Whitechapel Square | Whitechapel | Refused - Page 6 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > London Metro Area

London Metro Area London Calling...


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old February 2nd, 2016, 03:23 PM   #101
.Adam
Registered User
 
.Adam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 3,116
Likes (Received): 869

I agree - this is a very high quality scheme and stands out from the crowd with its detailing and colour palette. I'd be delighted if we were to see more proposals of this calibre.
__________________

Brucey7, Infinite Jest liked this post
.Adam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old February 2nd, 2016, 03:40 PM   #102
Storeys
Hello
 
Storeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 1,699
Likes (Received): 1007

Lovely scheme. 28 fl is probably around 100m I think? So still tall and being more slender should help make the reduction look less stumpy.
Storeys no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2016, 05:20 PM   #103
Mr Cladding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Posts: 7,768
Likes (Received): 13153

I doubt the height and subsequent reduction is less do with the developer , because it wants more so because it has too. They are fully aware of the effects that protests have had on; Blossom Street and BGY. It's just damage limitation on behalf of the developer.
Mr Cladding no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old February 2nd, 2016, 09:31 PM   #104
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,427
Likes (Received): 745

To be fair the buildings don't look that much different, less height, less bulk is not always bad thing. I think the scheme would be better judged if you saw it in context to Whitechapel.
delores no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2016, 11:39 PM   #105
Union Man
Interstellar
 
Union Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Norwich
Posts: 1,177
Likes (Received): 5260

Quote:
Originally Posted by Storeys View Post
Lovely scheme. 28 fl is probably around 100m I think? So still tall and being more slender should help make the reduction look less stumpy.
Not a 100m+ building any more. If I'm reading this planning document correctly, then the revised height is 90m exactly.
__________________
LONDON

Union Man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2016, 10:11 AM   #106
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 11,038
Likes (Received): 3517

Ridiculous!!


Sainsbury's in Historic England's firing line over Whitechapel tower
3 February 2016 | By Tim Clark

Heritage group says scheme by Unit Architects should be called in if approved

Historic England has said it will write to communities secretary Greg Clark telling him to call in plans by Sainsbury’s if it gets the green light to build a high-rise tower in the shadow of grade I listed almshouses by Christopher Wren.

The supermarket giant, which this week tabled a £1.3 billion bid to buy high street retailer Argos, has hired London practice Unit Architects for the work at Whitechapel with the residential tower set to be built just 100 yards away from Wren’s Trinity Green Almshouses.

The tower is the centrepiece of a wider revamp of the east London area – which includes a new Crossrail station at Whitechapel – and is part of the retailer’s plans to bring in more income from its property portfolio.

But Historic England’s assistant inspector of historic buildings Matt Cooper told local planning authority Tower Hamlets: “If the application is pursued it remains our view that this scheme is not sustainable development and that it should accordingly be refused.

“The severity of the impact on the very high significance of the almshouses results in such a departure from the principle and policies of the NPPF as to justify a request to the secretary of state to call the matter in for his or her own determination.”
london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2016, 10:23 AM   #107
Mr Cladding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Posts: 7,768
Likes (Received): 13153

This just further cements the view that English Heritage is all about height rather than architectural merit or indeed any benefits for locals.
__________________

Bottlefall liked this post
Mr Cladding no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2016, 10:42 AM   #108
.Adam
Registered User
 
.Adam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 3,116
Likes (Received): 869

Absolutely disgusting attitude from them as always, happy to see beautiful buildings on the Strand meet the wrecking ball - but unhappy about a very small tower which is only lifting a downtrodden area. They are the biggest hypocrites.
.Adam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2016, 09:21 PM   #109
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,427
Likes (Received): 745

Oh dear, they won't win it's an absolutely meaningless argument.
delores no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 3rd, 2016, 11:44 PM   #110
Retro Specs
Registered User
 
Retro Specs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,675
Likes (Received): 3561

The setting is far more damaged by the low rise recent building a few doors down with the terracotta cladding https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.52...7i13312!8i6656
__________________
.

