5 Cheapside | City of London | 7 fl | App

[derwent]

I've always detested that 1960's octagon that currently stands there. I've wished it would be bulldozed for years - but having seen the new plan - and I can't believe I'm saying this - i'd rather keep the octagon. it has it's faults, and looks a bit shabby, but at least it doesn't dominate the area as this new build does. God I hate it. Poor old Cheapside. Gone forever.

[potto]

I cant imagine it being that dominating. A bresh of fresh air more like. Too much brick and stone in that immediate area. In reality the only really dominating building is the BT one across the road. Now that should definitely go!

The overhang over the St Pauls station entrance looks faintly ridiculous however

[fitz44]

Found this old view of the site

[socrates#1fan]

That is beyond bland.
Even for modern architecture, they should be able to do a helluva lot better than that!

[fitz44]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

I hope this building looks better in real life than it does in the perspectives. The perspective looking west from Cheapside is particularly unfortunate. Technically and form wise, this is a very interesting modern building, and the general scale, footprint and form are fine, but the cladding does not seem right for this particular site and context.

Having a tube exist with a view to St Paul's would also have been welcome, it is St Paul's tube after all and one always feels disorientated when coming out of the exit and not having some sense of orientation as to where St Paul's actually is.

Yes I'm not convinced it will terminate the view along Cheapside at all well. The old building - while not great architecture at least makes an effort to be a "feature". This is going to be more noticable now that New Change has built right out to the street-line along here (the old Bank of England building had set-backs with raised beds etc).

[Snowy]

Originally Posted by Hazeley

I'm just imagaining what a beautiful space you could have where you could relax with a drink and take in the surroundings. Currently the nearest we have to that is drinking a Starbucks on the front steps.
I do appreciate your points though - St Pauls couldn't be undermined, and part of its character does stem from its confines.
Incidentally I remember Billy Conolly making a comparable point about concert halls. He was in Sydney talking about the Opera house which totally dominates and can see from miles away. By comparison the Royal Albert Hall is an (arguably) equally stunning building in its own way, but you barely see it until you're virtually on top of it. Other than the dome, St Pauls is much the same.

But that's a London (or perhaps British) thing. It's been discussed on these forums a few times that London's grandest buildings are often hidden away from view until you're virtually on top of them, largely because most of London was never planned.

Personally I would rather have this than the wide avenues and boulevards of other cities such as Paris, because London is a city of surprises - you never quite know what you're going to get when you turn the corner:- a medievel church, a row of grand Victorian buildings, a steel and glass edifice or a 60s eyesore! And that's what makes it such a fantastic city to explore, it's sheer unpredictability!

[Smoggie_Si]

Originally Posted by derwent

I've always detested that 1960's octagon that currently stands there. I've wished it would be bulldozed for years - but having seen the new plan - and I can't believe I'm saying this - i'd rather keep the octagon. it has it's faults, and looks a bit shabby, but at least it doesn't dominate the area as this new build does. God I hate it. Poor old Cheapside. Gone forever.

Cheapside is a strange street to feel attached to! Apart from the gorgeous St Mary le Bow church and the vaguely pleasing art decoish buildings opposite, there is little of any architectural merit imo.

I don't mind the current building at all, the shape and proportions are very pleasing imo, a reclad with some stock exchange tower style cladding would do very nicely imo, having said that, I don't mind the proposed building either. Maybe I am just easily pleased!

The real problem with the site is the crappy tube entrance, which is hideously ugly and aligned wrongly so that visitors come out facing the road rather than facing Paternoster Square and St Pauls itself. That is an issue for tfl to solve.

[i_like_concrete]

If only they'd built Rogers Paternoster square masterplan! St Pauls would be the best tube station in London.

[Langur]

^ I like Rogers but his Paternoster Square plan was worse than abysmal.

[i_like_concrete]

Even if that's true, what we ended up with is below even the low benchmark the previous buildings on the sight had set.

[london lad]

Highly competent bunch this lot, turning up late & not knowing what they are voting for.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
Propertyweek
City of London in squabble over 5 Cheapside consent

02.10.09

By Deirdre Hipwell

Planning committee members unhappy about vote of consent for St Martins scheme

A planning consent for St Martins Property Group’s redevelopment of 5 Cheapside has sparked a squabble among council members on the City of London planning and transportation committee.

Two members of the committee have complained about the decision to give the Green light to St Martins Property Group’s redevelopment of 5 Cheapside, next to St Paul’s Cathedral, in August.

Alderman Sir John Stuttard said the decision was a “bad one” that should be “revisited”.

The 87,000 sq ft John McAslan & Partners-designed scheme is proposed at one of the last remaining development sites around the cathedral and Paternoster Square.

It was approved by a margin of 11 votes to seven.

At the next City planning meeting on 8 September, Stuttard complained about the decision and said the committee should “give it more consideration when part of the scheme, relating to the use of materials, was brought before the committee again for approval”.

He referred to the “small vote margin” and said six members had been unable to participate in the vote as they had “arrived late, perhaps because of the early start that morning required to get through the great deal of business on the agenda”.

