Public Meeting to discuss Bondway Tower
by Danny - June 29th, 2009.Filed under: Bondway/Octave Tower, Local Developments. Tagged as: Bondway/Octave Tower.
It’s at 8pm on Wednesday 08 July in St Anne’s Hall in Vauxhall Grove.
Here’s the flyer that will be distributed:
Do you like tall buildings and don’t have a problem with Bondway Tower being built just on the other side of South Lambeth Road? Or do you find it too close to us, too overpowering, and are worried about loss of light and the negative effect on car parking in our streets?
For or against – please come to the public meeting and make your views known. And then vote on whether you want Viva Vauxhall, as your residents’ association, to oppose the planning application or simply act as a conduit to pass on information to local residents. A majority vote will count, irrespective of the number of people who attend.
Come along to the meeting! Have your say!
July 1st, 2009 at 5:34 pm
As a resident on Vauxhall Grove of over 2 years I would like to support the Bondway Tower proposal on the following grounds :
1. It appears a development of reasonably high quality
2. Local amenities are currnetly limited to the lack of population density in the area. An increase in local population will encourage further business investment and improve facilities for us all.
There is a distincy lack of leaisure facilities in vauxhall - cafes, restaurants, bars etc and this will encourage that investment.
Hopefullly the St Georges Wharf Tower will get underay shortly along with the developmet of Hamilton House on the embankment again increasing population densiity in what is an under developed central London location.
Steven Hewitt
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I agree that Steven’s reasons for a development in principle are valid - incentive for increase in local amenities. However, the development which is actually being proposed (a) is too tall, leading to light issues for local residents and (b) does not take into account the reality of what will happen in terms of parking spaces in the local area. A smaller tower with adequate parking facilities might not produce so much opposition.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Ok, so, first of all, the proposed new tower will be 42 stories high, the Canary Wharf Tower, 1 Canada Square is 50 stories high. How ridiculous to randomly position a block of flats almost as tall as 1 Canada Square, (the third tallest in the country), in the centre of Vauxhall. Aside from the towers completely unnecessary height, the thing that really grates on me is its actual design, its just shockingly bland, uninteresting bordering on ugly. Very tall development proposals such as this, placed in an area of predominantly low rise buildings, should only be approved if shown to exhibit exceptional innovative design and should strive to bring new amenities and facilities to an area. This proposal does neither. The token gesture retail outlets built within the St Georges Wharf development, (1 Tesco Metro and 1small chemist), cater for neither the residents needs nor those of the surrounding area, it seems the Bondway development will be along similar lines and will add nothing to the experience of living in Vauxhall or make Vauxhall a more attractive place to visit. I am in favour of developing Vauxhall, its location, transport links and the potential for development could see it transformed into an actual destination, rather than a place to pass through on the way to somewhere more interesting. The people in favour of this tower block seem to be just grateful of anything new coming to the area, but shouldn’t we be asking for something more than that? New buildings or proposals that could bring some style and interest to the area and would make Vauxhall into more of a desirable place to live.
Sadly the Bondway Tower misses the opportunity to add anything to Vauxhall except more people. Stevens idea that more people encourages more business investment, in the form of shops, bars, etc. seems reasonable in an ideal world. The reality that we are currently witnessing is that, since the massive influx of new residents to Vauxhall with St Georges Wharf, there hasn’t been a rush of new proposals from developers to build new retail schemes or leisure facilities. In fact the Bondway site is a prime location for such a scheme but its not happening. Without any pressure being put on them, developers will simply build more of the same, in this case, just another ugly, soulless, very tall, block of flats, in my opinion an eyesore waiting to be built.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I have some serious concerns regarding this development. There are already plans afoot regarding the grass in the centre of the one way system alongside the bus station between St George Wharf and the bus station. Further development of the area around the roundabout is not needed. a few questions to consider
1. Parking - In an area already overcrowded with cars what is the proposition for dealing with parking.
2. Excessive congestion during construction - This is not a minor project and will likely result in the closure of roads around the site. This will cause major implications for traffic congestion during construction.
3. Height - Now this is absolutely stupid. I cannot believe that yet another 40+ floor tower is being considered. This is too tall and needs to be reduced in common with some of the other buildings in the area. 20 floors is more realistic and in keep with other modern developments like St George Wharf. The tower at St George has been postponed until the market picks up again.
4. Lack of local amenties - There is already a lack of amenities (no serious shopping area) etc. how will this development address or improve this. There are still unsold/used developments in St George. This development wont improve the situation
Basically how will this development improve or contribute to the surrounding area. Very little I would suggest.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Chris, the proposed tower should be judged on its actual height and density not simply on it floors. The new tower at Elephant and Council is a similar floor height just like the towers at the Barbican (42, 41, 40)
I think a pragmatic approach is appropriate, we should be asking the developer to details the height impact on the local street enviroment before making exagerated assumptions on its impact.