Infinite Jest liked this post
Retro Specs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2016, 10:59 AM   #111
Storeys
Hello
 
Storeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 1,699
Likes (Received): 1007

It's hard to see why HE oppose this, considering the general standard of architecture in the area. Why aren't they in opposition to the many very poor buildings in the area? Whitechapel seems to have been quite neglected over the years in terms of quality architecture and this building adds real quality and character. Plus it's right next door to the City.
__________________

Infinite Jest liked this post
Storeys no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2016, 11:25 AM   #112
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 11,038
Likes (Received): 3517

HE, strangely silent with all the perfectly sound Victorian ‘heritage’ buildings in Westminster being torn down for expensive modern flats yet fixates and blusters to much with random spots of empty sky.
london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2016, 12:14 PM   #113
.Adam
Registered User
 
.Adam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 3,116
Likes (Received): 869

I didn't realise this was the site they had an issue with! Jesus wept. It's opposite massive council estates anyway and the Whitechapel square development is a long way from here in real terms!!
.Adam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2016, 02:31 PM   #114
OnwardsAndUpwards
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 1,265
Likes (Received): 1029

"not sustainable development"

What are they on about? How can anywhere be more suitable for additional building than a site 3 minutes walk from Crossrail, ELL, Hammersmith & City and District lines? Not to mention lots of bus routes. It is absolutely the perfect site for high density development and replaces a car park. Car parking being probably the least sustainable use of land I can think of. It is practically in zone 1. You can walk to Liverpool Street and the City.
OnwardsAndUpwards no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2016, 03:18 PM   #115
Ensignia
Absolute Vintage
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SE23
Posts: 1,019
Likes (Received): 1400

I think at this point they're not even pretending to be anti-high rise.

I thought it was a select few who were desperate to cling on to the Ye Olde London shtick, but it seems like the sentiment resonates within the entire organisation.
Ensignia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2016, 09:10 PM   #116
Retro Specs
Registered User
 
Retro Specs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,675
Likes (Received): 3561

"Sustainable development" is an incredibly abused term. I've seen councils argue developments aren't sustainable as they don't provide enough parking! Complete double-speak.
__________________
.
Retro Specs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2016, 10:49 PM   #117
Capital74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 61
Likes (Received): 16

Interesting to see if this passes. Bizarre of course that they cut it down when the entire plan for this part of Whitechapel is to increase height and density. Wonder how tall they will push with the OSD just up the road
Capital74 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2016, 12:15 PM   #118
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 18,498
Likes (Received): 11759

An utter waste of money, they should have been completely merged with CABE inside London at least when the great cull happened. We even pay these people to endlessly antagonise local development plans after they have already gone through the planning process! They are just a little englander parish council with absolutely zero concept of urbanity let loose in London.
__________________

.Adam liked this post
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2016, 12:17 PM   #119
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 18,498
Likes (Received): 11759

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro Specs View Post
"Sustainable development" is an incredibly abused term. I've seen councils argue developments aren't sustainable as they don't provide enough parking! Complete double-speak.
The point is that HE shouldn't be pretending to be guardians of sustainability.

They have Prince Charles all over them still even after the reshuffle/rebranding!
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2016, 09:20 AM   #120
Eastendbanker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 42
Likes (Received): 7

Would anyone know what the development on the edge of the Sainsbury's site right on corner of Cambridge Heath Road is?

Seems to be quite a bit of concrete being used so appears to be a permanent structure, rather than temporary Crossrail building

Is it Crossrail related or for this scheme? If it's the latter was there a separate planning submission for work that could go ahead in advance of Crossrail completion perhaps? Thanks
Eastendbanker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
hamlets, london, sainsbury's, square, tower, whitechapel

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sydney - Street and Harbour scenes Mornnb City Images, Architecture & Historic themes 646 July 17th, 2019 09:47 AM
NEW YORK | The Edition Times Square | 157m | 516ft | 42 fl | Com germantower DN Archives 127 March 15th, 2019 06:07 PM
Colmore Square | Landscaping | Comp. ellbrown Completed Projects 16 January 28th, 2017 10:48 PM
FORUM INDEX - Newcastle Forum ALPHABETICAL SUBJECT INDEX to factual posts on this forum Newcastle Historian Newcastle Metro Area 79 March 13th, 2012 09:29 AM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us