide jobs across a wide range of sectors. It would also act as a magnet for small, medium and large scale businesses wishing to co-locate with a leading research institution.
Professor Malcolm Grant, UCL President and Provost said:

“The Carpenters Neighbourhood proposal represents a great opportunity for UCL, creating an additional campus at the heart of the Olympic Legacy with excellent transport links to our existing facilities.”

“We are developing ideas with the UCL community about the facilities that might be located in Stratford. Although we are still at a very early stage, we anticipate that they might include a mixture of student and staff accommodation, research, teaching and business and community engagement.”

“We will be working with our staff and students to prepare these plans, and we want to foster innovation, inter-disciplinarity and a constant cross-flow of activity and ideas between Stratford and Bloomsbury. To this end an internal ‘New Campus Academic Stakeholder Group’ made up of faculty Deans, other senior academics and key support service staff has been established. This group will meet regularly over the coming months to gather ideas from around UCL and to develop initial proposals.”


We anticipate that at the end of the agreed six month period, proposals will be submitted to the UCL Council, and to the Mayor of Newham and Cabinet. Any decision to proceed further will then be dependent on the agreement of both parties.

[jack_jones]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

Only a matter of time for this one.

This building is almost certain to be gone within the next 5 years. This building belongs to the University of East London (Duncan House) and houses their Law School. However, UEL are moving the Law School to a new campus (University Square) down the road next to the Stratford Centre which is due to open in 2013:





UEL are sitting on a gold mine here, so they will certainly want to sell this on to developers!

[metroranger]

From Stratford Masterplan

Stratford and New Town ward today comprises of a wide range of building height. However, only a decade ago, Stratford and New Town ward was largely characterised by two to three storey terraced developments, a few estates with 3-4 storey apartment buildings and a number of 20 storey tower blocks. In Stratford town centre these were complemented by the 15-storey Morgan House office building and a few other 4-6 storey office blocks. The historic height scape is strongly contrasted by more recent development along the High Street, in Stratford City and the Olympic Village and a few other projects, which brought forward a substantially increased height, and also led to a number of high rise towers of unprecedented height. The result is a very heterogeneous and fragmented picture in terms of building height. This masterplan presents an opportunity to establish a more coordinated approach to building height, which over time, with new development coming forward, will overcome the current stark contrast in favour of a more coherent and legible built environment, providing character areas with consistent built form. The Building Heights supporting paper sets out in detail the principles of building height highlighted in the plan opposite.The height guidance distinguishes between general (or benchmark) height and exceptional height (tall buildings) and gives guidance on these two elements separately.

Benchmark heights
In summary, the height recommendation is for benchmark heights of:

»» three storeys in existingresidential areas
»» two to four storeys in the Chobham area
»» four storeys along local high streets
»» four to five storeys in the town centre
»» eight storeys in the town centre fringe and the High Street
»» three to six storeys on Carpenters and in the Sugar House Lane / Pudding Mill area
The height recommendations allow for an additional setback storey and for a modifier of one or two storeys up or down (depending on the location)
which must be justified against the criteria set out in
the Building Heights supporting paper.

Tall buildings
The height of tall buildings should relate to the relative importance of their location in the wider context.
This masterplan makes a distinction between local, district and metropolitan landmarks. Local landmarks are buildings that are up to twice the context height and help to locally emphasise an important point in the urban fabric. District landmarks are 2-3 times the general height and mark centres and locations of district-wide importance, and metropolitan landmarks are buildings of 3-4 times the general height that mark places of metropolitan significance.
In summary the strategy sets out that Local, District and Metropolitan landmarks are appropriate in the following locations:
»» Stratford City (20 – 40 storeys)
The strategy also states that Local and District Landmarks are appropriate in the following locations:
»» Stratford Station Fringe (16 – 24 storeys)
»» Olympic Park Gateways (12 – 18 storeys)
»» Maryland Node (8 – 12 storeys)
»» Stratford High Street (16 – 24 storeys), however please see High Street in focus section and the
Building Heights supporting paper for further details.
In other areas, there is a general presumption against tall buildings, unless a strong justification can be provided for a local landmark.



