Kidbrooke Village £1bn regeneration | Greenwich | U/C - Page 2 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

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

The Construction Forum For everything going up in London right now


Global Announcement

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 3rd, 2008, 08:50 AM   #21
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,596
Likes (Received): 814

I love the old photos but hasn’t it aged badly? the problem with that sort of architecture is that it looks great without humans. As soon as you add them with all their ' individuality and untidiness, suddenly the place is messed up, bad curtains, no maintenance 'just let them rot there' attitude has made this experimental disaster. Robin Hood Gardens is exactly the same. It probably looked fab when it was built, but look at the state of it today.
delores no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old August 3rd, 2008, 08:26 PM   #22
ledge88
Registered User
 
ledge88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 291
Likes (Received): 6

I have wondered for some time what was happening in Kidbrooke and just never botherd to look so the posted pictures are the first I've seen of what they want to do. I can only agree with some of the other posts, all they are planning to do is rebuild the same estate but updated to current trends. So the corner laundrette becomes an alfresco cafe and the concrete is changed to wooden cladding? It's like putting a cherry on a turd.

Due to nearby Lewisham and Greenwich, Kidbrooke isn't going to be anything more then a commuter area so why not put the towers around the station, have one nicely done recreation ground and fill the rest with houses and small blocks of flats. The site needs to be broken up. People don't want to live on estates and no matter how pretty they look its the same thing that was there previously so why not just reclad that?
ledge88 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2008, 08:14 PM   #23
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 37,487
Likes (Received): 78204

It has been reported in the Greenwich Time that the final plans for the Kidbrooke Vision have been submitted to Greenwich Council for planning permission.

It reads:
"The plans incorporate the comments of local residents and organisations who have been giving their views on the £1bn project during a year of public consultation."


For anyone interested, details of the final plan will be on public exhibition at the Kidbrooke Regeneration Project Office on:
- Friday 5th December (3pm - 8pm)
- Saturday 6th December (10am - 3pm)
- Wednesday 10th December (5pm - 9pm)
__________________
-
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old November 26th, 2008, 08:23 PM   #24
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 19,049
Likes (Received): 3496

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horizon911 View Post
I agree with this too.

To give an old fashioned anti tower Conservative view point (which is always popular on this forum...) this area does not need towers, but houses.

I can't say I'm that familiar with this particular area, I've been there once (I think) a long time ago and have no intention of ever going back. But I do know people who have come from this area, and its always been rough. Whether 100 years ago, 50 years ago or today.

People in these areas need to live in proper communities, not 21st century council estates dominated by towers. People need their own houses. I'm not talking about building huge detached 5 bedroom houses, but small terraced or semis and most important of all they should have their own gardens, not communal spaces.

People need their own space. When they have that, most will then want to look after that space and have pride in it. From that they will want bigger and better things for themselves. Give people a chance to take ownership of their lives including the right to purchase their own homes, and most people will.

Under the current proposals this is simply repeating the mistakes of the past time and time again. All it does is trap generations of people into a cycle that they can not get out of.

These lefty planners need to be put against a wall and shot for these poor plans. Or better still, throw them off one of their precious towers. It's not as if the lifts will work for too long in these towers once they're built. I can't imagine what it must be like taking bags of shopping or young kids up multiple flights of steps.

Houses are needed, not towers.
I too agree... The 'new' layout is just a bunch of tower blocks in a different pattern. This is a huge area in terms of acreage: just build a dozen streets of decent terraced housing with gardens and a little high street by the station, job done. Why build 'yuppie' flats in a relatively remote suburban area with a bad reputation? No-one will want to live there... They will become the sink estates of the 22nd century. These people just want decent houses with a bit of outside space, and as long as they don't build McMansions, they'll get a much higher population density with terraces than tower blocks interspersed with windswept open spaces.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2008, 10:37 AM   #25
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 37,487
Likes (Received): 78204

