5 Cheapside | City of London | 7 fl | App

[ledge88]

I've never hated the current building. Some new windows and a clean and it be fine but anything that does replace it should take in the tube entrance to as it has too little presence.

[The Champ]

The new building that curves from Cheapside into St Martins Le Grand has a rather nice model of this development in the lobby if anyones interested in having a look

[Mr Bricks]

This building is shit. They should just demolish the current building and turn the site into public space. Why build on every small available plot of land and surround a grand cathedral with crap?

[london lad]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

This building is shit. They should just demolish the current building and turn the site into public space. Why build on every small available plot of land and surround a grand cathedral with crap?

Possibly because the owners of this site think they might be able to make a little bit more money from the site by building an office block rather than building grass mounds.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Why build on every small available plot of land and surround a grand cathedral with crap?

It's a conspiracy so developers can propose demolishing it and replacing it with a glass box in the name of visual harmony.

[El_Greco]

St Pauls has always been surrounded by buildings, the problem about current crop is that it is a disjoined and incoherent mess.

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr

[jamiefearon]

I'm really sorry to bump such an old thread but they thread seemed to have just suddenly stopped 2 years age. Does anyone know if 5 Cheapshite is still going to be redeveloped?

[El_Greco]

No idea, but I hope theyll come up with something better than that.

[london lad]

New proposal here, certainly puts the cheap in Cheapside.

Looks like a poor reclad you would see in somewhere like Croydon rather than a very prominent site in the City. Surely they can do better than that.

[IMG]http://i46.************/28jhzsk.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i50.************/2ecf3f8.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i48.************/jhfztu.png[/IMG]

Feel free to leave the City planners a comment.

http://www.planning2.cityoflondon.go...=ME4ZL4FHLB000

[Tellvis]

[The Champ]

That is horrid

[gravesVpelli]

That really is pathetically trite. I guess that it was too much to expect the City Corp to have opened up that relatively small space with paving thus giving an extra unobstructed viewpoint from Cheapside for the cathedral. But land is expensive and they obviously felt they could not sacrifice a few extra dollars of real estate revenue. Tragic.

[gravesVpelli]

Have submitted my coments suggesting they open up this small space instead of filling it once again with another banal building - for what it's worth

[DarJoLe]

I'm not sure it would open the view from Cheapside; maybe of the building behind it in Paternoster Square but looking straight down you've got One New Change in the way.

The reclad is a cheap affair, the roof section very much so (it's in the same vein as the grey plastic looking type affair on the top of the W Hotel) but who can blame the developers when all the measures to promote better design in the urban environment have slowly been eroded by officials at the top?

[danm]

I work at St Paul's and the white tarpaulin sheets are now up covering this building, so I'm guessing the reclad will start quite soon. Will post pictures once the work starts.

[Loathing]

It's a real shame they couldn't make an interesting pavilion-type building out of this unique site. Nonetheless, this is a lot better than what we have had present; and I'm sure they'll throw in a few improvements to the surrounding public realm to boot.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

I'm not sure it would open the view from Cheapside; maybe of the building behind it in Paternoster Square but looking straight down you've got One New Change in the way.

The reclad is a cheap affair, the roof section very much so (it's in the same vein as the grey plastic looking type affair on the top of the W Hotel) but who can blame the developers when all the measures to promote better design in the urban environment have slowly been eroded by officials at the top?

Come on now, no need to grind your usual axes. Knocking down buildings and building again is an expensive business. You need an awful big uplift in rents to justify it. One way to make it stack up, of course is to build a much bigger building. As we see across London were ending up with an awful lot of very big blocky buildings.

To do this you need a big site, so it often entails demolishing a series of buildings to do it. Or you can build very tall. Neither of these options is open on this site as it has a small footprint with no neighbours to combine with and even you would not want a skyscraper next to St Pauls.

With the only hot occupier market being the insurance sector, this area is not going to see much rental growth for a while. As the previous scheme has gone nowhere, the only money to be made is to do a goo enough refurbish/rebuild to maintain rentals for the no doubt small occupiers not looking for prime space in the City.

It's a case of money now, or leave it to devalue in the hope you can do something bigger later.

[thatmfeeling]

The latest design is not that bad! Anything is better than the original. It is a shame that it does not take in the Underground next to it as it is a rather rubbish entrance (and they could have spiced it up a bit) can't wait to see it finished, one less building casting its dirty look over London

[danm]

Originally Posted by thatmfeeling

The latest design is not that bad! Anything is better than the original. It is a shame that it does not take in the Underground next to it as it is a rather rubbish entrance (and they could have spiced it up a bit) can't wait to see it finished, one less building casting its dirty look over London

Agree. The reclad isn't great by any means but it smartens up a horribly grey and drab building.It's probably the most we could expect for a building of this size in that location (i.e small footprint).

[Loathing]

It's right next to St Paul's. If anything, the small footprint makes something a little more ambitious more viable. A hexagon is a really beautiful shape, and rare in Western architecture. If they employed a real architect they could've emphasized that shape, rather than the dodgy fenestration they've opted for.