Development of City North Site*

wideboy

[deleted]

Bridget

Just two days to go for any objections to this so please remember to get your comments in by the 21st.

Ive just done it online. Want the area to be redeveloped but do not want 21 story tower blocks.

wideboy

Same here. I'm not against the redevelopment, but I raised questions over:

1) Not being notified of the planning application even though I live very close.
2) The design appears to score relatively poorly in grading points/awards relating to Co2 emissions for office and retail areas. Also appears to score zero in all innovation categories.
3) The the proposed design doesn't meet LBI's minimum standard of "Excellent".
4) The dimissal of small scale wind power generation, without giving reasons why.
5) Height / scale.

....in relation <a href="https://www.islington.gov.uk/onlineplanning/docserver/applications/2009/12Dec/P092492/(W118) Sustainable Design and Construction Statement incl Energy St.pdf#page=9">page 8</a> See section 4.2 and 4.7. Also see <a href="https://www.islington.gov.uk/onlineplanning/docserver/applications/2009/12Dec/P092492/(W118) Sustainable Design and Construction Statement incl Energy St.pdf#page=94">page 94</a> re: Wind power.

Ian

Thanks for reminding me folks - I put in a very positive full agreement with the development. I think it will be really good for the area and have no problem at all with the height.

andy

Small scale wind generation isn't very good. That would be the main reason. The payback on domestic wind turbines, with the embedded carbon of manufacture, is pretty poor. You're better off reducing consumption through improved efficiency.

wideboy

It all starts somewhere. The payback will increase as manufacaturing processes evolve, and not all systems are equal.

>> You're better off reducing consumption through improved efficiency.

What happens when you've done that and it's still not enough? As I mentioned, the design scores poorly in these areas for office and retail, and that's across a wide spread of technologies, and zero across the board for innovation.

The report also *did* evaluated PV panels, which to me seems less likely to be viable.

Remember that this is two 21-floor towers, that's some height. Around here that's a average wind speed of 5.7m/s (at 25m height) and 6.2m/s (at 45m height) - there is online db of this somewhere. The carbon building fund (or whatever it's called) states that locations with an average windspeed of 5m/s or greater are viable for funding, which indicates to me that this is a viable site.

Arkady

I’ve spent a lot of time looking at this application, and I’ve commented with all but full approval, including agreement on the height (and I will be able to see this development from my flat on Mount View Rd). My only objection is to the removal of the 19th century façade on Goodwin St – they may not think that it is of architectural merit but I think it’s attractive and if incorporated into the design would mark the transition between old and new right by the new gateway, dovetailing the Victorian building next door into the new development. I’ve suggested that if this is not possible then the façade should be saved for use elsewhere, perhaps in redeveloping the gap between the neighbouring Victorian premises with identical facades.

Arky

wideboy

As mentioned elsewhere, there are more images of street views and <a href="http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1030381&highlight=finsbury+park">other projections here</a>

I'd love to be proved wrong, but it just looks like a overwhelming lump to me, perhaps with a hint of spaceship.

JoeV

I know some people have objections about the height of the two towers but they concern me less that the impact that the long white monolith the towers rise above will have. It looks like a 10 story, three block long wall of white. It could create a worse separation in the neighbourhood than the railway line.

Arkady

@JoeV: I gave that some consideration too. But keep in mind that the whole site is currently out of bounds, and a new road will connect Wells Terrace to Goodwin St (and thus Fonthill Rd) with a tunnel under the block. So the development will open up the area, not ‘separate’ it. And the block effectively runs parallel to the railway anyway, so I don’t think it adds to the separation.

tosscat

@ Arky - I used to think that about lovely facades but I feel that the Queenswood medical centre in CE shows how badly this can be done. The old bit looks ropey and the new bit looks castrated.

JoeV

@arkady -- I actually like the overall look of the redevelopment and can appreciate the changes at street level but from the drawings it seems to me that what is essentially happening is that a two-three block long wall will rise 8 stories above the train tracks. The view of the project from the park is disturbing. At least the towers allow sun and light through to street level.

Have you been to Tottenham Hale recently? There's a new development being built next to the station that is constructed in a similar fashion and is absolutely hideous. This plan looks all shiny and new in the drawings but the reality may be much different.

