Chelsea Barracks £3bn redevelopment | Westminster | Proposed

[JGG]

To me the masterplanning of this development has some "commieblock" or campus ressemblance. The Rogers buildings are OK but dull (although one could have hoped for something more inspirational than this colour cladding which these days seems to become the hallmark of affordable housing), density is good and the height respects its surroundings.

Somehow the project in its entirety seems to have a stonger associative link to me to Westbourne Green than to Chelsea. OK, even if the vast majority is affordable housing, we can do better than that.

[DarJoLe]

Chelsea Barracks site 'will be an example of urban politeness'
Amar Singh, Evening Standard
17.07.08

Full details of Britain's most expensive housing development emerged today.

Nick and Chris Candy's Chelsea Barracks project features a sports centre, 25m swimming pool, boutique hotel, day spa, restaurants, 13-acre underground car park and a Tesco Metro-style supermarket.



The development would have four acres of public green space, with 300 new trees.

Flowers would be co-ordinated to match the exterior of buildings, which would be "staggered" to be less imposing on the area and allow natural light into the site.

The brothers' architectural partners, Rogers Stirk Harbour, will discuss the proposals with Westminster council in September.

They are confident they will secure planning permission after their initial designs were criticised by residents. The Grosvenor Estate described the development as "monotonous, repetitive and totally out of scale".

Lead architect Graham Stirk said: "Our plans have evolved and adapted. We have had discussions with Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, the Greater London Authority, the Royal Hospital, English Heritage and the residents to meet with all the necessary concerns and requirements - and the dialogue continues. "We have taken our cue from surrounding buildings and the history of the site, which used to be pleasure gardens in the 18th century, to create something that is permeable to the public and consistent with the leafy surroundings.

"Some people have felt that we are creating a closed-off area but that is not the case at all. The buildings are fragmented and they will not impose on local areas. This is about urban politeness."

It is estimated the project would take six years to complete.

The Candys, property magnates who cater to the super-rich, bought the site from the Ministry of Defence last year for £1 billion with their Qatari partners. Half of the scheme must include affordable housing. This means that while the Belgravia end of the development would have 22 £50 million penthouse apartments, the hotel and top-end restaurants, the part in Ebury Bridge Road would have oneor two-bedroom flats for key workers, a community centre and the supermarket.

Paul Monaghan, the architect tasked with developing the affordable housing, denied the development would be segregated along class or wealth lines.

Mr Monaghan, of Allford Hall Monaghan Morris, said: "It carries on what happens naturally in London. You can have expensive homes very close to council flats."

He added: "On the Ebury Bridge Road side will be a health centre, a community centre and the £40 million sports facility. Our buildings follow a similar theme to the private accommodation.

"Balconies will break up the scale of the building. The living rooms look over sunken gardens and are all south-facing."

The 14 main buildings are inspired by the apartments of nearby Sloane Court. They are decorated with patinated copper - coloured panels designed to blend in with the surrounding areas. Mr Stirk said most of the buildings would not exceed nine storeys.

"The height has been subject to quite a lot of discussions and we feel we have found the right balance now," he said.

The site is owned by Project Blue, a joint venture by Chris Candy's CPC Group - which also owns One Hyde Park - and the Qatari Diar Real Estate. Lee Hallman, Project Blue's design director, said: "Despite the current economic climate, we remain committed to delivering thiswhile other residential developments in London are falling by the wayside."

[Octoman]

Paul Monaghan, the architect tasked with developing the affordable housing, denied the development would be segregated along class or wealth lines.

Mr Monaghan, of Allford Hall Monaghan Morris, said: "It carries on what happens naturally in London. You can have expensive homes very close to council flats."

I cant believe this issue was even raised. Of course the residents of the affordable housing are going to be segregated. Its Chelsea.

I must say though I am warming to the project the more I read about it. The permeability of the development is a huge plus point. I do hope they find a way to improve the external appearance though.

[DarJoLe]

Candys' Chelsea Barracks gets thumbs-up from Cabe
18 July, 2008
By Dan Stewart
building.co.uk

Rogers Stirk Harbour designs for Candy brothers' £1bn development approved by design watchdog

Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners' designs for Chelsea Barracks have been given an upbeat review by Cabe's design review panel.

The £1bn Candy & Candy development in west London is a “successful response” to the challenges of the site, said Cabe, and restricted most of its criticism to the quality of the public spaces, which it labelled “not convincing”.

Of the buildings, the review panel said: “The variations in the colour of the blocks appear successful and elegant for the blocks on Chelsea Bridge Road. The skeleton structure and the patinated copper alloy panels could respond well to the Chelsea environment.”

It was less convinced by the brightly coloured buildings at Ebury Bridge Road, which it said lacked the “intricacy and the interest in detail” apparent in the other buildings.

The panel was not supportive either of the scheme's gardens. It said: “The design of the public space on the corner of Chelsea Bridge Road and Pimlico Road is not convincing. The continuation of the tree lined diagonal route from the cafe through to this place severs this space in an unsatisfactory way.”

It also criticised the size of the parking area, suggesting this was “excessive” given the central location and proximity to transport links.

But overall the panel welcomed the “rigorous approach” of the scheme and did not withhold its support.

[henry]

Mayor's recommendation:

That Westminster City Council be advised that the redevelopment of this site for a substantial
residential led-mixed use scheme is supported in strategic policy terms. Overall the design is
considered to be of exceptional quality and is an appropriate response to its context. The design
has been developed with particular sensitivity to all the surrounding heritage considerations.
Substantial further work is needed on energy and further work is need on transport issues.

