SkyscraperCity banner

Should the Berkeley Homes towers get the go-ahead?

1 - 20 of 2217 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,131 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Okay, so what are your opinions on this proposed development?

Just to remind everyone, these are the Dalek-like residential towers being planned for the area between Tower Bridge and City Hall on the South Bank.

Berkeley Homes are the developer, Ian Ritchie is the architect.

Southwark Council refused planning permission after furious objections from local residents. The scheme then went to a PI, and John Prescott is expected to announce a decision any time now. This cluster of towers - the tallest of which is nearly 70m - would stand literally next door to Tower Bridge, and directly opposite the Tower of London world heritage site. They would also be built over a large grassy space that lies next to the river.

A couple of links below:

http://www.ianritchiearchitects.co.uk/potters_fields/
http://www.potters-fields-park.com/







 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
Don't know the area well but I don't think they'd be catastrophic.

But would rather see an imaginative land use that somehow helped the Victorian and modern relate to each other. Voted no anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,872 Posts
The design of the towers is no worse than the buildngs in More London which isn't really praise as such because the designs of the More London buildings suck.

I don't realy think this is the right site to build residentail towers on though. There should be a concert hall or museum on the site instead of up market apartments.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
34,887 Posts
i like the towers, i dont think they are in the right place either. my issue comes from the 3 eastern towers, if you remove those they dont encroach half as much.
 

·
Tea. Earl grey. Hot.
Joined
·
3,348 Posts
They look fantastic. What's wrong with them? They'll add scope to London Bridge Tower
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
I am very undecided.... but i think my undecided feeling is that i am not confident that anything great will come from saying no. Unless someone offers a more imaginative use of the land, a more sympathetic yet grand use of the land, then maybe i would say no and advise them to be built elsewhere but retaining the multicolour cladding they previously had...

Although daringm the coloured buildings would be muchmore exciting and fun, add to the other fun and fantastic buildings london offers.... bring back the colours!!!

I think the fusion of old and new, like that in the City, has to be embraced and the results work. A view of tower bridge lit up at night with gleaming scrapers in the backgound only enhances the experience of the bride and emphasises its grandness...

The bridge with an empty background just looks less impressive. The fact london can pull of the fusion betwen old and new and claim it is al 'now' is commendable, its because the balance of old and new is not offensive...

So i think the land may be used better or in a more enriching way for public space (but in saying that, i have seen no footprints, is there a public realm, a square or something??).

However, i would be weary that this land could go to waste... unless they landscape an appealing square/garden out of the area and surround it by smalller yet no less exciting buildings...something with grandness for city hall, but also cosy like Soho square...

But finally, the South of the River has been the site for all sorts of weird and wonderful constructions and the whole bank is thrilling... all the way from Battersea Powerstation, MI building, the London Eye, Oxo, Tate Modern, Globe, HMS Belfast, Clink Prison, Southwark Cathedral, the Arts Complex, Hay's Galleria, and City Hall.... this strudture would not be out of place, but pbring in the colour if they plan to do it, do it the whole way....

If they convinced me on how this would improve my life by showing the public realm plans, street level, then i may sway in favour...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
I think the design is great, and the location is also great, the only concenr I'd have is for the loss of public space. If they could incorporate a small park into this design that incorporates the buildings I think it'd be fantastic.
 

·
Waiting for 122
Joined
·
3,803 Posts
Skopie said:
I think the design is great, and the location is also great, the only concenr I'd have is for the loss of public space. If they could incorporate a small park into this design that incorporates the buildings I think it'd be fantastic.
That would be my preffered option if they were to go ahead. That green Space is always packed, particulalry on nice days, with the ice cream van parked outside. The area would look far too cluttered if they were just just pave over.

Darlek voice extracts on every hour would be a good idea. :jk:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Peyre said:
No. We need Green space there not new age darleks.
well... its not a case of the 'need' of 'Green space' in that particular area since the area consumes plenty of green space with the public garden's, parks... . I see the whole project as being a kind addition to the evironment opposite the first and only environmental skyscraper in the world, the anal plug! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Skopie said:
I think the design is great, and the location is also great, the only concenr I'd have is for the loss of public space. If they could incorporate a small park into this design that incorporates the buildings I think it'd be fantastic.
well... we've got ample 'public space' with the Foster and Partners area just infront of it, which offers an amzing amount of public area and waterfountains 'n' stuff! The area wer it might be built was like a waste land anyway; eroded concrete that was never laid foot on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Look at the number of trees in front and all around the project. Its all about green space now days... especialy around residential areas. No matter what architects do, they always include green space as a priority, primarily within residential areas! So, dont let this project let u think that the developer will let not be green!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,258 Posts
elletijanii said:
Look at the number of trees in front and all around the project. Its all about green space now days... especialy around residential areas. No matter what architects do, they always include green space as a priority, primarily within residential areas! So, dont let this project let u think that the developer will let not be green!
You honestly expect the public will be allowed near them? The development will be gated and no doubt private so you won't be able to get near them.

I've never been a fan of this scheme. It just seems to produce another example of London's strange obsession with building on any piece of spare land for the sake of it.

There's some renderings out there of what the scheme looks like from the back, and they're bloody awful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Well... they wont be building 'em for the sake of it, otherwise theyll be losing out. Its to meet the residential demand. But i avnt seen the back of the buildings:( . Seein them will probably prevent anymore comments Re the project. Cud sum1 post the buildings backside plz!
 
1 - 20 of 2217 Posts
Top