One Kensington Park | Kensington & Chelsea | 7 fl | Pro

[london lad]

Seem some are outraged by this proposal. Just out of interest but did anybody actually raise any objections to this scheme as it was covered in the property press & in the Standard at the time or did they vent all their anger on this forum instead.

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by london lad

Seem some are outraged by this proposal. Just out of interest but did anybody actually raise any objections to this scheme as it was covered in the property press & in the Standard at the time or did they vent all their anger on this forum instead.

Probably no one did. I blame fitz44 for only telling us after it was decided. Fitz44 obviously is a Candy brother in disguise.

[fitz44]

Originally Posted by Bowater

Probably no one did. I blame fitz44 for only telling us after it was decided. Fitz44 obviously is a Candy brother in disguise.

I wish!

[DarJoLe]

I find it funny that the people wanting to keep the existing building in Kensington would be the first to thumb up the scheme if it was at the end of a terraced row in Stratford or Hackney.

If this was overlooking Victoria Park I doubt many would get so ferocious about demolishing such a building. Shame really.

[potto]

anyone got a pic of the original scheme? I think that the existing building looks abysmal, especially the asymetric step up to no where. It is a shame about the end terrace though, however we cant really compare it to the building in Kings Cross as in Kings Cross the building stands alone, the only building that ties the area with its past needs to be preserved in order to give the new area some validity. They made a mistake in Paddington by clearing away nearly everything that was there before and now it sits there unintegrated. To me this scheme in Kensington is more like pruning!

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by wjfox

Your thorough and comprehensive demolition of El Greco and DarJoLe's arguments is much appreciated.

Yes...calling somebody a philistine and saying that he/she has bad taste is the way to 'win' an argument.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

I find it funny that the people wanting to keep the existing building in Kensington would be the first to thumb up the scheme if it was at the end of a terraced row in Stratford or Hackney.

If this was overlooking Victoria Park I doubt many would get so ferocious about demolishing such a building. Shame really.

No I wouldn't mind so much if it was proposed for Hackney or Stratford. Hackney and Stratford are generally ugly areas and have relatively few buildings worth preserving. 80% of Statford or Hackney could be redeveloped without any aesthetic loss whatsoever. Perhaps less than 20% would be worth preserving. In Kensington these proportions are reversed. At a guess I'd say that 80% is worth protecting from redevelopment and the remaining 20% (there are rubbish buildings in west London too....) should be made available for redevelopment. That's why East London has so much mor growth and development potential than West London. The reason is not "because I'm posh". In fact I cannot afford to live in Kensington. None of my family have ever lived in such grand buildings and unless my business suddenly becomes a lot more lucrative then I doubt I will be able to afford to live there in the future. I certainly couldn't buy there. But as I have said ad naseum already, the primary test for the preservation/destruction of old buildings should be aesthetic value. A few exceptions can be made for ugly old buildings that have a particularly strong claim to historical or emotional value but these would be rare exceptions. The primary consideration should be aesthetic. Now it's hardly surprising that wealthy areas have a lot more handsome and beautiful buildings than improverished ones. It's hardly surprising that they should be more pleasant in terms of their streetscape too. These days, with so much wealth in London, and so many willing and ready to invest in property, then there are hardly any areas left with a large stock of attractive old buildings that haven't already been gentrified. And if they have attractive buildings they are probably left overs from a previous period of prosperity (as was the case in Notting Hill where an area of once grand villas fell into decline until they were then "rediscovered" by savvy investors a few decades later). The argument over preservation/destruction should not be pulluted by class war resentments and envy. It should be based on aesthetic value alone.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Langur

Hackney and Stratford are generally ugly areas and have relatively few buildings worth preserving.

You dont know much about the East End do you?I bet youve never even been there and think Jack The Ripper is still stalking people around there.

[Langur]

^ Of course I've been there. I go out quite often in Shoreditch/Hoxton etc. I probably know the bars and clubs better than you. And I'm 100% sure I know the Vietnamese restaurants along Kingsland Road and Mare Street better than you.

I don't have a problem with the East End. It's actually an interesting area with a lot of potential. Some parts of it should be preserved. There are some nice churches for instance and the odd grand Victorian building too. Even modest buildings such as those along Brick Lane should be preserved for their character. But there's no getting away from the fact that much of the East End is really dreary and has piss poor architecture. It's precisely for that reason that you can build massive new developments like Canary Wharf, Millennium Dome, Olympic site there. I mean take a walk along the river from the Thames Barrier to Greenwich. 90% of what you pass on the way is a hideously ugly and functionally defunct industrial wasteland. That whole area can be knocked down and built afresh into a thousand Canary Wharfs/Victoria Docks/Butlers Wharfs etc. That's the whole idea of the Thames Gateway plan. London's growth will be concentrated in the East.

West London, by contrast, is an attractive and well preserved historical gem. It boasts some of the most elegant and desirable districts in the world. Spend time in West London and you can really appreciate that London is one of the world's most beautiful cities. The districts surrounding Hyde Park/Kensington Gardens are frankly gorgeous (have you ever bothered to explore them? I doubt it....). It should remain that way and not become bastardised by tasteless new developments such as this one.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Langur

^ Of course I've been there. I go out quite often in Shoreditch/Hoxton etc. I probably know the bars and clubs better than you. And I'm 100% sure I know the Vietnamese restaurants along Kingsland Road and Mare Street better than you.

Wow youre such a cool boy arent you?You really think youre better than anybody else dont you?