Context
An extremely large amount of development has come forward in Stratford High Street over the last ten years, some of which has been very tall buildings. Consultation with stakeholders has emphasised the need for a more coherent approach to height along this important route leading directly into the heart of Stratford and running parallell to the Olympic Park.
Currently the general heights along the High Street range from 2 to 11 storeys. This general height is interspersed with towers ranging from 20 - 40
storeys.
As the heights supporting paper sets out, there is a clear need to provide a coherent enclosure to this street and to mitigate and integrate points of exceptional height within an overall design approach to this street.

Benchmark Height
As the Building Heights supporting paper sets out, the suggested benchmark height for the High Street is 8 storeys with an allowed setback of one storey and a modifier of plus or minus two storeys.
The rationale behind this is to promote a more consistent approach to height, that results in a balanced and coherent environment along the High Street corridor, which is of sufficient scale to integrate existing and future taller buildings.
A consistent line of eight-storey development on either side will provide good enclosure to the corridor. This will transform its character from what is currently a traffic dominated and relatively open environment into a great street that feels inherently urban. Together with an improved public realm and tree planting this has the potential to become an attractive access route and welcoming gateway into Stratford Metropolitan Centre.
Tall Buildings
In terms of tall buildings, the Building Heights supporting paper defines the High Street as an appropriate area for tall buildings of local or district landmark (not metropolitan) scale (16 - 24 storeys).
The rationale for this is that the High Street is a strategic access route into and through Stratford Metropolitan Centre. Providing taller buildings along such a route can emphasise its importance in the network, increase its distinctiveness, and help legibility by marking and emphasizing important intersections, decision points and other places of interest.

The following principles that form part of the Building Heights supporting paper should be taken into account with all applications for tall buildings:
Tall buildings should generally be the exception, rather than the norm, existing tall building with their height do not automatically provide a precedent for this height in this location.
Tall buildings should only be allowed in areas that benefit from higher public transport accessibility and have sufficient provision of transport and social infrastructure (or make allowance for provision of these).
Tall buildings should provide clear socioeconomic benefits (ie. conglomeration benefits or contribution)
Tall buildings should contribute to enhanced legibility on a local and city scale
Tall buildings should have no adverse impacts onto conservation areas or important views.
There is a greater case for exceptional height when buildings have a public or well known function
Tall buildings that aim to provide a landmark function should be of exceptional and iconic design.
Categorising the High Street as an area in which local and district landmarks may be suitable does not mean that these tall buildings would be suitable anywhere on the High Street. Further details of more precise locations where tall buildings may be appropriate on the High Street are explored within the Building Heights supporting paper and will be defined through further building heights work to support the Supplementary Planning Document.

[Rational Plan]

The problem is that Stratford high street is that the road over dominates the street.

While the pavements are wide enough for current traffic and probably what future development may bring, they appear narrow in contrast to 6 lanes of traffic.

Currently the road has two car lanes and one bus lane. I've only seen it on a Sunday so I don't know what traffic is like in the week, but if it's not heavy it could lose a lane. Problem is one traffic and one bus lane might not be popular. Is their enough buses to justify the lane? It did not seem that busy to me. Two general traffic lanes , a segregated bicycle lane and wider pavement with mature trees would make for a proper avenue.

[metroranger]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

The problem is that Stratford high street is that the road over dominates the street.

While the pavements are wide enough for current traffic and probably what future development may bring, they appear narrow in contrast to 6 lanes of traffic.

Currently the road has two car lanes and one bus lane. I've only seen it on a Sunday so I don't know what traffic is like in the week, but if it's not heavy it could lose a lane. Problem is one traffic and one bus lane might not be popular. Is their enough buses to justify the lane? It did not seem that busy to me. Two general traffic lanes , a segregated bicycle lane and wider pavement with mature trees would make for a proper avenue.

I use it everyday - believe me every lane is needed.

[Gavrosh]

Thank god for the A12 then, which was massively opposed in the day by swampy and his ilk.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by Gavrosh

Thank god for the A12 then, which was massively opposed in the day by swampy and his ilk.

And which was promised to reduce congestion (ha!) and is poisoning and contaminating a generation of childrens' lungs.

[spindrift]

In 1994 the M11 link road was built through Leytonstone effectively cutting a swathe through Waltham Forest between Leyton and Leytonstone. It was 4 miles and cost £250M


It was the subject of a large protest, and heated debates. A government spokesman at the time said




'This road will relieve a hugely congested part of London. The Leyton High Road is choc-a-bloc every day and this will take that traffic away from it and make the area breathable.'


