Hadid for Hackney!

[Nemesis]

Oh dear.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3129205&origin=BDbreakingnews

 

[Nemesis]

There are fresh pics on the report,

A certain well known architectural historian and TV presenter had this to say:

This is ghastly.
>
> Hoxton Square must be saved from this trendy nonsense designed in
> ignorance and arrogance with no thought or sensitivity, This is simply
> crude, mass-produced architecture imposed on an historic site and that
> ignores context. The site must be considered. It's a late 17th square
> with a certain established character. It's in a conservation area, the
> site adjoins a part 1680s building (heavily restored) .

 

[Penners]

I've just checked the calendar, and no - it's not the 1st of April.

:roll:

 

[plumbers mate]

I'm not against new buildings but they have to be sympathetically placed - this one isn't.
There are some good looking new buildings - this one isn't.
It looks to me as though someone had a load of card and made a model building. They then scrumpled it up as being no good. Unfortunately someone has found the scrumpled up version and submitted it.
Crass and completely out of place.

 

[Nemesis]

I'm not against Zaha either - but this is really not the place.

Grim.

I think she's lost the plot here too:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=781&storycode=3129263&c=2&encCode=00000000018a14bd

It looks like a seventies underpass. Mugger's Paradise.

 

[Penners]

Is this the woman who did the ski-lift (or was it a funicular) stations in Innsbruck? Or am I getting my architects confused?

I really liked those.

 

[Nemesis]

Yes! Sad the panels didn't quite fit, but a great design. But that's the prob - whe does whacky and then they can't always be built, the costs go over, the designs have to be hugley modified...

Not sure how long this will be on the council website, read and weep:

http://mginternet.hackney.gov.uk/Published/C00000125/M00000366/AI00002214/$3335HoxtonSquare.docA.ps.pdf

The idea of a sculpted massing works well, meeting the visual and
functional needs for external visual effect and the internal requirement
for daylight, views and balconies. The horizontal lines on the façade
respect the cornice lines from the neighbouring building, particularly the
Grade 2 listed building at 32 Hoxton Square. It demonstrates a good
relationship between the proposed building and its context. In addition,
the dynamic diagonal elements of walls, windows, and balconies, and
the use of reflective stainless steel and thin frame glass will attract great
attention due to the dramatic form full of tension and reflectivity.

Look at me !
Look at me!!!


Why?

EH, bless 'em:

