Chelsea Barracks £3bn redevelopment | Westminster | Proposed - Page 3

potto · April 18th, 2008, 12:51 AM

the affordable housing can be tall but the rest cant? Sounds like Westminsters class bias again. That masterplan cries out for a nice tall structure just to add a bit of much needed drama. The whole thing looks like one of those retirement villages in the US.

Dommo · April 18th, 2008, 10:25 AM

The scheme is pretty uninspiring. Shame they didn't consider creating a new square in the centre or some focal point to create a bit more activity at ground level and further link Sloane Square with the river. I expect we will end up with a very dull, unaccessable estate.

UrbanG · April 18th, 2008, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by potto

the affordable housing can be tall but the rest cant? Sounds like Westminsters class bias again. That masterplan cries out for a nice tall structure just to add a bit of much needed drama. The whole thing looks like one of those retirement villages in the US.

Couldn't disagree more - there is no need for a tall structure here - I'd say 7 storey blocks are about right for this location - it's the landscaping needs to be top notch here.

london lad · April 19th, 2008, 11:39 AM

Apparently now that Westminster got them to cut the height the Candy's might not be able to recoup there huge outlay on the price of the site.Particularly as its not in as prominent a site as One Hyde Park.

Anyway some pics from the planning docs. Quite dull if you ask me.

fitz44 · April 19th, 2008, 02:22 PM

[QUOTE=london lad;19813364]Apparently now that Westminster got them to cut the height the Candy's might not be able to recoup there huge outlay on the price of the site.Particularly as its not in as prominent a site as One Hyde Park.

Anyway some pics from the planning docs. Quite dull if you ask me.

I don't know LL it looks nicely detailed to me but pehaps too repetetive across the whole site. It does look out over the Royal Hospital Gardens and a short walk to Sloane Square/Eaton Square so location is excellent. But I agree there is something missing - it's lacking the "wow" factor that you might get with a MAKE scheme for example or even Roger's own Bankside flats.

DarJoLe · April 19th, 2008, 05:24 PM

Is there a reason why they are all the same? Is it some sort of campus or something?

potto · April 19th, 2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UrbanG

Couldn't disagree more - there is no need for a tall structure here - I'd say 7 storey blocks are about right for this location - it's the landscaping needs to be top notch here.

Just calling for a couple of very sleek towers maybe either end, like the Victorians would have built!

delores · April 20th, 2008, 01:26 AM

hmmm i like the repetition but I also think that the buildings really don't look expensive enough? I am also not sure with the use of materials? It looks more like a college halls of residence than ultra expensive homes. This is the problem with Rogers architecture, His style of architecture just does'nt work for this type of building, It's more corporate than a home.

Andrew · April 20th, 2008, 01:52 AM

The space between the blocks isn't going to have much real utility and the architecture is very repetitive.

delores · April 20th, 2008, 03:09 PM

also looking at the planning it does seem that there will be privacy issues with the buildings facing each other as well as a problem with natural light. Maybe thats why its covered in louvres for privacy I mean.

Lord Nelson · April 20th, 2008, 03:19 PM

Hmmm, I love Roger's industrial style but maybe it's not really the ight location for this kind of project. A bit too "cold" for a residential area...

IMO

JDRS · April 20th, 2008, 09:27 PM

Very uninspiring. Some height variation would definitely be a bonus in this development.

I think we need to see some more detailed renderings of the individual buildings.

delores · April 20th, 2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Nelson

Hmmm, I love Roger's industrial style but maybe it's not really the ight location for this kind of project. A bit too "cold" for a residential area...

IMO

Especially chelsea. I suppose the repetition is something you see around this area but the buildings facades are so dreary and as per usual completly out of context, a typical rogers trait.

potto · April 21st, 2008, 08:09 AM

I wouldnt say dreary exactly, maybe sharp? lm personally welcoming this kick up the backside for residential development. We all know how such top end stuff slowly filters down the chain

Zenith · April 21st, 2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by potto

Just calling for a couple of very sleek towers maybe either end, like the Victorians would have built!

Totally agreed, but we are dealing with people who lack vision.

***wjfox*** · April 21st, 2008, 04:33 PM

Indeed. A thoroughly wasted opportunity.

Trances · April 21st, 2008, 04:40 PM

limitations by Westminister City Council i woulg guess

Octoman · April 21st, 2008, 05:24 PM

deary me. What a shame.

london lad · April 21st, 2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wjfox

Indeed. A thoroughly wasted opportunity.

Yep - They wanted the highest blocks to be around 13 storey's but Westminster wouldn't budge so I think the maximum is around 7.

N1 · April 21st, 2008, 07:34 PM

I think they work. Sits well in the area in terms of massing and hieght. No need for skyscrapers here - not even the just under 500 feet London version

Modern - but not too loud. They will sell fast.

A square would have been a nice touch though.