And so the scheme went ahead.

And various promises were made about the improvement in environment in Leytonstone and Leyton areas.

But what is the M11 link road like now? Has it relieved congestion for those deciding to travel by car through East London?

Oh. This typical picture taken at around 6:30pm doesn't seem to indicate that a "hugely congested area of London" has been "relieved".

But wait.

The government spokesman also said that
"The Leyton High Road is choc-a-bloc every day and this will take that traffic away from it and make the area breathable."
Well thank goodness for that. At least Leyton High Road has had the traffic taken away from it and the air is as sweet as summer meadows. Because surely such an expensive and controversial scheme would be an utter embarrassment if even this fundamental aim wasn't realised.

Oh dear.

But surely there must be something special about the M11 link road that means it hasn't relieved any congestion, but instead caused more? After all, if building more roads in general led to more traffic and ended up making congestion worse then spending billions on road expansion schemes even now would be ridiculous?

Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Well he may have been a smart-arse when it came to relativity but he got this wrong. In the UK it isn't the definition of insanity; it is the definition of transport policy.

http://grumpycycling.blogspot.co.uk/...1_archive.html

[gmfdz]

Originally Posted by Kiki333

Hey guys,

I'm new to the forum so forgive me if I'm posting in the wrong place...
I live in the Icona building in Stratford and was wondering what they're building on warton road, on the opposite side to the Athena building?
There's a construction site directly opposite the corner that Athena's on and some kind of building going up, then further along there's what looks like a derelict building which doesn't seem to have any work being done at the moment, although all the inner walls have been knocked down?It backs directly on to the railway...

Thanks!

Kiki

PS: Happy to provide photos of the Warton road area and constructions close by if anyone is interested.

Hi Kiki,

I am a photographer currently doing the production for a project documenting how the area and the Olympic Park are changing. So I am looking for good viewpoints from buildings around the Olympic Park and I would be very interested on taking pictures from the Icona building. I can send you an email with more details about the project and about other work that I've done so you can check my line of work.

Let me know what you think.

Best regards,

Gustavo

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by spindrift

Oh dear.

But surely there must be something special about the M11 link road that means it hasn't relieved any congestion, but instead caused more? After all, if building more roads in general led to more traffic and ended up making congestion worse then spending billions on road expansion schemes even now would be ridiculous?

Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Well he may have been a smart-arse when it came to relativity but he got this wrong. In the UK it isn't the definition of insanity; it is the definition of transport policy.

http://grumpycycling.blogspot.co.uk/...1_archive.html

Maybe you could quote an official report on the traffic impact rather than some blokes cycling blog, who I may suspect has his own agenda.

All I can see on the Wikipedia page is loads of things on how important the protest to this road, was in growing the anti roads movements and other anti capitalist protest movements. There is only one tiny footnote linking it to some PDF excerpts about the reductions in traffic and pollution on local roads 'following traffic restraint measures imposed after the road was built', but I can't find anything more detailed. Problem the road was built in the mid 90's most of the documents were never online.

The only stuff you find online now are protester sites experiencing nostalgia about police actions and illegal raves. To find the truth I suspect would require someone to actually go down to the local library and dig away in the archives section or pay a fee to the Department of Transport a get a copy of the post opening report.

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

Maybe you could quote an official report on the traffic impact rather than some blokes cycling blog, who I may suspect has his own agenda.

You can go to Leytonstone High Road and see the traffic-snarled roads for yourself if you like. If anything happens in the Blackwall Tunnel traffic queues develop for miles in each direction.

I lived in E11 for thirteen years, I saw the congestion and degradation with my own eyes. I also witnessed thugs employed by the road builders attack the peaceful protesters - Wanstead residents mobilised to get the road lowered through a tunnel, in Leytonstone it simply smashed through the community:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285484.html

There had been several public enquiries as hopelessly biased as all road enquiries are/were. The simple statistics were that about 95% of proposed road "improvement" schemes sent to public enquiry were given the green light. This was hardly surprising because:

No one was allowed to question the terms of reference of any enquiry.