Arkady

@Tosscat – I haven’t seen it, no, and the internet isn’t assisting on this one. I accept it could be done badly… I just hate to lose the history, you know? I’d like to see some renders with it included so that we can reach a better conclusion. @JoeV: Is your primary beef with the view from the park? I agree that it is the least attractive view, perhaps they could lose a story or two from it. But views from elsewhere shouldn’t be compromised at street level because of the surrounding buildings. I would suggest that if we reduced this to ‘positive transformation that this development could bring’ vs ‘reduced attractiveness of view from a particular part of the park’ then the former wins out. As to actual appearance – have a look at some of the end results from the same architects at the link Wideboy posted above – gorgeous, and a rare successful juxtaposition of old and new. That’s my take on it anyway. And it would be difficult to make that part of town worse, let’s be honest. Arky

JoeV

@ Arkady –
It's not just the view from the park that will be impacted. The residential areas on the western (southern) side of the station will be affected as well. The drawings present clean, crisp and white buildings that gleam but the base of the development is a mistake. It’s oppressive and will block sun and light on both sides, especially in winter when the sun is low in the sky. That's my primary beef.

The towers are fine in my opinion, at least they allow some light to reach the street and don’t block the sky as much but that long base structure looks to me to be as wide as the two towers combined, and 1-1/2 times longer. You can correct me if I have the actual dimensions wrong but that’s how it looks to me in the pictures.

The developers have snuck in another even larger tower and disguised it by turning it on its side. It would have been better, and more honest, to include another 20-story tower.

I would be more amenable if the building was reduced to 4-5 stories, keeping it in scale with the other buildings in the area. I still wouldn’t like the unbroken façade but the smaller scale would be an improvement.

Arkady

So you disagree with the findings of Delva Patman Associates daylight, sunlight and shadowing report (W66 in the application)? Page 16-17 suggests only 3 properties would have windows that would be significantly affected, and then only for part of the day. Demolishing my neighbour’s houses would improve the amount of daylight I got, but there are other factors to take into consideration, sadly! 

ActionVerb

@Arkady - the pictures linked on the Sky Scraper City forum are heavily manipulated, with significant level of HDR placed on the original photos. As you can probably tell by the photo, there is an unnatural level of contrast and colour on the photos, so I don't think it's a 'true' intepretation of what those buildings currently look like.

With regard to the development itself, I think I have already commented on this thread, and my view has remained that scale wise, it is a bit too high and perhaps over-development in a predominantly 3-4storey area. Don't feel strongly enough to object, as I think in the bigger scheme of things it will probably be a good thing for the area.

I'm also interested if the affordable housing element of the scheme is 'pepper potted' around the development, or restricted to the inevitably lower quality, lower level flats. There's a very nice scheme in Farringdon that looks rather nice with a high affordable housing percentage, yet when you step into the development, you realise that most of it is hiden away behind the main building, with none of the vast glazing and small balconies afforded to the fully commercial properties.

JoeV

@ Arkady -- What do I know? I'm just an amatuer relating my thoughts based on a couple of drawings posted to a website. But I don't see how a ten story building of that length can only impact 2-3 properties. If that's the conclusion of the daylight and shadowing report then I'm even more concerned.

I didn't say I was against this project. I think it's really interesting architecturally and could be a really positive addition to the neighbourhood (if that one building was scaled down).

Your response to what I think of as a legitimate concerns seems, well a tad defensive. If all the environmental impact reports are so positive why bother involving the community? Just build the thing.

By the way, have you seen the new development at Tottenham Hale? If you have that is my concern. If you haven't get thee on the Victoria line and have a look.

Arkady

@ActionVerb – I have no doubt that they are trying to present the development in its best light, I’ve followed enough developments to have lost my naivety and know there is a difference between developer renders and the end result- though sometimes they look better! The current Rothschild development is evidence of that. But again, look at the examples of actual developments by the same architects on that thread – it’s subjective of course but I think they look ace, and there are similarities in style and materials. That’s all I have to go on. I wonder about the affordable housing too, but you can’t blame them for selecting the apartments that they would make the least profit on – sadly it can make the difference between these developments being profitable or not. I’d be curious to know which development in Farringdon you’re referring to? @JoeV – sorry if I sound defensive. I’m an amateur too. But I do – pretentious though it may sound- try and maintain a rational, scientific mindset. While maintaining a healthy scepticism, the only *evidence* we have to go on – as opposed to speculation – is the professional report. Short of getting a second professional opinion, or identifying actual problems with the methodology of the existing report, that is all we have to go on. Community involvement and an open planning system is to ensure that we are not misled. If we found actual flaws in the report then I’d be the first on up in arms. But just saying “I think they’re wrong” without presenting evidence marshalled into a counter-argument is, I would suggest, insufficient. I'll look into the TH development - will I be able to easily identify which one you mean? Arky

Arkady

Joe - OK I found the details of the TH development. Personally I hate the concept design, but I agree that the end result is even worse. Without more research it's hard to be sure, but it looks like major compromises were made when translating it to reality - I'm suprised some of those structures even got planning permission. Then again, it's a shithole around there anyway, they didn't have to worry about the surroundings. Arky

JoeV

I still have an open mind about this development but 'official' reports always say minimal impact, maximum benefit. C'mon, reports also said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Northern Rock was rated as sound before it collapsed.

