Battersea Power Station redevelopment | Wandsworth | Pre-planning

[london lad]

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

[potto]

Originally Posted by chest

sorry for having an opinion you dont agree with Potto - I'll be more careful in future - sorry my mistake and yes I will try to 'open my mind a bit' - thanks for pointing out my shortcomings - thank goodness there are people like you on the forum to put people like me right.

just pointing out an inconsistency

[sirstan74]

Apologies if this has already been posted - but the website says site visits and consultations will be taking place at the end of this month.

Treasury Holdings has reviewed the previous proposals
for the future of the Battersea Power Station site and
determined how they can be improved in a number of
ways, to be economically, socially and environmentally
sustainable.

New plans are being exhibited in the Consultation Suite,
on site at 188 Kirtling Street, SW8 5BN; from Wednesday
25 June to Saturday 05 July. Click here for detailed opening times and a map showing the location of the Consultation Suite.

During this period a walking tour around, and inside,
elements of the Power Station building is available
for adults and children over ten years old.
Bring sensible shoes and your cameras for this
opportunity to get up close and personal with the
iconic four chimneys!

Please note, site walks cannot be run in bad weather
and health and safety limits how many people can be
on site at any one time. If in doubt please call
ahead. Vehicular access can be provided for disabled
visitors.

Information from the exhibition will be available to
download from the 25 June here and you can have
your say on the plans here from the 25 of June.

[potto]

Originally Posted by henry

I think some people are being a bit harsh on Rowan Moore. He's not against tall buildings at all, nor is he against modern architecture, he is positively in favour of both, despite the fact he writes for the Standard. He happens to believe that we should build high in two or three locations and not everywhere, which is not an unreasonable position even if like me you don't agree with it.

Maybe their reputation proceeds them. Ok the article was quite descriptive over the scheme compared to usual, he went through the environmental credentials, that the Power Station would be saved vaguely went over how the form took shape.

After doing all that how can he possibly come to the conclusion that it is egotistical like the Selfridge stone tower? Because both are tall? Thats about the only similarity I can think of! Straightening the Thames, well there was an economic arguement at the time for it but is he really suggesting to the readers that building a tower that is no where near the sort of heights reached on an almost monthly basis around the world poses the sort of engineering challenge that straightening a river running through a city would?!

Either the comparisons are entirely childish or the whole project, all those positive aspects that he even noted all get brushed aside because of his fear (or rather whipping up fear, I doubt it is a personal one for such a thinking man) that it will be seen juxtaposed against Londons existing backdrop. Of course this is the whole point of the article. Why after glancing over the positive points does he then dare the current administration to 'prove themselves'? As if nothing in the world mattered apart from seeing buildings.

No mention of the invisible top third of the chimney or the fact that it will be seen in views that had not been available for 100 years or that no one has even seen renders of the impact yet. He even mentions views of the Houses or Parliament from Waterloo bridge, this is a blatant attempt to strike fear into people, there is a great big railway bridge with 2 bolted on suspension bridges in between Waterloo and the houses or Parliament! Its a greate view but lets have a bit of perspective here! The feigned love of the clusters of Canary Wharf and the City only exist because those places actually exist, if they actually had an aesthetical arguement then their hatred of tall buildings appearing in other views would just be hypocritical. The five chimneys of Battersea along with Lots Road in the time frame we are talking probably match the Cities cluster anyway! The bendy Thames also has the habit of juxtaposing everything so at once we have clusters everywhere and then at other times a more relaxed view. The cluster arguement in London has always been bollocks.

Talk about blatant spin. The actual news piece was quite positive, perhaps the editorial team were worried that their readers might come away with some hope for the future.

[Leeds No.1]

I really like the tower and base itself, but I don't think the location is right- more importantly I don't think it will get through considering the relitavely low rise area. I would love to see the tower adapted so that it could be built in an existing cluster though, also upping its chances of getting built.

[potto]

The power station everyone is united in saving isnt exactly low rise and it sits in a giant urban waste land... a bit like Canary Wharf not long ago.....

[Zenith]

The past is everything, the present and future is nothing. Let us all bind ourselves to what was and never progress.

'Building this would ruin views from French Weir park in Taunton Somerset.'

'St Paul's sightlines would be obscured from the bottom of the piling when standing on my head and bent diagonally sideways'.

'I can't believe they are even considering improving a largely derelect site for the betterment of our urban realm'.

'Does the Queen know about this'?

'This overshadows my 'weekend break' penthouse in Islington.'

[JDRS]

I can't decide whether I like this proposal or not. The idea of replicating the chimneys is clever and should be appreciated but I worry about the eclipsing of the power station and I'm not sure I like the idea of a bio-dome within central London. I was hoping for something more human scale. However the green credentials are positive and the tower itself is interesting and unique. Undecided as of yet.

[ferge]

The area here if redeveloped should have the station as its centrepiece, plonking an ugly 300m glass tube next to it isn't doing that, it denotes the station outright.

Frankly I think they should try and give the station a Tate kind of makeover, it has the same attributes that would make it a success.. obviously not a direct copy of the redevelopment because that'd be boring..

Then a nice park/open area with some trees and then maybe some midrises to the far edge of the zone that compliment not disregard the main component of the area.

[Sitback]

This proposal is amazing x 1million

[Pompey77]

Originally Posted by ferge

Frankly I think they should try and give the station a Tate kind of makeover, it has the same attributes that would make it a success.. obviously not a direct copy of the redevelopment because that'd be boring..

Well if you know of an enormous art collection which is looking for a home outside of central London with poor transport connections and has piles of cash to throw at it then let them know that Battersea is ready and waiting. The fact is the only way Battersea is going to be saved from its slow and painful death is a massive development which will make the developers enough money to make the cost of basically rebuilding the thing viable.

[ferge]

I said it needs a Tate kind of makeover, in terms of how the building was redeveloped.. I didn't say that it needed to be turned into an art gallery

I'm talking about aesthetics here, not function

[Pompey77]

Originally Posted by ferge

I said it needs a Tate kind of makeover, in terms of how the building was redeveloped.. I didn't say that it needed to be turned into an art gallery

I'm talking about aesthetics here, not function

I still dont really understand what you mean. The tate from outside is basically exactly as it was before but with a glass addition to the top, inside the turbine halls a big open exhibition space and the rest of the building is the gallery space. The BPS renders show a big open light filled space with a hotel on the upper floors looking out onto the space with shops and things below. Is that not as near to the Tate as its gonna get without becomeing an art gallery?

[potto]

also this building is in far worse condition than that Tate building... there isnt a lot left of it

[ferge]

True true, but I was meaning perhaps it should be elevated above the structure, just peeking above.. the scheme seems to have the internal open submerged inside of the void, I meant having a visable glass top or structure over the building but not to upset the chimneys.

Irregardless, my point is more that the BPS should be the prominant part of the scheme, not underminded by that tower. Not worth getting worked up about it because at the end of the day in this economical time, who is going to pay for a tower in which almost 2/3rds of its space looks unusuable?

[The Sage]

In the words of Murray Walker, go go go!

[Megalothian]

I love it, it should include a second tower also, a 200m vertical farm like what was proposed for (?) San francisco....

[jayo]

no way hosay.

[Pompey77]

Why not? It would make this a perfect example of large scale sustainable development which could be effectively replacated in any major city across the world. It would be a very bold statement of what the future of cities like london is.

[Medo]

How did I miss this?

I really like it and agree with every word potto says.