Whitechapel Square | Whitechapel | Refused - Page 7 - 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
Old February 10th, 2016, 10:51 AM   #121
Retro Specs
Registered User
 
Retro Specs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,676
Likes (Received): 3564

I think it's Crossrail related. I site visit all resi and office schemes in e1 and it's not on my list. I also noticed it and was confused why it was so high and permanent
__________________
.
Retro Specs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old February 11th, 2016, 12:35 AM   #122
E1view
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: London
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 772

It is the crossrail ventilation shaft and emergency access building
__________________

future.architect liked this post
E1view no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 19th, 2016, 12:20 AM   #123
SE9
South East Nine
 
SE9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 37,626
Likes (Received): 79449

In the local press:


Sainsbury’s set to expand at Whitechapel with 500 new homes and new superstore
East London Advertiser
17 February 2016


Quote:
Nearly 600 new homes are planned by the Sainsbury supermarket chain as part of the Whitechapel regeneration in London’s East End after Crossrail opens in 2018.

The company is planning to redevelop its present supermarket site in Cambridge Heath Road to create a new “Whitechapel Square” with a “scaled down” tower block and 557 new homes, which has been lodged with Tower Hamlets Council.

“We submitted amendments which includes reducing the size of the tower by five storeys,” Sainsbury’s property communications team head David Mills said. “This was a decision informed by comments from Historic England and residents.

“The location of a landmark tower building was identified in the Whitechapel Masterplan, and our application developed over 12 months with the community responds to this in a sympathetic way to the local context.”

[continued in link]
__________________
-
SE9 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 6th, 2016, 01:45 PM   #124
Mr Cladding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Posts: 8,079
Likes (Received): 13644

Petition aganist this scheme

https://www.change.org/p/tower-hamle...ve-whitechapel
Mr Cladding está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2016, 02:19 PM   #125
sk327
Registered User
 
sk327's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London, UK
Posts: 802
Likes (Received): 374

What is it with people only opposing decent proposals nowadays?
__________________

.Adam, future.architect liked this post
sk327 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2016, 02:24 PM   #126
Mr Cladding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Posts: 8,079
Likes (Received): 13644

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk327 View Post
What is it with people only opposing decent proposals nowadays?
Rationale for the opposition to the scheme

What’s the story?

Sainsbury’s have submitted plans to Tower Hamlets Council for an over-sized development of their megastore in Whitechapel, east London.

Whitechapel is a diverse and ever changing area, which makes its character all the richer. However the proposals, based primarily on cashing in on high value apartments, causes irreversible harm to the surrounding community and environment.

1. Disproportionate Scale

The development is radically out of context with the surrounding low-rise Whitechapel area. The proposed 28 storey tower (101m) would be the tallest building in the 3 mile stretch between at Aldgate and Canary Wharf. Even the eight ‘smaller’ blocks of up to 15 storeys (59m) would introduce a density beyond Council guidelines. The enormous tower will block daylight to hundreds of homes and businesses, and overlook countless more.

2. Damage to Local Heritage

The scheme will overwhelm the historic setting of the Whitechapel Market and Stepney Green Conservation Areas and their 52 listed buildings. The tower also intrudes significantly on the Grade 1 listed Trinity Green Almshouses, sited just 100m to the east of the site. The current proposals demonstrate little evidence of how this remarkable context has influenced the design, which Historic England has described as “substantially harmful”.

3. Lack of Affordable Housing

Of the proposed 559 residential apartments only 89 apartments (16%) are to be ‘affordable’, falling far short of the Council’s targets of 35-50% to align with the London Plan. A tiny 6% are family dwellings, making the mix wholly inappropriate for this part of Whitechapel, and doing little to address the wider London housing crisis.
__________________

Fooby liked this post
Mr Cladding está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2016, 09:06 PM   #127
.Adam
Registered User
 
.Adam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 3,143
Likes (Received): 899

Over development - on top of a crossrail station. next to the tube, on the edge of zone 1, next to tower blocks and one of the biggest hospitals.. absolute madness. Democracy is great but seriously they should be told to run and jump - they are holding up vital housing, if they take this to court they should be made to pay the fees. This is getting out of hand.
__________________
.Adam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2016, 09:20 PM   #128
Mr Cladding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Posts: 8,079
Likes (Received): 13644

Quote:
Originally Posted by .Adam View Post
Over development - on top of a crossrail station. next to the tube, on the edge of zone 1, next to tower blocks and one of the biggest hospitals.. absolute madness. Democracy is great but seriously they should be told to run and jump - they are holding up vital housing, if they take this to court they should be made to pay the fees. This is getting out of hand.
Where were these ******* hypocrites when Hertsmere House was going through planning ?
Mr Cladding está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2016, 10:38 PM   #129
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,583
Likes (Received): 10493

Espresso House? Oh dear...
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius
El_Greco está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2016, 10:47 PM   #130
stevekeiretsu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: bristol
Posts: 5,098
Likes (Received): 14252

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Cladding View Post
The development is radically out of context with the surrounding low-rise Whitechapel area. The proposed 28 storey tower (101m) would be the tallest building in the 3 mile stretch between at Aldgate and Canary Wharf.
except for the 101m hospital right opposite!


