Comments on: On The Bishopsgate Goodsyard

By: John Wright

John Wright — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 09:59:49 +0000

I totally agree with everyone’s comments. However the “affordable” housing situation is ominous. This “affordable” word has slid quickly into housing language and should be stopped. Whatever happened to “social” housing? I guarantee the developer will get a huge Government grant to give the poor people a home, but these “affordable” properties (if there are any) will never be affordable by working class people. Maybe cleverer people than myself can follow this up as it could be relevant to the application.

By: stephanie brann

stephanie brann — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:15:53 +0000

Dear Gentle Author,
as a long term Hackney resident and former resident of old Spitalfields, I am heartbroken about what is happening and despair of our ability to influence the powers of money. Please could you answer my two questions.
1. Is it true that the Head of Planning in Hackney is given a bonus for every planning consent pushed through? Can this be morally right? Does this explain some of the very insensitive decisions and monstrous buildings that are currently being imposed on Hackney?
2. What is going to happen to Norton Folgate? What are the plans for the right hand side of Bishopsgate? I fear the worst.
yours Stephanie Brann

By: Maria Way

Maria Way — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:28:21 +0000

These two blocks are a total eyesore. They do not fit with the present area’s buildings. While I can see that some of the building that has happened in the last 10-20 years has definitely improved the area, the character has been affected considerably. The general Bishopsgate area now looks like many of the faceless ‘business areas’ of large cities throughout the world and the ‘London-ness’ is being destroyed. Do these buildings have to be so high? Do they have to be so ugly? Many years ago I moved out of London (unsuitable accommodation and a baby on the way) to a new estate of houses in Suffolk. The houses were a delight to live in, and while there were problems that the architects had not addressed (lack of amenities, for instance), when the architects visited I distinctly remember that they told me that the density of accommodation was actually higher than on a tower block estate, although there was grass and there were trees, because they did not have to allow for wind funnelling and a variety of other problems that arise with very tall buildings. Could a rethink not be done — even something a bit less like a very tall egg box would be an improvement.

By: Terry Bates

Terry Bates — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 08:50:55 +0000

Although aware that something unpleasant was happening, I had no idea of the scale of these buildings and their impact on the surrounding area. Why do we have planning officers who allow things like these to be serious proposals for development? More widely it seems to me there is no strategy for the whole of London which, as people say will become like any other high-rise dominated city. Why will people want to visit us when that happens? Unlike other cities there seem to be no rules otherwise how did that awful bullying building in Fenchurch Street ever get built? Paris, for example, simply decreed that within in the central ring no tall buildings will be built – no ifs or buts.

By: Kate Shapland

Kate Shapland — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 17:14:00 +0000

One of the most disappointing aspects to this is the predictability of the whole mundane proposal & the way commercial gain is only valued in millions, not the real pounds that make a local business worth doing alongside the value of being part of a proper community and having good quality of life. Lip service only ever seems to be paid to preserving *context* and *atmosphere* with these schemes, when in invariably that’s ruined (witness the unsympathetic way the area around St Paul’s has been developed) so you get no sense of what the place or community was/is and the original historical architecture becomes like some sort of quaint little theme park. That irks me because the whole point of London is the detail (look closely at those stone pillars at the western end of the goodsyard – they are splendid and have London history etched into every brick ..), the spirit and character that comes from its social history. These monstrous glass and steel buildings have nothingoif that and patronise what London had and still wants to be proud of. Why does the fabric of our city need to change so it becomes another homogenised city? Soon London will be no different to Shanghai or Toronto as other commenters have said. And for what? Can’t London appoint a heritage gatekeeping panel that includes people who love and understand our city for its innate layer built character .. Dan Cruickshank? The Gentle Author? Peter Ackroyd? Philip Davies ..? I’ll take the minutes 😉

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 15:23:27 +0000

Thanks for highlighting this issue. I have written stating my objections. This is what I sent:

I am writing to express my objections to the plans as currently
proposed for The Bishopsgate Goodsyard.

I live and work in the immediate area and have looking at the plans
and found almost nothing in them that will benefit existing residents
and people working in the area like myself.

I object fundamentally to the height of these new buildings. No
thought has been given to the surrounding landscape which will be
badly effected by them. This is especially true for everyone
immediately north of the development. They will block the view and
sunlight all year round. Where will be our compensation for finding
ourselves living in a darkened less attractive space?

The height of the development cannot be radically different from the
buildings immediately to the north. If they are they impact on all the
people that live and work there.

Even in the development they’s added the ‘green space’ to the south
because green space needs sunlight. Yet they don’t mind blocking the
sunlight to those living just to the north. The design is completely
wrong and fundamentally ignores residents and workers to the north and south.

I object most strongly to this development as it stands and as a
resident, worker and tax payer in the area I will be watching the
authorities very closely to see how they deal with this.

– hope they listen!

By: caroline vincent

caroline vincent — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:14:14 +0000

Destroying history again. WHY?
And what’s all that about the “little people of Shoreditch?”

By: John Levy

John Levy — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:12:11 +0000

As an Australian, I might seem far removed from these developments. However, in the 19th century, this was the home of my family and I’d hope that the area would be treated with respect. I am not against development but it should be in harmony with the character of the existing surrounds, not visually overpower them. I’ve recently spent some time in the East End and I want to see the character of the area preserved. The tourist ‘dollar’ or ‘pound’ is an important source of revenue for England – don’t destroy those things that make people want to visit. Landmarks like Nelson’s Column, though interesting, are not where my family lived and worked. Preserve the East End.

By: Baarbara Hague

Baarbara Hague — Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:24:05 +0000

The pictures of the proposed tower blocks look to be overwhelming the present local buildings.
Will they immediately be bought up by foreign (Chinese etc?) interests to be let for the luxury renting market at a great profit?

The proposal looks to completely spoil a traditional area.

By: Laserwill

Laserwill — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 13:41:17 +0000

I thought the Nichols and Clark scheme achieved some sort of balance but this Goodsyard proposal is gross and such an unimaginative use of this special site. I have objected to both local authorities and to Mr Pickles, although I feel little enthusiasm for getting him involved.