SkyscraperCity banner

181 - 199 of 199 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,581 Posts
I'm in favour of those. I really like the design.

Fitting into the surrounding areas though, not so much, but that's the fault of the poor design of them daft curving roof houses with coloured windows next to it and no fault of this proposal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Previous proposals were of much higher architectural quality, but were rejected on various grounds, most notably for blocking the view of St. Ann’s Church. What makes this proposal anymore likely to succeed in that regard?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
I'm in favour of those. I really like the design.

Fitting into the surrounding areas though, not so much, but that's the fault of the poor design of them daft curving roof houses with coloured windows next to it and no fault of this proposal.
I think it looks pretty cheap, especially the grey blocks to the rear. Is there a single balcony on the building? Crazy considering the location.
I think such a prime location should be of the upper most quality, regardless of what’s around it, this falls well short in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,628 Posts
The materiality and the concept behind the staggered blocks are admirable.

The execution and detailing look a bit clunky. Symptom perhaps of designing by BIM modelling and not treating it as a craft.

I have always felt the link between St. Ann's Church and the Quayside is tenuous. I'd much rather the view of the Church from the Quayside was blocked but the area around the church was tidied up and buildings addressed in a way that felt the church was in someones back yard.

If this lockdown teaches us one thing, it is that all new development should have balconies, and prove-able space to work from home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,066 Posts
Usual nimby posts from people who moved into a city centre then don't want any development in it, clueless.

FWIW I also agree the design is cheap and not exactly memorable, but the irony of those in the next block complaining about the design, do they have eyes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,628 Posts
It's not fair to level criticism about St. Ann's Church- Tyne relationship being compromised by this proposal because it follows the original masterplan. If indeed it is so important for St. A to be so visible, it should have been highlighted in the adopted and approved masterplan.

I would rather something was proposed of higher quality, but it is not right to treat this developer with unfair criticism just because it impinges in non material planning ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Imagine living in St. Ann's Quay and being concerned about 'character'. I do actually agree that the proposal is slightly bland but it's no worse than all of the other buildings that line the quayside, with the exception of the Malmaison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Was every previous proposal rejected/discontinued because they weren’t in alignment with the masterplan?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
12,733 Posts
I've a friend with a vague dog in this fight, my understanding [not checked] is that more than one project was given approval but they all fell flat - they just didn't happen. That was certainly case with the AWG proposal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
Has anyone rummaged through the planning app thoroughly enough to know what the various-coloured cladding shown in the pictures is? I can't really tell from the CGIs whether it looks disappointing because the software isn't state-of-the-art, or whether the back end of it really will be a dreary grey and the front a bit bland. Since the buildings surrounding the site all look even drearier, I'm hoping it's the software.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,628 Posts
Has anyone rummaged through the planning app thoroughly enough to know what the various-coloured cladding shown in the pictures is? I can't really tell from the CGIs whether it looks disappointing because the software isn't state-of-the-art, or whether the back end of it really will be a dreary grey and the front a bit bland. Since the buildings surrounding the site all look even drearier, I'm hoping it's the software.
As someone i'd like to think 'in the know', the drawings seem to have been completed on a 3D modelling software, so what you are seeing is a 'raw' virtual image over ones that are softened on photoshop with softer and more subtle lighting and grit to make it realistic. This isn't a criticism, often architects aren't paid enough to give that extra bit of sensitivity. (Look at how the visuals for Brett Wharf look so much better with better rendering and lighting)

My understanding is that the coloured panels are COR-TEN steel, the same steel used for AOTN. usually these would be value engineered to a composite cladding panel but fire regs do rule that out now.

The material composition of COR-TEN, grey and buff brick are good quality, and we should demand nothing less considering it's location. The massing of stepped/ angled blocks are clever and work with the surrounding massing that is building up to this site. My only criticism is that each of these blocks could have been detailed better to appear visually distinct from each other with recesses and shadow gaps/material change so they look more like a collection of buildings than one big complicated one. The sameyness of the elevation as your eye moves up the face of the building, and those crazy deep buff brick frames look a bit naive. I can see a bit of heart in the design, despite it pertaining to a disturbing trend of designing to be easy to draw as a computer model, than a building for real life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
A video posted on the St Ann's Quay Management YouTube channel with commentary on these latest proposals. Posted without comment, purely for information & discussion.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,628 Posts
Might be worth just reminding ourselves of the original Quayside masterplan

179360
179361

Images courtesy of Newcastle's Quayside Regeneration Archive - How has Newcastle's Quayside Changed? | North East Regeneration Archive

Now we can see that the original 'Hotel and Leisure' building does indeed step forward of the building line, and there was always an intent for the masterplan to host its largest imposition at this site.