Decisions were taken almost entirely by cost benefit analysis. This meant that motorists' time wasted by sitting in self inflicted traffic jams was deemed to be worth 8 pence/minute. If the product of all those motorists' time was more than the cost of road construction then the scheme could go ahead.

No financial cost was ever placed on communities being ripped apart, the effects of climate change, pollution, priceless landscapes destroyed etc.

The decision was never made by a judge and independent jury but instead would always be made by just one establishment figure appointed by the government itself. In the case of the M11 link road enquiry, a retired army colonel who would have spent his working life being chauffeur driven from one traffic jam to the next authorised the destruction of entire communities that he had absolutely no connection with.

High Road Leytonstone, which Sustrans has described as "cycling friendly":




How a traffic-free High Road Leytonstone was subverted.

1. 1980

The District Plan 1980 stated that

On completion of the M11 Link Road, High Road Leytonstone should be closed except for buses.

A very progressive proposal, which quite possibly resulted from a lot of hard work by local transport campaigners in alliance with sympathetic councillors. Now see what happened.

2. 1996

The Unitary Development Plan 1996 stated

On completion of the Link Road the Council will seek to exclude non-essential traffic from High Road and provide the opportunity to enhance Leytonstone Shopping Centre.

The proposal to exclude everything except buses has now been watered down but still excludes "non-essential" traffic, which implies (but does not explicitly identify) private cars.

3. 2005

All mention of restricting motor vehicles vanishes:

The Local Implementation Plan (Transport), Consultation Draft May 2005 stated that

The borough is committed to improving the street environment for residents, both in major town centres and ribbon developments on main roads.

‘Residents’ are now implicitly synonymous with ‘car owning residents’ despite the high levels of non-car ownership in the London Borough of Waltham Forest and the knowledge that car dependency is extreme in Outer London with massive use of cars for very short local journeys.

http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.co...ytonstone.html

In short, The High Road Leytonstone Corridor Scheme is just another nail in the coffin of cycling, another contributor to obesity and air pollution, and another encouragement to the ownership and use of a car for short distances.

Boris's solution to the increased pollution in East London during the games is to spray it with glue:

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/new...ing_Olympics_/

[Gavrosh]

Originally Posted by spindrift

And which was promised to reduce congestion (ha!) and is poisoning and contaminating a generation of childrens' lungs.

Yes, I heard the cars on the A12 are much worse than the cars on all those other roads....

[spindrift]

Originally Posted by Gavrosh

Yes, I heard the cars on the A12 are much worse than the cars on all those other roads....

No, they're the same, there are just a lot more of them. If you build new roads traffic expands to fill them, even the yanks accept that now. It's not cars that are the worst culprit though, PM10 particles are the most invidious, they nestle in developing lungs and cause asthma, respiratory illness and cancers and mostly come from diesels.

A gigantic six-lane road was carved through East London, the original plans for the existing roads to become pedestrianised were abandoned quietly so E11 now has two massive snarled-up traffic jams every day instead of one. The result?

Over 18 per cent of children in east London have a diagnosis of asthma recorded by their doctor.

http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/ite.../smd/9833.html

[Core Rising]

image hosted on flickr

150 Stratford High Street UC by corerising, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

Stratford by corerising, on Flickr

[jack_jones]

Originally Posted by metroranger

From BD online



A 36-storey tower by Allies & Morrison, part of the Olympic boom at Stratford, has been granted planning consent.

The London Thames Gateway Development Corporation has approved the £130 million Broadway Chambers scheme, which is sited between Stratford town centre and the Olympic Park.

Read more: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?...#ixzz0fOY1xohr

Sorry for bumping the thread! But what ever happened to this project - Broadway Chambers? Will it still be going ahead or did it get scrapped?

[delores]

Originally Posted by jack_jones

Sorry for bumping the thread! But what ever happened to this project - Broadway Chambers? Will it still be going ahead or did it get scrapped?

Looks exactly like the same scheme they proposed in Vauxhall, I'm not sure, it would definitely add a bit of quality to the area.

[The Champ]

They are building something on top of one of those older tower blocks on the 'old' Stratford side of the railway tracks, think I remember someone saying it was for the BBC?

Large steels being put up by humungous crane on the way home tonight

[Metroguy78]

Yeah the BBC studio is on top of one of the old nearly empty council blocks.