I think it's prudent to be skeptical. I'm not anti-development but I'm sorry, I trust my eyes more than the statistics at the moment. Look at the pictures. I think it's important to be critical to ensure a better building is constructed.

The development at TH is right next to the station. The new complex is replacing a large area that was formerly empty warehouses (which were replaced by newer warehouses built further north nearer to the M25) with residential and commercial buildings that are touted as an improvement but judging by the first building completed, it's horrendously bad (but at least the surrounding area is less residential).

JoeV

The overall plan <http://www.haringey.gov.uk/tott_hale_finalspd_jan07low_res-2.pdf>; Phase I design: <http://www.woolfltd.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=1>; What’s been delivered (student housing): <http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/4041010976/>; There are other pics on flicker. In the right light, the building doesn’t look so bad, but the closer you get, well, in my opinion it looks like a hulking, concrete prison block with coloured bits sticking off the sides. (Sorry, I'm rubbish and making links)

Arkady

Hey Joe. Scepticism is good. I guess I just put a lot of emphasis on formal evidence over speculation. My eyes tell me otherwise to yours, hence my seeking fact rather than opinion. While maintaining that healthy scepticism, I'll trust the report until someone points out exactly how it's wrong. If you're concerned then I suggest you try and do that, the residents of Wells Terrace might end up worshipping you as a god! :-) A

ActionVerb

Re: Tottenham Hale, so that's what that awful building is. I drive past it on the way to Tesco/Ikea in Edmonton and it does look horrendous. Those multi-coloured fins to the building already look so out of date, although unfortunately this doesn't stop them being proposed all over the place. I suppose I'm glad that the John Jones development has gone for something a little more authentic, at least from the SG road elevation, I haven't had a chance to look at those plans in more details.

@ Arkady - I'll have a look at the details on that Farringdon scheme, but it's the Tesco Express on St John Street and the residential behind it that used to be a brewery, i think, if you know the area.

Alan Stanton

I'm a Haringey councillor for Tottenham Hale ward, and a resident told me about comments here on the "Hale Village" development. I also saw that yesterday JoeV added a link to my Flickr photoblog showing the <i>Emily Bowes Court</i> building near Tottenham Hale Station.

Normally as a resident in the far east of Haringey, I wouldn't have added my view. But then I read Arkady's comment:
<i>"Then again, it's a shithole around there anyway, they didn't have to worry about the surroundings."</i>

Part of our problem is this sort of attitude about Tottenham Hale. It's a of view of the area we might expect from slum landlords; from property developers; and apparently the London Development Agency. But I'm disappointed to find it on a community website.

The area around Ferry Lane, including Ferry Lane Estate and Bream Close; the streets around Down Lane Park; the neighbourhood inside the Tottenham Gyratory system; Markfield Park and roads nearby; none are shitholes. Though to be fair to Arkady, my photoblog does focus on lots of corners where fly-tippers and dumpers do their best to foul the area.

It's actually rather nice - and sometimes quite beautiful. Don't believe me? Then come and take a walk round. Or look on Flickr. Here are some quick suggestions: There are loads more.

● Photo by local resident <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/12614773@N07/2094359592/">Jordi Martorell</a>.
● River Lee <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/2398205243/">6 April 2008</a>
● The river on <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/3308915021/">2 February 2009</a>
● Jeanette Sitton's photos from <a href="http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=paddock&w=10981060@N07">The Paddock</a>.
● Panorama of <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanstanton/509541334/">Tottenham Marshes</a>.
● <a href="http://www.breamclose.com/">Bream Close Estate website</a>.

Arkady

Alan I'm sorry if I hit a nerve. No-one disputes that Tottenham Hale has some gorgeous natural features. However, it's the built environment that we were discussing, and - as the pictures that you provide suggest - developers have not been kind in your neck of the woods. Even *relatively* good examples - such as the townhouses in the last picture and those on Ferry Lane, are bland and featureless, neither modernist or classical, inspiring nothing. The same dross that they are building in the suburbs of parochialville everywhere. Worse, they degrade the natural environment around them. Finsbury Park and Stroud Green are lucky to have some excellent Victorian heritage, and new builds need to take that into account. That's not to say there isn't room for innovation, but it must be done with care. My argument is that the City North site has to compromise less than most as it is surrounded by low-grade architecture that will be redeveloped the next few years anyway - it is a great opportunity for an iconic modernist building. On the other hand, the neighbouring John Jones development has to be more sympathetic. Now, as far as I can see the dvelopment that was referred to in Tottenham Hale also had a lot of freedom, in that it is not surrounded by nice old buildings. My obession with the *potentially* spirit-lifting aesthetic of the built environment led me to translate that as 'shithole'. The development could have been an attractive and inspiring modernist creation, like MoreLondon or even the Millenium Village. But instead you've got that monstrosity, which will help to continue Tottenham Hale's reputation as an eyesore for another generation. Bad luck. Arky

Alan Stanton

Thanks for replying quickly and frankly Arkady.
<i>Of course</i> you hit a nerve.