Planning Application Details

http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov....ystemkey=59927

Application type: Outline Planning Permission
Date received: 17/11/2008
Registration date: 17/11/2008
Consultation start date: 17/11/2008
Earliest decision date: 17/12/2008
Target date for decision: 16/02/2009
Location: THE FERRIER ESTATE AND HARROW MEADOW, KIDBROOKE, SE3 (KNOWN AS KIDBROOKE MASTER PLAN).
Ward name: ELTHAM WEST
Sub area: Not available
Conservation area: ELTHAM GREEN
Listed building grade: Not available
Environmental assessment: Not available
Target recommendation date: 02/02/2009
Expected decision level: Not available
Easting/northing: 540977.350321879/175334.637942162
Statutory class: Not available

Proposal: A mixed use development comprising 4000 residential units, including 27,261 sqm of extra care accommodation to provide 303 flats (Class C3) and 29,498 sqm of non-residential uses comprising 4,855 sqm retail & leisure (incorporating up to 3,100 sqm retails Class A1 - A5 and up to 2,782 sqm leisure Class D2), 5,450 sqm office (Class B1), 4884 sqm community (Class D1), 5,911 sqm hotel (Class C1) 2,785 sqm supermarket (Class A1), 3,205 GP Surgery (Class D1) and 2,408 sqm replacement primary school (Class D1) including access, car parking and open space. In addition to the matters set out above, details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of Phase 1 for 449 residential units and a multi use games area.
__________________
-
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2008, 01:43 AM   #26
TomD'07
Surveying a town near you
 
TomD'07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 911
Likes (Received): 7

Please dont say that 'masterplan' has or will be approved? I agree with horizon911 and tubeman here. What a waste of time it would be to tear down 1960's blocks just to construct 2009 blocks that are essentially the same but in a different arrangement. People need their own space, as said, to care about and and maintain for their own - in the long run nobody cares about so called 'communal spaces'. eventually this will become a dogged wasteland as it is now if people dont have their own houses and their own gardens to look after.

Lets hope this type of so called 'regeneration' doesnt go ahead. If it does it will be back to square one by 2030.
__________________
Insert signature here
TomD'07 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2008, 03:47 PM   #27
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,416
Likes (Received): 5

What i don't get living near tavy bridge in thamesmead, that the estate is just as bad and more or less indentical, but they aren't knocking it down but instead refurbishing all the blocks and giving it a paint job. It's problem imho is it's separated from everywhere by a railway to it's north and a park to it's south.

i personally think creating communal gardens helps community more than everyone having their own individual garden. Growing up on an estate as a kid, the only place to play was in the park with other kids, rather than in my garden on my own.

i personally would build a load of mid rise 4-5 story blocks on a traditional street pattern mixed in with terraced housing and maybe a small cluster of high rise blocks around some shops and the station.
bigbossman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2008, 09:56 PM   #28
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 37,487
Likes (Received): 78204

Property Week Article

Berkeley’s £1bn London plan
http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=297&storycode=3128618&c=1

Quote:

One of Britain’s most controversial regeneration projects – the proposed £1bn redevelopment of the Ferrier estate in south-east London – moved a step closer to fruition this week with the submission of a planning application from developer Berkeley Group.

The application to Greenwich Borough Council includes 4,000 homes and is set to be the UK’s largest residential scheme outside east London’s Olympic zone.

It includes detailed plans for a first phase of 449 homes – which is intended to kick-start development – and a masterplan designed by architect Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands.

Greenwich council has sought to redevelop the Ferrier estate since 1999 and, despite its role as planning authority, is backing Berkeley’s masterplan.

The scheme also has the support of regeneration agency English Partnerships.

John Anderson, chairman of Urban Developments, a subsidiary of Berkeley Homes , indicated that construction could start next year regardless of market conditions.

The council is due to assess the application in January and Anderson told said that, following extensive public consultation, he was not expecting the government to call it in: ‘We expect to welcome the first new residents in spring 2010.’

