Skyscraper City Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What's happening with the proposed demolition of Drapers Gardens (100m) and the construction of a new groundscraper on the site?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
I think you're better asking questions like this in the existing London Summary thread... well in fact you already asked it in your City demolition thread! We try to keep the number of threads to a minimum.

Answer is: nothing at the moment. There are rights of light issues that need to be sorted out AFAIK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
My City demolition thread was deleted you see - I never got to see what was said.. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
Why exactly is Drapers Gardens being proposed to be demolished? Are there some fundamental design/functional problems (low ceiling heights, poor net lettable space, etc), is it highly inefficient, does it have asbestos issues or some other problems, or is there some great advantage to redevelop the site?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,872 Posts
Black Cat said:
Why exactly is Drapers Gardens being proposed to be demolished? Are there some fundamental design/functional problems (low ceiling heights, poor net lettable space, etc), is it highly inefficient, does it have asbestos issues or some other problems, or is there some great advantage to redevelop the site?
I think the main reason is that the floor heights are too short for modern offices.
 

·
BLAND
Joined
·
8,868 Posts
line of site

Black Cat said:
Why exactly is Drapers Gardens being proposed to be demolished? Are there some fundamental design/functional problems (low ceiling heights, poor net lettable space, etc), is it highly inefficient, does it have asbestos issues or some other problems, or is there some great advantage to redevelop the site?
Apparently it is to close to St Pauls when viewed from certain angles. If you look at St Pauls from Waterloo or Westminster Bridge, the bulk of this tower is very very obvious and appears to be away from the main cluster of towers. It is, however, one of my favorite buildings. I sent favourable comments to the secretary of State back in the 1980's as they were sounding people out about which ones should be kept & which demolished.
 

·
Let the Jam decide
Joined
·
2,184 Posts
kept it as its a great example of its time and we dont want everything to go and just have old and very new
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,325 Posts
Jonny 5 said:
I think the main reason is that the floor heights are too short for modern offices.
give it a lick of paint, change some of the interior fittings, have a grand reopening, and hey presto - condos in the City :D


i agree with previous comments - it's one of the better midrises in the cluster. personally, i think it looks fine as it is - will make a nice change to the glass-clad scrapers going up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,785 Posts
I like the building, but it does **** up the famous view of St Pauls from Waterloo Bridge. I think if Minerva / 122 Leadenhall etc were going up nobody would even notice Draper's Gardens going.

Its ok for its era, but still pretty unremarkeable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
Drapers Gardens may not be the most remarkable of London's high rises, but it is far better than most of its contemporaries and has never struck me as an eyesore. Its impact on the view from St Pauls does not seem to be a compelling reason to warrant demolition, though may be stated as a justification. Hence my question what exactly is the real reason, which I would expect to be of an economics/letting nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
Yep... I guess the floorplates aren't ideal for a large tenant like RBS, and the building in general won't be flexible enough to respond to modern-day requirements. I don't have a huge problem with them demolishing it, but I think it could be an attractive building if only it was re-clad, cleaned and had the base worked on to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment, ala Stock Exchange.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,227 Posts
my thoughts too,but rbs have bought it and they dont think its suitable for them. it could easily be used to house smaller companies though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,915 Posts
Atthe end of the day it upto the owners/developers of a building what they do with it so long as it doesn't have an heritage, site line , neighbourly issues etc etc then its basically up to them what they want to do to it.

I guess RBS think they will have more options if they demolish & build a suitable replacement for a modern office enviroment.

Its not a bad building but I cant say I would shed any tears over it going. It would make the current cluster of Tall & future buildings more tightly packed & not so spread out as it is slightly west of the current cluster so in that sense it would be better on the skyline & would give St Pauls a bit more breathing space between the tall cluster forming in the City.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,376 Posts
Is Drapers Gardens presently vacant? Looking at the second of Maxam's images towards the right hand side, there appears to be no furnishings in the floors.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top