For some people "Tottenham Hale" means just the station and the immediate area round it. For others - the developers and the London Development Agency - it means the area of the so-called Tottenham Hale and Greater Ashley Road "Masterplans" - including land on both banks of the river, and extending to Down Lane Park.

While for us who live here, it's our homes, our neighbourhood and neighbours – including people we call our friends.

True, I'm not expecting architectural tourists to queue up to visit Ferry Lane Estate, or roads near Down Lane Park where we live. You might think them "bland and featureless". Dismissing our streets as "nothing"; "dross"; and "parochialville" homes which "degrade the natural environment around them".

Well, I like handsome Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian and later buildings. But we love out little 1930's house as well. It's also what we could afford at the time. Calling our streets a "shithole" because they're not Victorian seems - well, just a little harsh.

We enjoy and visit attractive modern buildings. Good design of any period is great. Though I'm sceptical about "iconic" buildings which - in my observation - tend to show their problems the minute everyone takes a taxi back from the black-tie prize-giving back-slapping dinner. (Irena Bauman is an architect who is refreshingly honest about this.)

Maybe you and I will agree on some things about the new Tottenham Hale development. Perhaps one is the absurdity of the developers - Lee Valley Estates - calling a high-rise development a "village". I and others have <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardandgill/3629806124/">poked gentle fun</a> at this. Chris Shellard, formerly Haringey Assistant Chief Executive and Head of Haringey Regeneration, is now Lee Valley Estate's project manager. He at least, was honest in describing their initial aim as a "mini-Paddington Basin". If that soulless island of concrete next to the Grand Union canal might conceivably be appropriate in central London near a major railway station, it's hardly what's needed next to the River Lee and a Regional Park.

The plans previously put forward for Hale Wharf by Isis - British Waterways development arm - were even more grotesquely out of scale. Though no doubt "signature" and "iconic", viewed miles away where architects and consultants live.

And that's the basic problem. it seems to me that many of the people driving this are uninterested in Tottenham, its regeneration, or the people who live here. They saw a chance to make money - and get a public subsidy as well - with a piece of land next to a tube station which is also on the main line to Stanstead, Stratford and Liverpool Street. It has another bonus: views across the Lee Valley Regional Park, its marshes, reservoirs; bird watching areas, and a river. (The "gorgeous natural features" you mention.) Except that out-of-scale and out-of-context developments will mar these forever for everyone who doesn't have a flat at the very top.

andy

If nothing else, a proud and a valiant defence of Tottenham Hale.

Arky, like Boris Johnson and Liverpool, you now have to go there and pretend that you like it.

Arkady

Proud and valiant indeed, credit to your passion Alan. You’re right that I was associating TH with the area around the rail station, and perhaps that is unfair. I certainly get miffed when people dismiss the wider Finsbury Park area. I admire your sense of community, and I suspect we share a hope for regeneration tempered by scepticism towards development agencies. And we also share the belief that ‘good design of any period is great’ – sadly the percentage of good designs after c.1930 - when classical principles and ornaments were largely abandoned - are thin on the ground. You may genuinely love ‘your little 1930s houses’, but when compared to their older neighbours they seem like a failure to me (I’m making a narrow point about architecture here, I’m not slagging off the residents). This failure has largely remedied for individual buildings in the last few decades – modernism has been endowed with a new appreciation for aesthetics. But modernism still struggles to provide good *streets*, most low-rise estates have desperately poor aesthetics compared to their classic forebears. Even mid-to-high rise developments like this one and Tottenham Hale can be done right with attention to detail and the right materials. But at the moment it looks like a badly wasted opportunity. Arky

ShaunG

I know Alan from when I lived in Tottenham, and if every councillor was as dedicated and passionate about improving their communities, Haringey would be a better place. Good to hear from you, Alan.

wideboy

Anyone know when this City North application will appear at a planning hearing? I don't know much about the process, but I believe that's what happens next. Would I need to attend to ensure my points are heard, or is just submitting formal comments via the portal enough?