Link

[fitz44]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Chelsea Barracks site 'will be an example of urban politeness'

They are confident they will secure planning permission after their initial designs were criticised by residents. The Grosvenor Estate described the development as "monotonous, repetitive and totally out of scale".


The 14 main buildings are inspired by the apartments of nearby Sloane Court. They are decorated with patinated copper - coloured panels designed to blend in with the surrounding areas. Mr Stirk said most of the buildings would not exceed nine storeys.

It's clear once again that the architects know more about the area than the protesters.You can see here in red the existing arrangement of buildings facing onto Royal Hospital Road. Then look at the Rogers/Stirk layout. Uncannily similar to the traditional layout, its clear they've taken their cue from whats already there - something the protesters are unwillinging to acknowledge.

[fitz44]

From henrybloomfield's photostream on Flickr - demo of the long barracks range is underway;

[potto]

I would actually make the effort to visit this area when it is finished. Especially to see the Rogers blocks and the overall layout

[DarJoLe]

RSHP plan for Chelsea Barracks under attack
15 August 2008
By Will Hurst

Exclusive Candy housing scheme accused of being ‘gated community’

Plans for one of the country’s most exclusive housing developments by the Candy brothers and Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners have been blasted by a prestigious panel of architects.

The Chelsea Barracks scheme, proposed on 5.2ha of former MoD land bought for around £1 billion last year, was described as a “gated community” by the panel — which includes David Chipperfield, Will Alsop and John McAslan — following a presentation to it last month, a source revealed.

The views of the panel, which was established earlier this year by Kensington & Chelsea council, have not yet been made public but are supported by council officers, who have further concerns about its visual interest and impact on the neighbouring grade I listed Chelsea Royal Hospital.

The 638-flat project, which is in the borough of Westminster but borders Kensington & Chelsea, is set to be considered for planning next month, and has already been slammed by property company Grosvenor, local residents and deputy London mayor Kit Malthouse.

But those behind the scheme, which is led by Christian Candy’s CPC Group and the Qatari foreign minister’s Qatari Diar investment company, strongly deny it is a gated community and claim solid support from Westminster, Cabe and the mayor of London himself.

The source said the panel’s concerns stemmed from a failure to remove railings to the existing barracks along Chelsea Bridge Road.

“If you walk along Chelsea Bridge Road to Sloane Square, there is nothing for the pedestrian in it,” the source said. “They argue that the gate [into the new development] will be open but the question is whether it will be open 24 hours a day? The answer is no.”

A spokesman for Kensington & Chelsea’s design team said it too was objecting to the plans.

“As design officers, we are concerned about the height of the development and the impact on the Royal Hospital,” he said. “It is clearly visible from the roofline.

“We are also concerned about the frontage on Chelsea Bridge Road which is really dull and doesn’t engage with anything.”

He added that such comments, along with those of the panel, would be presented to councillors early next month, ahead of a formal submission to Westminster.

Local councillor Ian Donaldson echoed concerns with the height and “monolithic” nature of the apartment blocks, and said he was considering making a presentation to the planning authority on this.

“This is one of the biggest developments in London and it is not constrained by lack of finance,” he said. “We really should take the chance to create something special which is outstanding in its own right but doesn’t cause detriment to its neighbours.”

But a spokeswoman for the project insisted it would be publicly accessible and sensitive to its context. “Our design has been honed over the past 16 months after extensive consultation with all local stakeholders,” she said.

“The scheme includes 1.6ha of publicly accessible space including public gardens… inaccessible to the public for over 150 years.”

[Manuel]

take away the railings and basta.

[BenL]

Rather odd considering Chipperfield used to work for Rogers.

[delores]

I thought he worked for fosters?

[BenL]

Yeah, he worked for Foster too, just before he set up his own practice in the mid-80s.

[Smoggie_Si]

Originally Posted by BenL

Rather odd considering Chipperfield used to work for Rogers.

What's odd about that? There's a couple of my former bosses I would very happily take a pop at!

[BenL]

I know one of his sons and he always suggests his dad thinks pretty highly of Rogers.

[worldmayor]

erm... sorry guys, explain to me the difference between this and you're average south london council estate? In my opinion, this is rubbish. I know its Rogers but it still looks like it should have a canal with prams incorporated into the scheme.



..I like the way that in one of the renders they've hidden the pile of shit behind trees.. lol

[the spliff fairy]

fucking campus:



Its as if oh we got really crap estate-like buildings on there now, it'll be ok to build some new cheap estate-like buildings and sell them for a mint. Its not like they're not an improvement or nothing. Lets find the smallest marginal improvement for the highest possible pricetag.


Grrr... typical minimum spend for maximum profit at work again, a London tradition it seems.

Variation, my arse:




...and if this 'affordable' side of the development isn't an estate with all the cut corners of the Sixties, I don't know what is. Cheap, nasty, misanthropic:






Do they seriously think they can get away with it???? How thick do they take us for:




Answer: Yes, they will get away with it. And the Chapel too.

[ledge88]

Never thought I'd say this but this is a really poor effort. Not one thing stands out with it.

[the spliff fairy]

Goes to show despite all the public haranguing, the studies and the destruction of our old buildings for the mistakes of the Sixties, given half a chance the developers would do it again if they could get away with it.

[Manuel]

Look at the bright side of it, a huge socialy mixed development, low segregation and a clear footprint.
Where do you rich people leaving along less wealthy ones?