From this it is clear that St. Ann's would be in some way be less connected to the Quayside. Despite it's heritage standings, it does not have a right to clear all possible buildings for panoramic views. St. Ann's connection to the Quayside will be more of a glimpse view aligned with the connecting stairs to the East of the proposed site.

The current development seems narrower than the original proposals anyway. I admire the hard work by the St. Ann's Management group but the reality is they all bought a flat next to an incomplete part of a masterplanned regeneration area, and so they cannot really complain.

I'm sure they would argue that a smaller building could be built, but the land value will be based upon what numbers in principle can be achieved- as set out by the masterplan. The developer does not randomly stack as many units as possible, it is all a fine tuned estimate to deliver some kind of return.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
21,963 Posts
Discussion Starter #195
Might be worth just reminding ourselves of the original Quayside masterplan

View attachment 179360 View attachment 179361
Images courtesy of Newcastle's Quayside Regeneration Archive - How has Newcastle's Quayside Changed? | North East Regeneration Archive

Now we can see that the original 'Hotel and Leisure' building does indeed step forward of the building line, and there was always an intent for the masterplan to host its largest imposition at this site.

From this it is clear that St. Ann's would be in some way be less connected to the Quayside. Despite it's heritage standings, it does not have a right to clear all possible buildings for panoramic views. St. Ann's connection to the Quayside will be more of a glimpse view aligned with the connecting stairs to the East of the proposed site.

The current development seems narrower than the original proposals anyway. I admire the hard work by the St. Ann's Management group but the reality is they all bought a flat next to an incomplete part of a masterplanned regeneration area, and so they cannot really complain.

I'm sure they would argue that a smaller building could be built, but the land value will be based upon what numbers in principle can be achieved- as set out by the masterplan. The developer does not randomly stack as many units as possible, it is all a fine tuned estimate to deliver some kind of return.

Remember, we also have a LOT of detail about the original East Quayside proposals and masterplan here on the forum, on the "Grand Development Plans" Thread . . .

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,628 Posts
This may consign this latest development to the dust of 'Newcastle as it might have been'.

There appears to be a major stumbling block because the original masterplan always indicated the objecting neighbour, St. Ann's Quay to be the second largest building on Newcastle Quayside, the residual land value of the Imperial Quay plot in question is always going to be high. Therefore a smaller building to St. Anns is both incongruous to the urban design, but also unlikely given viability factors. They may be consigning this plot to a bit of south facing meadow slope for a very long time indeed, unless a wow project came along that would generate a greater political will and overrule the mannered views of the objecting residents.

You'd hope a Council would have the balls to back what the developer is entitled to build. But the sight of some stern faced cross armed middle class locals is enough to put the fear of God into any Planning Officer, especially when a pop up populist Councillor comes knocking for ballot box goodwill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
If this new proposal is refused the developer will surely go to appeal and end up having planning permission granted anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,628 Posts
Not necessarily. The NQ frontage to Tyne was built as part of the adopted masterplan however many years ago, including St. Ann's.

This masterplan may not form part of the current adopted policy, although the adopted policy will reference it.

But if enough is made of the proposal not meeting generic and interpretable policies such as 'protect heritage' and 'respect topography' then it could technically be refused without likelihood of appeal, despite the prevailing logic in completing a longstanding and transformative vision of the past.

Appealing is a very risky game. Council's often take a pragmatic approach in reviewing applications as it is a huge expense to the public purse if they lose an appeal. This is the same for developers, because they often aren't investing their money, its one thing to ask someone to invest in building things, and completely another to 'invest' in what a lawyer or judge may decide.
 
181 - 199 of 199 Posts
Top