4.4.1 English Heritage (Historic Buildings & Conservation):
(Recommendations)
(i) English Heritage has no in-principle objection to the demolition of
the existing buildings on the proposed development site. However,
we wish to raise a strong objection to the proposed replacement
scheme. As set out above, and in Hackney Council's own draft
appraisal for the conservation area, 'the blending of eighteenth
century, nineteenth century and modern development in and around
the square has resulted in a surprisingly harmonious visual balance'.
New developments within the square in recent years have respected
their context through the use of brick as the prevailing material, the
use of an architectural language that respects plot widths and the
vertical emphasis that characterises the historic buildings around the
square and throughout the conservation area.
(ii) The proposed scheme bears no relation to its context and while it
is evident that attempts have been made to reference the listed
building at No. 32 Hoxton Square in the Hoxton Square elevation, this
has resulted in a building with a strong horizontal emphasis which is
at odds with the character zone and the wider conservation area. In
addition to this, the scale, mass and proposed materials result in an
building alien to its sensitive context, forming an imposition on a finely
grained London square which takes much of its character from the
'harmonious visual balance' where no one building acts as a
dominant or overwhelming feature. The proposed scheme would
have an overbearing, discordant and harmful impact on this balance
and the sense of enclosure created by the buildings around the
square which is emphasised by the pattern, materials and rhythm of
their frontages.
(iii) The proposed scheme would also harm the setting of the square's
listed buildings which contribute to the rich architectural variety of the
area and also to its social and economic history. The listed buildings
described above are very much part of the square, contributing to the
areas historic and aesthetic value while respecting and strengthening
the area's fine townscape. St Monica's Church, a key visual
reference point and landmark blends with the other buildings in the
square by use of brick, scale and height. The original context of No
32 Hoxton Square may be altered but the surviving similar plot
Page 91
widths and arrangement of buildings provide reminders of the
square's past with buildings that respect the character of the listed
building and its setting.
•The draft appraisal for the SSCA identifies possible vulnerabilities
and threats to the character of the zone. These include 'insensitive
redevelopments which ignore the scale, massing and architectural
character of the zone and which disrupt the fine grain elements of the
townscape quality of the zone'. In order to mitigate against such
inappropriate development, the South Shoreditch Supplementary
Planning Document's (SSSPD) Conservation and Design Guidance
(Policy 12.2) sets out that:
• Sites with potential for prominent new development should be of
high architectural quality and follow principles of good urban design,
well integrated with surrounding urban form.
• The amalgamation of plots into larger footprints will be resisted.
(iv) Our view is that the proposed scheme is contrary to this policy,
particular when related to these points. In addition, the scheme does
not accord with national policies and guidance. Paragraph 4.14 of
Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment
sets out that section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990, 'requires that special attention shall be
paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the character of a conservation area. In
addition, paragraph 2.16 set out that the Act requires 'authorities
considering applications for planning permission...to have special
regard to certain matters including the desirability of preserving the
setting of the building.
(v) Due to the discordant and alien form of the proposed development
in the context of the Hoxton Square Zone of the South Shoreditch
Conservation Area and the fact that the scheme does not accord with
local or national policy and guidance, we wish to raise strong
objection to this scheme and urge that it be refused.

 

[Penners]

Recommendation: Grant conditional permission subject to a
Section 106 agreement

Wossa Section 106 agreement?

 

[Nemesis]

Basically bribery - we give permission, you give us - ohhh, cash, a playpark, a few 'affordable' homes, whatever.

As the present scheme submitted after the adoption of the Planning
Contributions SPD in November 2006 (after approval of the 2006
redevelopment of the site) includes new residential accommodation, a
contribution through a Section 106 Agreement is required towards the
provision of primary and secondary school places. Application of
current Child Yield figures gives a total contribution of £24,440 for the
8 new flats. The SPD also seeks contributions to library facilities,
amounting in this case to £553.
Page 98
7.2 The joint Section 106/ Section 278 Planning and Highways
Agreement concluded in respect of the 2006 scheme also contained
provisions for:
• Agreement and compliance with an implementation plan under
the Considerate Contractor scheme
• Achievement of a car-free scheme by no entitlement to
residents’ parking permits in CPZ
• Highway re-instatement works (S278)- mainly footways and
carriageway markings – total estimated cost of £38,200
• Measures to recruit local employment both in construction and
within the completed development
• Training opportunities for 2 local employees during construction
• Completion of employment & retail uses prior to occupation of
new residentia

 

[Nemesis]

This pic, by the way, is of 32 Hoxton Square, which will be the neighbour of the metal Hadid building if this goes ahead


More here:

http://www.hackneysociety.org/photosurvey.htm

 

[Penners]

Basically bribery - we give permission, you give us - ohhh, cash, a playpark, a few 'affordable' homes, whatever.

Ah, yes. Our local town of Sudbury is currently debating what to do with a kind gift of £30,000 from Tesco. Generous, eh?

Oh, and in a totally unrelated piece of news, Tesco have just been allowed to double the size of their Sudbury store.

 

[Nemesis]

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=437&storycode=3129332&c=3

 

[shelli]

Ah, yes. Our local town of Sudbury is currently debating what to do with a kind gift of £30,000 from Tesco. Generous, eh?

-

:idea: they could use it to buy a small fleet of 2nd hand vans, paint em green, travel to local farms and wholesalers and set up a local food cooperative - backed up by some local banner publicity thanking Tesco for their support of locally sourced ethical food production with a kind of catchy buy-line - something about small things helping to make a difference.

Shelli