Battersea Power Station redevelopment | Wandsworth | Pre-planning

[Jack Rabbit Slim]

Originally Posted by Officer Dibble

"London's general mistrust of anything tall"? Really? Seems to me we're in something of a golden age, with tall buildings going up all over the place, often more or less unopposed by the public - and, crucially, most of them are good ones, which therefore go on to do a lot to restore public faith in contemporary architecture (after tall buildings got a bad name through all the badly designed and cheaply built "tower blocks" of the 60s and 70s).

Fortunately you are correct in saying it's a golden age for skyscraper in London at the moment (although you can't really compare it to many other ages ), but you only have to read some of the comments on various websites and journalist articles in newspapers to realise that many in the UK are still far too caught up on the issue of height, as though anything tall must automatically be damaging to a city and turn in into a replica North American one, instead of considering what the building itself looks like, up close and on the skyline, not to mention the benefits of tall structures these days. Plus, as much as I'd like to forget, I remeber all too well the numerous obstacles Heron/Bish/LBT etc have had to overcome to get where they are today, and the proposals that have fallen by the wayside.

I'm cautiously optimistic that Londoners will come to accept and even embrace the concept of skyscrapers in their city once they see LBT and the rest emerging on the skyline, which should give proposals like this one a betetr chance, and I don't think this Mayor Boris is going to be quite the fascist, anti-tall, destroyer of all things some are predicting....but I am still aware (and grateful when it finally happens) of how rare it is for buildings over 200m, yet alone 300m, to progress beond the design board in the UK.

Btw, a question for everyone, if you care to answer it: do you think this is a stand-alone kind of tower, or would you support additional highrise buildings around it to form a mini cluster?

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Officer Dibble

"London's general mistrust of anything tall"? Really? Seems to me we're in something of a golden age, with tall buildings going up all over the place, often more or less unopposed by the public - and, crucially, most of them are good ones, which therefore go on to do a lot to restore public faith in contemporary architecture (after tall buildings got a bad name through all the badly designed and cheaply built "tower blocks" of the 60s and 70s).

Eh?

[potto]

Interesting point.

I think the key is that the tower is in fact a transparant chimney with two rings of accomodation on the lower two thirds. The theory that this will remove its visibility of its true height from distant views.

However from medium distance and closer the transparant chimney means that visually it will be joining in with the already skyline defining Battersea Power Station. From this point it is in fact creating a new cluster where Battersea was the ex stand alone building. In theory it could welcome further tall structures that do not interfere with its skyline transparancy.

the transparancy of the top third is the key to the fluidity of this structure a bit like the elegent iron work of the Eiffel Tower and tapering of LBT. These can definitely hold their own on any skyline just that in this particular case, like LBT it is merely joining or forming a cluster in which its individual design clearly relishes dominance.

Having said that I think the transparant top third is more flexible than a tapering one when it comes to the future. I can imagine buildings paying respect to LBTs dominance in future but with Battersea there is more scope for equality if for example people get used to seeing buildings in the background then the issue of 'protecting' the transparancy of Battersea becomes less of an issue.

[DarJoLe]

I doubt the top will be in any way transparent.

[potto]

It is likely to be more transparant than a glass building because there will be nothing but air inside.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by potto

It is likely to be more transparant than a glass building because there will be nothing but air inside.

True, but I don't understand how they expect it to withstand being up that high and not have some kind of frame, which will darken the whole thing.

Surely this is too tall for the area anyway being right below a flightpath into Heathrow.

[DodgyEye]

This seems to be getting a less favourable response on the World Forums.

I personally like it a lot, and would love to see it built. Can't see it happening though - especially being on the flightpath to Heathrow. I assume there could be a significant thermal updraft coming from the chimney?

[london lad]

Theres some interesting videos on the site now. The one about the history of the power station is prett ygood,


http://www.battersea-powerstation.com/

[DarJoLe]

You honestly think BorisMilton is going to allow this to be built? Considering how it will appear in this so protected view?

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr

[wjfox]

Well, that pretty much confirms this project is dead in the water.

How could the developers even think about proposing this tower when it so blatantly affects this view? Are they really that naive?

[sirstan74]

You're right Will. Because of the bend in the Thames it's gonna be right behind Parliament when viewed from Waterloo Bridge.

$$$$! Back to the drawing board...

[delores]

oh no.