Over a 15-year programme, the project will comprise 400,000 sq ft of commercial and retail space, a school, community and healthcare facilities, sports pitches and leisure facilities, a transport interchange and 124 acres of Green space.
__________________
-

Last edited by SE9; December 8th, 2008 at 10:20 PM.
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2008, 03:14 AM   #29
gazzab1990
SPAMMED
 
gazzab1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Plymouth, Devon
Posts: 2,218
Likes (Received): 3

I'm not sure why, but that picture made me cringe
gazzab1990 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2008, 09:11 PM   #30
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,596
Likes (Received): 814

It still looks like a council estate in the future. Not impressed by the bland architecture.
delores no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2008, 09:55 PM   #31
gazzab1990
SPAMMED
 
gazzab1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Plymouth, Devon
Posts: 2,218
Likes (Received): 3

Agreed... its dire!
gazzab1990 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2008, 10:16 PM   #32
Tony Resta
T-Stays
 
Tony Resta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lugano, CH
Posts: 991
Likes (Received): 70

I dont get it, will it still look like this:

[img]http://i36.************/11qtzyv.jpg[/img]

or have they changed design?
Tony Resta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2008, 11:39 PM   #33
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 37,487
Likes (Received): 78204

Yes, it'll still look like that.

Its the same design as was on the 'Public Information' pdf documents...
and the same design on the architect's website (http://www.lifschutzdavidson.com/)

The low-rise section shown in the render above is for a part of the project which is off to the right of that drawing.
__________________
-
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2008, 09:52 AM   #34
Tony Resta
T-Stays
 
Tony Resta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lugano, CH
Posts: 991
Likes (Received): 70

Oh ok, thanks, i was beginning to think this scheme went completely lowrise.
Tony Resta no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2008, 11:12 AM   #35
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,596
Likes (Received): 814

The problem I have with developments in the 60's and this one is that parkland in most cases is wasted land that adds nothing to the people who live there, who never use it. Density is the problem here and nothing has been learned obviously.
delores no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2008, 10:19 PM   #36
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 37,487
Likes (Received): 78204

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Resta View Post
I dont get it, will it still look like this:

http://i36.************/11qtzyv.jpg

or have they changed design?

My bad... I've just had a look at the planning documents submitted to Greenwich. They have done away with the highrise element of the plans.
The focus seems to be on parkland and high density housing.

Here's some images from the planning docs:

[IMG]http://i41.************/snexar.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i39.************/211ts0z.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i40.************/rb9toj.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i44.************/3xah0.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i42.************/2j45x87.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i44.************/18oqpf.jpg[/IMG]
__________________
-

Last edited by SE9; April 7th, 2009 at 01:28 PM.
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2008, 11:06 PM   #37
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 37,487
Likes (Received): 78204

Aerials from Eltham:

[IMG]http://i43.************/2v9pwra.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i40.************/35ap4jo.jpg[/IMG]


Labelled Map:

[img]http://i40.************/30kyvlj.jpg[/img]
__________________
-

Last edited by SE9; April 7th, 2009 at 01:30 PM.
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2008, 12:57 AM   #38
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 18,608
Likes (Received): 12139

Quote:
Originally Posted by delores View Post
The problem I have with developments in the 60's and this one is that parkland in most cases is wasted land that adds nothing to the people who live there, who never use it. Density is the problem here and nothing has been learned obviously.
the only problem before with open land was that it was patchy, more left over from the positioning of the buildings rather than considered a seperate entity, usually it was broken up into car park space, garages and multi level access routes. None of the houses opened out onto this space and so no one could tell if it was private or not and therefore not used. The space here looks like a decent park that could function under many uses. To banish the concept of urban open space because of major unrelated flaws in past urban design is a bit of a nuclear option.
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2008, 01:35 AM   #39
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,596
Likes (Received): 814

Well the new scheme is very different to the one I saw earlier. So my opinion is a bit different now. Looking at the documents just posted LDS have approached this masterplan in a rather traditional manner. I don't mind it actually now, the fact that is predominately low rise is a better approach too. I'm still concerned with the architecture though. Too much of the same and its blandness is devoid of anything that makes you really want to live there. A range of decent architects work should be built here not just one architect so there is some variance in the ho hum style of buildings presently on display.
delores no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2008, 04:44 PM   #40
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 37,487
Likes (Received): 78204

Yes true... this reminds me somewhat of Angell Town in Brixton; low-rise, nice quality, but not much variation in the architecture.
__________________
-
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
berkeley homes, ferrier estate, greenwich, kidbrooke, kidbrooke village, london, village

Thread Tools

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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:18 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