NEO Bankside | Southwark | 80m | 24/18/12 fl | Complete

[DarJoLe]

Hopton Street got cancelled a long time ago.

[jimbo]

indeed, they'd even made a start on site with the piledriving equipment in place and fenced off, but (and I forget the reason why), the whole scheme was canned, probably as a result of the meddlings of Serota et al whinging about the nature of the new tower impinging on the Tate. Eitherway, that bit of land is better utilised as open space/piazza, with the Rogers scheme, (bumped in a timely manner!) replacing the lowrise corrugated iron warehouses directly behind the Hopton Street site.

The design is slightly off in my view, rather dated, when compared to other comparable schemes going up, but I like the stepped nature, and agree with DarJoLe that this, the Tate extention and my perennial favorite (the mustard coloured Bankside Lofts) will form a great little cluster, with the soaring glass of Beetham just over Blackfriars Road. Great news at a time where confidence has been knocked rather severely.

[fitz44]

Shame - I quite liked the design. According to SSN it's supposed to be turned into public space - I'll believe that when I see it! Perhaps the issue will be resolved when we see the Rogers development underway.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...=565571&page=2

This site was originally where a 32 floor, 107m tall residential tower was proposed. This was dropped following objections.

* Southwark Council refused planning permission to this development but it was approved on appeal.

* Construction on the development was halted after the site was sold on after GC Bankside bought it from Meyer Bergman planning now to turn it into a public square with a number of adjacent towers designed by Richard Rogers on another site.

[DarJoLe]

Well as far as I was aware the cancellation of the Hopton Street tower scheme was to allow the Rogers proposal we currently have. The public square proposal is part of the Rogers scheme.

I never liked the Hopton Street scheme, the top was pretty awful and I don't think it was a particularly well-sighted proposal. However, before that scheme, there was a much, much taller Rogers scheme for that site which was slim, futuristic and pretty damn fantastic. I had a render but I have no idea where it is now.

[london lad]

Native Land bought the Hopton St site & halted work on the site. They then proposed the site becoming a public square as a way of getting these Rogers towers through the planning system. Result = Developers got there tall towers with no fuss & Southwark & Serrota got the tate tower cancelled & a new square = so everybodys happy.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by OliverChettle

Yuck. They look like machines, not homes. They don't reflect London's architectural history. I detest buildings that could be anywhere in the world. Cities need an identity of their own, but modern architecture has no respect for that.

Oh my giddy aunt - how can people still drag out this tired and shallow argument? What architecture is exclusive to London? - Gothic - German - Classical - Greek or Roman. These were all international styles in their time! Just as steel and glass is now - deal with it! The terraced house, be it the fairly featureless Georgian , more elaborate Victorain or chunky Edwardian is perhaps our most unique contribution to world architecture! This is 2008 - let it go and move forward! No wonder we never get anything good built in this country without a massive struggle - when so many people cling on to the past! I am so, so , so bored and disappointed by having to repeatedly deal with this blinkered vision!

[Madman]

They look like One Hyde Park or whatever that Candy & Candy development is called fused with one of his city developments.

[wearethefuture]

Originally Posted by Officer Dibble

If the surroundings are mediocre then surely it's better to take a different approach altogether.

I wouldn't call the Tate mediocre, but agree that the other buildings within the local area have little architectural merit. What is this approach? Obviously it would be nice to demolish all the dross around here, but this isn't going to happen any time soon, so for the next ten/twenty years we are left with these buildings and layout. While this is the case it is better to try and (as allready mentioned with juxtaposition) make these less attractive buildings look more acceptable with a new build than make the area look even worse with a building that just doesn't fit in with its surroundings in the present time.

[randolph]

I'm finding your point difficult to decifer .. you can't mean erect a diliberately poor or medicre building so that it 'fits in' with it's surroundings can you? Surely a building too good for the area is better than one that 'fits in' with the dross?

[wearethefuture]

I don't think that this building is poor or mediocre at all, i think it is decent and if it is a Rogers design it will be made of high quality materials. It is hardly the most elegant or aesthetically pleasing design in terms of shape or detail but then my belief (my personal opinion) is that this industrialist look is deliberate so as to fit in with its surroundings (for example; the use of colour), hence why Rogers has been chosen for this site.

I think the design is 'edgy' and rough, which i personally like and think that this industrial look will enhance this location as oppose to a beautiful shiny jewel that offers nothing to the area and sticks out like a sore thumb. So i semi disagree with your second statement.

[Builder Bloke]

I did have some involvement with tendering for this project, but it has just been awarded to Carillion. Fantastic development IMO!

[NothingBetterToDo]

I really like those buildings - classic Rogers, i love the cross bracing and the colours.

At least its something different to the usual brick/white plaster residentials we are getting far too much of. They also seem to fit in quite well with Tate Modern

[Zenith]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

It only looks 1980s because it's a classic Rogers proposal and the steel exterior is red; i.e. it ties in better with the brick of the Tate Modern and will be a great juxtaposition with the green of the H&deM extension.

I cannot help thinking that simple silver would work better for these. In the 2nd render however they really do fit with the colour scheme of the Tate, and that smaller yellow residential circular tower of which the name escapes me.

I just want to see more street art on the South Bank...more sculptures...more density, more lon....oh god.

[Manuel]

A rather small but nice night time rendering

[henry]

Southwark planning apps are now online. Sadly they've all been scanned in black and white, so not as good a source of new renders as hoped. Nevertheless the documents are interesting.

Here are a few images from the Hopton street buildings app:

http://planningonline.southwarksites...temkey=9522377









This looks like it will open up the area around the back of the Tate Modern, which makes it a very good thing in my book.

[london lad]

slightly large & clearer rendering.

Give it a year & there will be some large cores rising to compliment the city cores on the Northbank with this the 16 storey 240 Blackfriars & beetham & who knows 20 Blackfriars as well (The way office schemes & residential are filling up around here , provided it gets through planning fine then this could be rising as well).

[potto]

cool its almost as if the planned extension and these knew about each other. Should be quite exciting. I like them actually they remind me of the hi-tech proposal Rogers planned for the south bank in the 80s just with less greenery

[delores]

One issue I have with them is the fact they are so close to the new tate extension that there must be some privacy isssues especially as the new tate extension seems to have observation rooms looking directly into this development. So whats happening to the hopton street site? is it to become a low rise building or open space as I think it should be.

[Officer Dibble]

Don't see the problem there. If people want privacy they can hang curtains.

My only problem with the buildings is that they look like oil refineries.

[delores]

but when designing apartments ,especially, you don't want people gazing into your bedroom for half the day, especially as its a public building, also the render at night ommits the new tate extension, half the apartments will be obscured in that view.