I mean take a walk along the river from the Thames Barrier to Greenwich. 90%of what you pass on the way is a hideously ugly and functionally defunct industrial wasteland.

Well...Royal Docks Canning Town Woolwich Charlton are not in the East End.East London and East End are two different things.So this example of yours doesnt quite work.Lets try this one :
Take a walk along the river from the Tower Bridge to Greenwich - not even 10% of what you pass on the way is a hideously ugly and functionally defunct industrial wasteland - far from it.

have you ever bothered to explore them? I doubt it....

Of course I have.I know London better than you.However West End is not my cup of tea really - I find it boring - its full of buildings with over the top decorations all streets look the same and after few hours you simply loose interest and will to explore further - you know what youll find on the next street.
East End is different - forgotten alleys and courts with ancient buildings dodgy estates...then you turn corner and beautiful Georgian terrace or grand warehouse greets you.You never quite know what you will find next.The East End is one of the most fascinating dynamic and visually arresting areas in the world.
You dont like it you think its crap well thats fine - Im not going to say you have bad taste - critisising someones taste is really low.


PS.Its my job to know this city (and its history) too.

[Langur]

^ East End is part of wider East London and what I'm saying applies to both. Most of it can be redeveloped without aesthetic loss. And please don't patronise me about knowing London. Unlike you I was born here and I'm also a good deal older than you. It's also my job to know this city.

Much of the riverfront between Tower Bridge and Greenwich has been redeveloped already. Near Tower Bridge it's converted warehouses (preserved already) but further out it's mainly riverside yuppie developments. They're ok but they're hardly worth preserving. If a developer was to come along and propose more exciting redevelopment we should embrace it. And walk just a few streets away from the riverfront and you're into an area that is frankly ugly and dreary. Sure there are pockets that are worth preserving but most of it can be redeveloped without aesthetic loss. And that's precisely what's exciting about east London - the future potential that it has. In the coming decades we can build a whole C21st metropolis there. It's happenning already.

[Black Cat]

@Langur: I agree with you regarding this project, and about many things, but regarding why to conserve, the key is the heritage value of the site/building. It may be aesthetic, but there can be many other values, historic, associative, uniqueness, use, tradition, etc. which should also be considered.

With regard to this project, I have to admit that the existing brown brick building is not of great value, but is civic. The proposed new building looks disappointing, even if it is by a well known contemporary architect.

[JGG]

Originally Posted by Langur

Langur, thank you for taking these pictures.

Now, I am at a real loss here. I cannot really understand how the consistency of such nice and well preserved terrace is allowed to be destroyed. Does someone understand on what basis this got planning permission?

This is not a conservatism versus progressivism debate. It could have been if the replacement building was an architectural achievement. But it is not.

I just would like to understand the reasoning by the "planners". Does anybody know on what basis they gave permission for that?

Also, does someone know whether this has already been approved by Ken?

[Bones]

The newer building slated for demolition looks like a post war creation. Maybe this was a small bomb site? I have no problem with tearing that down. However the replacement doesn't look that good to me. The upper levels and terraces look like an American motel. Although I hate just recreating Victorian terraces, for once it might be justified.

[JGG]

Originally Posted by Bones

The upper levels and terraces look like an American motel.

Haha, don't say this to the Candy brothers; but yet you are 100% right. Not that they would be bothered about it that much though, generally their client group can be described as loaded but with serious taste deficit.

[Manuel]

Originally Posted by JGG

Haha, don't say this to the Candy brothers; but yet you are 100% right. Not that they would be bothered about it that much though, generally their client group can be described as loaded but with serious taste deficit.

Exactly.
There is quite an intruguing negative correlation in London between the degree of wealth of the potential purchaser and the boldness of the design. The quality of the buildings is often hight but they dont have a particular architectural interest.

The most innovative designs are generally found in more affordable semi social developements (but it can be built on the cheapo side).

[potto]

well it did get dumbed down apparently. Too much meddling as usual

[Bowater]

The Lancasters



Elsewhere, Bayswater is seeing other large developments targeted at the super-rich. One of the largest is the Lancasters, on the site of the Grade II-listed former Thistle Hotel on Lancaster Gate. Northacre, the developer, is hoping it will have the same effect on prices that the Phillimores, another of its development, had on Kensington, or that the Candy & Candy-designed One Hyde Park is having on Knightsbridge.

Construction of the 77 flats, ranging from one-bedroom flats to duplexes and penthouses, began in the summer, but Northacre will not announce prices until January. “Bayswater has suffered something of a stigma since the war, but the Lancasters will change that,” says John Hunter, the firm’s director. “It is one of the largest stucco-fronted terraces of its kind in central London, with 220 windows facing Hyde Park. It will give an impetus to prices.” Robert Bailey, director of the eponymous buying agency that hunts down homes for the very rich, agrees. “It’s been a hot tip for a long time. Once something of an ugly sister, it is being boosted by the Marylebone effect on one side, the Notting Hill spread on the other, and the view of the park. It is becoming sexy.” The prices of existing properties, meanwhile, are soaring: a family house that would have cost £1.85m last year would now fetch £3m.

http://www.thelancastershydepark.com/

[GazKinz]

Thank you for that Bowater, I was literally about to post the below picture, wondering what was going on when I saw this. I had hoped it was a refurbishment/facadism rather than total demolition.

These are taken from Lancaster Gate side of the terrace.







I hope the facade on this side will remain also.

[GazKinz]

Some more pictures of the above building on Lancaster Gate


Yep, this is getting 'deathmasked'




The Hyde Park facade