Stuttard also said that he had been told by the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral that it had not objected to the scheme as “they had believed the matter to be a fait accompli”.

A second member of the committee, Marion Fredericks, said she had informed the town clerk after the August meeting “that she had not realised at the time that she had been voting in favour of the planning permission but had believed that she was voting only on a point about the materials, and she asked that the point on which the committee was voting be made clearer in future”.

However, other members at the meeting have told Property Week that the whole discussion was “extraordinary”, that other City schemes have been approved by a much narrower vote and the standing orders state that unless a member is present for an entire session they cannot vote.

Planning officer Peter Rees also said St Paul’s was fully consulted and made no objection.

City chairman Christine Cohen said there was “no ambiguity” on the subject of the members’ vote. The comptroller and City solicitor said she could think of “no legal round for revisiting the decision so soon after it was taken”.

Members still have to vote on a condition of the consent, relating to the cladding, and members will be given the opportunity to see a mock-up of the materials before taking a decision.

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by fitz44

I´ve always wondered why some bus stops in British cities are facing the wrong way. I saw this in Dublin too. Highly inconvenient.

[johnt_gr]

I don't like the new building, looks unsuitable and not a good replacement. I have an idea: why don't tear this 60s edifice down and just put a good quality cladding on it?

[randolph]

I don't like this proposal at all. Featureless, bland and awkward. For me it adds nothing at all to the street. I am not concerned with contemparary design next to St Pauls, just the opposite, I support it, however this, IMO, is just not good enough.

[Bena Gyerek]

how about they replace it with something like this:

[Bena Gyerek]

..or this:

[Black Cat]

Originally Posted by london lad

Highly competent bunch this lot, turning up late & not knowing what they are voting for.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
Propertyweek
City of London in squabble over 5 Cheapside consent

02.10.09

By Deirdre Hipwell

Planning committee members unhappy about vote of consent for St Martins scheme

A planning consent for St Martins Property Group’s redevelopment of 5 Cheapside has sparked a squabble among council members on the City of London planning and transportation committee.

Two members of the committee have complained about the decision to give the Green light to St Martins Property Group’s redevelopment of 5 Cheapside, next to St Paul’s Cathedral, in August.

Alderman Sir John Stuttard said the decision was a “bad one” that should be “revisited”.

The 87,000 sq ft John McAslan & Partners-designed scheme is proposed at one of the last remaining development sites around the cathedral and Paternoster Square.

It was approved by a margin of 11 votes to seven.

At the next City planning meeting on 8 September, Stuttard complained about the decision and said the committee should “give it more consideration when part of the scheme, relating to the use of materials, was brought before the committee again for approval”.

He referred to the “small vote margin” and said six members had been unable to participate in the vote as they had “arrived late, perhaps because of the early start that morning required to get through the great deal of business on the agenda”.

Stuttard also said that he had been told by the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral that it had not objected to the scheme as “they had believed the matter to be a fait accompli”.

A second member of the committee, Marion Fredericks, said she had informed the town clerk after the August meeting “that she had not realised at the time that she had been voting in favour of the planning permission but had believed that she was voting only on a point about the materials, and she asked that the point on which the committee was voting be made clearer in future”.

However, other members at the meeting have told Property Week that the whole discussion was “extraordinary”, that other City schemes have been approved by a much narrower vote and the standing orders state that unless a member is present for an entire session they cannot vote.

Planning officer Peter Rees also said St Paul’s was fully consulted and made no objection.

City chairman Christine Cohen said there was “no ambiguity” on the subject of the members’ vote. The comptroller and City solicitor said she could think of “no legal round for revisiting the decision so soon after it was taken”.

Members still have to vote on a condition of the consent, relating to the cladding, and members will be given the opportunity to see a mock-up of the materials before taking a decision.

Nice to know how decision making really happens at the City given that this is a site whose redevelopment will have a visual impact from many streets and angles! Could you imagine the hullaballoo if a controversial high rise tower were to slip through the process in this manner! All you have to do is stick a project on a busy agenda, have your supporters arrive early, vote to start early and pass the project before others arrive. No ambiguity whatsoever!

[Bena Gyerek]

yes, although a lot is also down to the laziness and incompetence of the other members. i suspect that's the story with senior approval committee meetings the world over. there is rarely much appreciation of the thought and work that has gone into a proposal. often decisions turn on e.g. whether the committee members are in a hurry to get to lunch.

it's a shame that the article doesn't explain the actual specific concerns that are causing the other committee members to have second thoughts. per my previous two posts, and in a slightly more serious vein, it would be good to preserve the symmetry and proportions of the current building in a new design. i personally wouldn't go for a reclad, but would take the opportunity to create an interesting focal point for the whole of cheapside (especially given how bland most of the new buildings along that street are).

[potto]

yes a link between cheapside and paternoster. Considering the City's bleating on about making the area a shopping destination it seems stupid to have a big blob stuck between the two. Something with a tall spire and visual connection between the two streets would be good.

[Bena Gyerek]

or an arch maybe?