April 19th, 2008, 02:22 PM	#45
fitz44 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,203 Likes (Received): 6	[QUOTE=london lad;19813364]Apparently now that Westminster got them to cut the height the Candy's might not be able to recoup there huge outlay on the price of the site.Particularly as its not in as prominent a site as One Hyde Park. Anyway some pics from the planning docs. Quite dull if you ask me. I don't know LL it looks nicely detailed to me but pehaps too repetetive across the whole site. It does look out over the Royal Hospital Gardens and a short walk to Sloane Square/Eaton Square so location is excellent. But I agree there is something missing - it's lacking the "wow" factor that you might get with a MAKE scheme for example or even Roger's own Bankside flats. __________________ London Random and Unseen Photos; http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=637985

April 19th, 2008, 05:24 PM	#46
DarJoLe Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 15,663 Likes (Received): 394	Is there a reason why they are all the same? Is it some sort of campus or something? __________________ "I can quite confidently and with pride say that if everything goes to plan London 2012 will be the best Olympic Games and will surpass Barcelona and Sydney in terms of atmosphere, style and achievement. And not just about the sport. The whole city and its people will come alive and want to be a part of this. It just feels right." DarJoLe, May 19th 2006.

April 20th, 2008, 01:52 AM	#49
Andrew Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Cardiff/Newcastle Posts: 3,487 Likes (Received): 7	The space between the blocks isn't going to have much real utility and the architecture is very repetitive. __________________ My Photo Threads: Newport ~ 'Downtown' Cardiff ~ Cardiff Queen Street ~ Cardiff Demolition ~ Cardiff Waterfronts <> Dali (大理) China ~ Fenghuang (凤凰) China ~ Xi'an (西安) China

April 20th, 2008, 03:19 PM	#51
Lord Nelson Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: London Posts: 122 Likes (Received): 0	Hmmm, I love Roger's industrial style but maybe it's not really the ight location for this kind of project. A bit too "cold" for a residential area... IMO __________________ "Walkie Talkie"? = Ha, ha, ha!

April 21st, 2008, 04:33 PM	#56
*wjfox* Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: L O N D O N Posts: 36,140 Likes (Received): 911	Indeed. A thoroughly wasted opportunity. __________________ FutureTimeline.net - a timeline of future history

April 18th, 2008, 12:51 AM	#41
potto Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 13,495 Likes (Received): 249	the affordable housing can be tall but the rest cant? Sounds like Westminsters class bias again. That masterplan cries out for a nice tall structure just to add a bit of much needed drama. The whole thing looks like one of those retirement villages in the US.

April 18th, 2008, 10:25 AM	#42
Dommo Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: London Posts: 47 Likes (Received): 0	The scheme is pretty uninspiring. Shame they didn't consider creating a new square in the centre or some focal point to create a bit more activity at ground level and further link Sloane Square with the river. I expect we will end up with a very dull, unaccessable estate.

April 19th, 2008, 11:39 AM	#44
london lad Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: London Posts: 8,155 Likes (Received): 45	Apparently now that Westminster got them to cut the height the Candy's might not be able to recoup there huge outlay on the price of the site.Particularly as its not in as prominent a site as One Hyde Park. Anyway some pics from the planning docs. Quite dull if you ask me.

April 20th, 2008, 01:26 AM	#48
delores Registered User Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 4,562 Likes (Received): 24	hmmm i like the repetition but I also think that the buildings really don't look expensive enough? I am also not sure with the use of materials? It looks more like a college halls of residence than ultra expensive homes. This is the problem with Rogers architecture, His style of architecture just does'nt work for this type of building, It's more corporate than a home.

April 20th, 2008, 03:09 PM	#50
delores Registered User Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 4,562 Likes (Received): 24	also looking at the planning it does seem that there will be privacy issues with the buildings facing each other as well as a problem with natural light. Maybe thats why its covered in louvres for privacy I mean.

April 20th, 2008, 09:27 PM	#52
JDRS Against ID Cards Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Manchester Posts: 9,823 Likes (Received): 0	Very uninspiring. Some height variation would definitely be a bonus in this development. I think we need to see some more detailed renderings of the individual buildings.

April 21st, 2008, 08:09 AM	#54
potto Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 13,495 Likes (Received): 249	I wouldnt say dreary exactly, maybe sharp? lm personally welcoming this kick up the backside for residential development. We all know how such top end stuff slowly filters down the chain

April 21st, 2008, 04:40 PM	#57
Trances , , and , Fade to Black. Join Date: May 2003 Location: Living in London Posts: 7,895 Likes (Received): 4	limitations by Westminister City Council i woulg guess __________________ "Are we ready to go farther or have we already gone to far?" “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

April 21st, 2008, 05:24 PM	#58
Octoman Boo! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London Posts: 20,682 Likes (Received): 471	deary me. What a shame.

April 21st, 2008, 07:34 PM	#60
N1 Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 346 Likes (Received): 0	I think they work. Sits well in the area in terms of massing and hieght. No need for skyscrapers here - not even the just under 500 feet London version Modern - but not too loud. They will sell fast. A square would have been a nice touch though.

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: