The Quill | 110m | 31 fl | Southwark | Approved

[LazyOaf]

On Skyscrapernews today

SPPARC Draw Up Quill Changes

Published on 08-01-2010 by Skyscrapernews.com
With the filing of the planning application, proposals for a new student tower called Quill which is sited near London Bridge Station in the London borough of Southwark, are finally becoming clearer.

The biggest change that has been made to the design has been the reduction in height of the element of the tower that bounds Melior Street by 15 metres although the overall height of the tower remains unchanged from the previous proposals.

The effect of this has been to change the angle of the sloping roof-line to 62 degrees from 52 degrees making it steeper, and of course helping it relate better to the planned pointy buildings nearby including London Bridge Tower.

This angled roofline is steep enough to double as a façade for the building with geometric curves that run up it, and even continue past the building boundary like spikes jutting up in mid-air.

Around the base of the tower, modifications have also been made opening it up further to increase public permeability so that 80% of the site is now available for public access, some of which will have landscaping including trees and a double height colonnade where the tower connects with the ground.

This has been facilitated in part by the movement of the building services and plant areas, plus the relocation of cycle storage facilities, to two basement levels that have allowed this freeing up of space.

At the same time, the amount of retail space in the project has been increased on Melior Street, St Thomas Street and Weston Street which should further animate the expanded ground areas.

The project has been designed by SPPARC Architecture for Investream as student housing to accommodate those studying primarily at Kings College in London.

[Trances]

This changes seem to improve on the desgin and not reduce the height.

[DrewHallam]

Originally Posted by Trances

This changes seem to improve on the desgin and not reduce the height.

except the 15m of reduced height!

[hellolazyness]

It says "although the overall height of the tower remains unchanged from the previous proposals". So presumably the height will remain the same.

[london lad]

Not sure where this recent speculation on height has come from.

Since the consultation last year the height was increased overall but decreased on the Melior St elevation. This is what went in for planning last December and nothing has changed since.

[DrewHallam]

Originally Posted by london lad

Not sure where this recent speculation on height has come from.

Since the consultation last year the height was increased overall but decreased on the Melior St elevation. This is what went in for planning last December and nothing has changed since.

Sorry, my bad, it's the height of the lower side of the sloped roof that has been reduced to give the roof a steeper angle to compliment the Shard.

[LazyOaf]

Originally Posted by london lad

Not sure where this recent speculation on height has come from.

Since the consultation last year the height was increased overall but decreased on the Melior St elevation. This is what went in for planning last December and nothing has changed since.

This is true, i posted that article months ago, don't know why its getting so much discussion now. i was getting confused, at first i thought it had been reduced AGAIN.

[wjfox]

New planning app -

http://planningonline.southwarksites...s/104610_1.pdf

Seems the tower has been split into two parts with a linking bridge.

[london lad]

Nice to see the sacred views from looking out of the Tower of London is saved yet again from a troublesome tall building. Just don't look slightly to the right as you will see a 300m tower or slightly to the left as you will see the modern waterfront at More London as your illusion of being in Ye Olde London will be ruined.

[Mikey]

can someone add its height at 109.5m ~ 110m into the title

[london lad]

Originally Posted by Mikey

can someone add its height at 109.5m ~ 110m into the title

I wouldn't bother as it won't be that height for much longer.

[DarJoLe]

Enjoy this review, it might be the last one you ever see from CABE.

CABE Design Review
Capital House, Weston Street
Southwark

Proposal for a 21- and 31-storey building to provide 470 student apartments, a bar, gym, library, student hub, a cafe, and an area of public open space. Designed by SPPARC.
20 September 2010
Planning reference: 10/AP/2754
Tagged with: Universities and colleges | Design review panel | London | Tall buildings

Summary
We accept that, in policy terms, this site is appropriate for a tall building. We find the impact of the height proposed on the view from the inner ward of the Tower of London acceptable; the proposals will form part of a background of existing and proposed buildings including City Hall, More London and the Shard. We think that student accommodation is a suitable use in this highly accessible location at the edge of the King’s College campus. While we support the client’s aspiration to deliver high quality student housing, we think the 'quill' narrative is working against the integrity and sustainability of the architecture, the quality of the student accommodation and the image of the university. In particular, the form and detailing are over complex and the internal planning is convoluted. The scheme does not meet the standards set out in CABE/English Heritage's Guidance on tall buildings and we are unable to support the planning application.