[Officer Dibble]

I give up. You're all mad.

[Black Cat]

Hilarious, with those shots showing the big wheel, the Hungerford Bridge suspension system, the Millbank Tower etc. impacting the view from Waterloo Bridge. And yet, has the heritage character of the Houses of Parliament been compromised?

[TomD'07]

Can someone tell me whether it is the mayor or the borough of wandsworth/battersea that decide if this goes ahead? as far as i can see, if the borough get the chance they will probably take it.
There is a hell of a lot of negativity on this thread, we should be positive, its a great proposal in an area that really needs it.

[huvet]

Originally Posted by tuten

Ill do it for him.

Fuck off.

Once again this forum shows that it supports intelligent and informed debate.

Now defend this scheme

aesthetically

intellectually

sociologically

and most importantantly in terms of sustainability.

I doubt you and the mighty photoshopmeister fox even understand the complexities of sustainability.

I did not realise fox required a representative but I will adress ny points to you as his advocate.

I find it unacceptable that a forum moderator can use forums to use foul language to support his own political and aesthetic prejudices as wjfox does. The fact that you buy in to his prejudice does not make it right.

The forum is the fiefdom of a few posters with a narrow and limited view of the world who will use foul language instead of informed dialogue against those who disagree with their limited parameters.

I'll be polite, go away, join a library, study the history of architecture and art, then return with an informed view.

This forum used to be about debate it's now about an unmoderated narrow view of the world.

[tuten]

Actually I was not representing fox at all, I simply read your post and deduced that you were being a prat. Swearing is a form of expression and is completely acceptable.

And for your information I do understand sustainability quite well, and art, and architecture, thank you for judging me .
Have you not read any information on the project, sustainability is one of its strong points, in fact its basically the whole point. If you were to reject this project on the basis of it being unsustainable, then you might as well reject any current project, and whether you like the design of the project is not important, its a matter of opinion.


Just looking at those photo's of parliament and a small part of my heart sank, please don't let borris see them

[potto]

Originally Posted by wjfox

Well, that pretty much confirms this project is dead in the water.

How could the developers even think about proposing this tower when it so blatantly affects this view? Are they really that naive?

errr so how did the Jubilee pedestrian bridges get the all clear! They actually sit between the viewing and the Houses of Parliament! If you walk further along the bridge even Millbank tower ends up next door!

[potto]

The London Plan would have to be significantly altered for such an instant write-off of this proposal to occur:

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strat...-final-all.pdf

Landmark Lateral Assessment Areas
Maps A2-A4 also indicate the proposed position of Landmark Lateral
Assessment Areas for London Panoramas. These sit to the side of the
Landmark Viewing Corridors to St Paul’s Cathedral. The objective of these
assessment areas is to manage the wider setting of the landmark. There
are no Landmark Lateral Assessment Areas for the views to the Palace of
Westminster or the Tower of London.

Landmark Background Assessment Areas
Maps A2-A4 also indicate the position of Background Assessment Areas
for the Protected Vistas. These have been formed by extrapolating the
Landmark Viewing Corridor behind the landmark. The objective is to
ensure the landmarks are visible and can be appropriately appreciated as
a focus in the view. Buildings that would be visible from the Assessment
Point and would fall within the Background Assessment Area should
preserve or enhance the ability to recognise and appreciate the landmark.

Curvature of the earth and refraction of light
The curvature of the earth and the refraction of light have an effect on
what can be seen in middle or long distance views. When assessing the
impact of a proposed development on a view this factor needs to be
taken into account. The formula for calculating these effects is given in
Appendix F. Curvature and refraction can also influence Accurate Visual
Representations (AVRs) in certain circumstances.

[potto]

Originally Posted by TomD'07

Can someone tell me whether it is the mayor or the borough of wandsworth/battersea that decide if this goes ahead? as far as i can see, if the borough get the chance they will probably take it.
There is a hell of a lot of negativity on this thread, we should be positive, its a great proposal in an area that really needs it.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strat...-final-all.pdf

Chapter 5 Procedural guidance, consultation and relationship to local policy

The Mayor must be consulted on all planning applications submitted to
London boroughs that are of potential strategic importance as defined
by the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000. The
Mayor will apply this SPG when considering any development proposals
notified to him which may affect or impact on designated views.
Procedures for consultation on both Geometrically Defined views and
on views subject to QVA are set out.