I feel like I'm going mad here, everyday there's some new utterly bizarre statement with no relation to reality, whether it's a developer report that a demolishing a row of charming victorian stock represents "no meaningful loss to the streetscape" or a NIMBY claim a 100m building would be completely unprecedented in a location spitting distance from other 100m buildings, DOES ANYONE IN LONDON EVEN OWN A PAIR OF WORKING EYES?
__________________

London construction photos: • by area/projectby year
Urban Showcase: • VallettaLjubljanaFunchalLisbonLanzarote •• OrkneyBristolEngland's West CountryLondon
stevekeiretsu no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2016, 10:52 PM   #131
Mr Cladding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Posts: 8,079
Likes (Received): 13644

They also claim it would
Quote:
intrude significantly on the Grade 1 listed Trinity Green Almshouses, sited just 100m to the east of the site
Mr Cladding está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2016, 10:18 AM   #132
Storeys
Hello
 
Storeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 1,704
Likes (Received): 1008

I could understand the opposition to this if Whitechapel had high quality architecture and a distinctive character. But it is such a mixture, with so many poorly designed newer buildings. I can't see how this one can be of negative architectural value to the area. I don't think Whitechapel should scale down proposals in order to fit in with the many poor smaller buildings in the area - the quality of the architecture currently just doesn't justify that. I don't think everywhere in London needs to become high-rise, but Whitechapel needs regeneration and London needs tall buildings, so it seems logical to build taller buildings here.
Storeys no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2016, 10:24 AM   #133
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 11,183
Likes (Received): 3769

It's also an area designated by TH's as suitable for tall buildings under its own Whitechapel Masterplan with several similar sized buildings proposed, all of which will be served by xrail.

It would be madness if TH side with the nimbys against there own masterplan.
__________________

.Adam liked this post
london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2016, 02:19 PM   #134
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,866
Likes (Received): 1791

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk327 View Post
What is it with people only opposing decent proposals nowadays?
I think it's justified to oppose a scheme on the grounds of it lacking affordable housing, especially in this area. I mean Whitechapel has been a neglected working class area since Victorian times. The area needs investment no doubt but that investment needs to be channeled towards improving the lives of the locals. Redevelopment needs to serve the needs of the locals and respect the history of the area. Now we often get it the other way around.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2016, 02:50 PM   #135
El_Greco
Épater la Bourgeoisie
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London/Taipei
Posts: 19,583
Likes (Received): 10493

But even affordable isn't affordable.
__________________
My Travels : Barcelona|Edinburgh|Glasgow|London|Madrid|New York|Paris|Taipei|Vilnius
El_Greco está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2016, 02:57 PM   #136
Mr Cladding
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Posts: 8,079
Likes (Received): 13644

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
But even affordable isn't affordable.
It's hardly breaking news that private developers are profit motivated. This is why we need non for profit housing corporations which are motivated by housing units supplied rather than maximising profits and returning value to shareholders.
Mr Cladding está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2016, 02:59 PM   #137
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 18,691
Likes (Received): 12382

London should assign an "Urban" value to all properties, like energy efficiency values added to white goods. Things like age, architectural merit, garden green space and conservation areas would raise this value but poor evaluation of density, living space size, energy efficiency and amenity could result in a negative evaluation. I think in most places density will be the key value which will be graded in terms of distance from transport nodes. This would help to streamline the planning process and cut out the noise.
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2016, 03:03 PM   #138
.Adam
Registered User
 
.Adam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 3,143
Likes (Received): 899

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
I think it's justified to oppose a scheme on the grounds of it lacking affordable housing, especially in this area. I mean Whitechapel has been a neglected working class area since Victorian times. The area needs investment no doubt but that investment needs to be channeled towards improving the lives of the locals. Redevelopment needs to serve the needs of the locals and respect the history of the area. Now we often get it the other way around.
Thats a side issue - the point is this area needs to be built densely - the local argument is absurd when you look at the dross built around the immediate area. The height issue is a non starter - as Londonlad correctly states this is a high rise area as dictated by the local council. Although given that the council is TH that means nothing.
.Adam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2016, 03:24 PM   #139
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 18,691
Likes (Received): 12382

Yes I agree, density has to trump everything at the moment, hence my requirement for a new urban property value that can react to demographic changes. These sleepy zone 2 areas are (over) reacting to increase in density and population increases, nothing else.

The public of the UK have used their democratic say to vote that the only bodies who are able to increase density are private developers so we have to go with what we have until that changes.

The physical act of building/rebuilding has to be paid for and it has to increase density dramatically that is the bottom line.

Any Nimby protest that targets an individual development over social housing is either cynical or just naively adding to the problem. See how the glut of dense new builds at Battersea has helped kill off the top-end price increases and yet the Nimby-minded press use it as negative spin on development!!!! Rather than seeing it is part of the solution... house builders have to actually build at some point, they can't sit on land forever.
__________________

.Adam, sk327 liked this post
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2016, 03:07 PM   #140
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,866
Likes (Received): 1791

Quote:
Originally Posted by .Adam View Post
Thats a side issue - the point is this area needs to be built densely - the local argument is absurd when you look at the dross built around the immediate area. The height issue is a non starter - as Londonlad correctly states this is a high rise area as dictated by the local council. Although given that the council is TH that means nothing.
Indeed the area should be built densely, and I think architecturally there is nothing wrong with this proposal.
__________________

sk327 liked this post
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

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

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sydney - Street and Harbour scenes Mornnb City Images, Architecture & Historic themes 673 Yesterday 12:07 PM
NEW YORK | The Edition Times Square | 157m | 516ft | 42 fl | Com germantower DN Archives 127 March 15th, 2019 07:07 PM
Colmore Square | Landscaping | Comp. ellbrown Completed Projects 16 January 28th, 2017 11:48 PM
FORUM INDEX - Newcastle Forum ALPHABETICAL SUBJECT INDEX to factual posts on this forum Newcastle Historian Newcastle Metro Area 79 March 13th, 2012 10:29 AM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:15 AM.


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