Site layout
We are not convinced that the amount of new public space proposed in this location or diagonal route through the site is needed in relation to the wider network of streets and spaces. We think that activity should be focussed on the existing streets. The location and orientation of the open space proposed fails to take account of the current context opposite a servicing entrance to the hospital. In our view, this will be a challenging environment for a new public space to succeed. The ‘bulge’ at the lower levels where the proposed route goes under the building is a weak gesture that undermines the relative clarity of the form at lower levels.

In building right up to the site boundary with Beckett House, we are concerned that the scheme will compromise the future redevelopment of the adjacent site; we are not convinced that the angled glazing on the east elevation will prevent direct views.
Architecture and planning

The ‘quill’ concept has resulted in an ungainly form, and awkward and inefficient spaces on plan. This has been further exacerbated by splitting the building into two elements and losing the single curved massing at the upper levels. The resulting floor area to facade ratio is highly inefficient. In terms of the massing, internal arrangement and environmental sustainability, we think the scheme worked better as a single form. We note that the same number of bedrooms could be accommodated in a single building of about 17 storeys with a consistent floor plate.

There is a lack of conviction and control in the variation in size and amenity of the student rooms, many of which are either awkwardly shaped or very small. The perceived size of the typical room is the length of a single bed and some rooms have only one window where others have up to six. All of the student rooms in both towers should be fully accessible to wheelchair users.

The planning of the circulation spaces is illogical and lacks generosity. For example, the ground floor entrance and lift lobby appears too small for the number of students moving through the space; we feel it is optimistic to expect students to walk up to the first floor to gather. While we do not object to the idea of bridges in principle, the connections only work with the proposed circulation on level 16. Rotating the bridge alignments on levels 12 and 20 compromises the room layouts.

Finally, the detailing of the envelope to realise the ‘quill’ concept is over complicated and we doubt that the building is credible to build to the level of quality required for a tall building, either technically or financially.

[lyonsdown 2.0]

Wow that's about as a big put down I've ever seen from CABE. They really don't like it, but seem to advocate a bland box shaped building instead.

[DarJoLe]

Better a high quality bland box than a cheap low quality faddish eyesore.

[delores]

Cabe really are showing their age. Perhaps not as logical as box but anythings better than More London.

[london lad]

As posted in the 3 spires thread. The one man bullshitter that is BSTowers is now turning his attention to this.

Originally Posted by Mark Reliance

[IMG]http://i51.************/adylwl.jpg[/IMG]

Th fact that
A) This isn't Bermondsey St
B) Is not in a conservation area
C) Is right opposite Guys tower and LBT

Seems to have escaped them. I do hope Southwark tell this NIMBYs where to go.

Play them at there own game and send a note of support to Southwark, particularly if you have an SE1 address.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/485...applications/3

planning.enquiries@southwark.gov.uk

10/AP/2754
CAPITAL HOUSE, 40-46 WESTON STREET, LONDON SE1 3QD

[delores]

Oh dear what an idiot this man is, he needs to be stopped.

[BuildingRox]

I agree - complete scaremongering. Let's just hope the planners have more sense than to listen to such a clearly obtuse guy.
Come on lets do it.....letters of support!

[BuildingRox]

ps - check out his site - he seems to have a personal vendetta...

http://www.bstowers.com/

[delores]

the man has too much time on his hands.It's as if he want's 'Bermondsey village' to be stuck in a time capsule of his making? twat. And if you read the comments they are mostly against him.