I am certainly not in favour of any development in the area for development sake, but I am also aware of the current business enviroment and eager to see vauxhall develop for us all.
A building must be commercially viable and that will mean height and density to argue againt is for arguments sake is simply un-realist in todays economic enviroment.
Too often people who live in an area simply see tall = bad or new = bad well lets not forget that the victorian houses within the conservation area were probably once deemed inappropriate and far too modern.
Vauxhall is not suburbia and its residents i hope are pragmatists and not reactionist NIMBYS
We should also give young people the chance to own their own home in the local area and this will only be achieved with high density housing. We should be argueing for the type of housing within the development and ensure its affordability for young people rather than simply saying 2 TALL = NO WAY
An unselfish realistic approach is probably the best way to approach this development.
Steven
July 8th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Hey Steven, hello. Thanks for reading and responding to my first ever post… But I think you’re missing the point. Should the Bondway proposal go ahead, the people who choose to buy an apartment there will be choosing to live in Vauxhall because it’s a great location i.e. great transport links to the rest of London. I only mention transport links because there is nothing else here to attract people to want to come to live here. Go to almost any other area of Central London and within ten minutes walk, you could be in an area with a decent choice pubs and bars, shops, restaurants, entertainment, hell even a bit of culture. These days Vauxhall doesn’t even have a Post Office, the nearest reasonable shops are a tube ride or at least 30 minutes walk away, unless you’re going to a club, or are gay, a night out would be limited to staying in one pub because to move on somewhere else is too much of a trek to actually find one. Vauxhall is empty. The development of Vauxhall should be based around a cohesive plan for the entire area, designated sites for retail, residential, leisure etc. not just up for grabs on a first come first served basis. You’re idea seems to be, to let developers build whatever they want and just hope that somebody else then builds something the area actually needs. How about a plan to begin with?
I want to see Vauxhall transformed into a vibrant, thriving area of London. What it needs is a heart, a centre, a focal point, not just a cut-price bus station surrounded by blocks of flats.
July 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Chris, I can’t believe what I’m reading. Have you never walked around the streets of Vauxhall. I’m a Londoner ‘born and bred’ and I’m continually surprised and charmed by the area and the people who live here. I suggest you get out and walk about the streets, use the tapas bars and see the family life there, have a meal at the Bonnington, walk down , or up, the river, talk to the people that live here. We really don’t need a shopping mall or a tower block. It will be the beginning of the decline of Vauxhall into a bland and faceless place and the people who live here will suffer or leave.
July 28th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Hi All,
I am with Chris on this and not really with Steven. I think this tower block is going to cause all manner of problems for Vauxhall Grove, Bonnington Square and Langley Lane in terms of light and car parking - did I read that this development is proposing a mere 25 car parking spaces for 376 homes? The building is due to be 149 metres tall and will block out any evening sun that Langley Lane currently gets completely. Furthermore, the building looks awful when viewed from the Vauxhall Grove/Langley Lane direction.
I like Steven am all for the development of some useful amenities in Vauxhall, and I agree that with further density these are likely to come, but I do not think that we should simply roll over on this shockingly ugly and dominating proposal. And furthermore, where are these amenities going to go. All the available space is getting developed for residential to take advantage of the superlative transport connections here in Vauxhall. I think that this is a bad proposal and should be opposed quite vigorously. I am not saying do not build anything there and I am not saying do not build anything high there. All I am saying is that if we are going to give up our light and our tranquility (mayhem in our secluded little haven with new people looking for car parking spaces) we should make sure that we do so for something that is of some tangible benefit to us. I agree with Chris where he says that this proposal does nothing for us and takes a considerable amount.
If something sensible and exciting is proposed I will be all for it. This is not something I can support and I would be glad to put some energy into getting the proposal refused.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I will be asking the Developers to provide the following information so that we have a more accurate understanding of the projects impact on the local area..
1. Details of potential shadowing at different times of the day on Langley lane and Vauxhall Grove. Considering the location of the proposal.
2. Details of whether any existing Buildings or facades are to be kept as part of the development.
3. Details of the affordability levels of the individual properties within the development.
4. Details of any anchor tenants within the commercial element that are already showing an interest in joining the development.
I shall be assimilating this information to ALL local residents to ensure that everyone in the area is receiving a balanced view of the development.
I will also be seeking support from CABE for the development.
If you want to join me in support of the development please email me at yes2bondway@googlemail.com
July 30th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Hi Steven,
I think that is an excellent idea - good initiative. However, one thing is puzzling me. Why are you so positive about this development? What is it that you particularly like about it that makes you want to support it so much? Am I missing something that is fabulous about the proposal that you have spotted?
July 31st, 2009 at 11:36 am
Hi Colin
Thank you for your message.
Firstly, I do not feel the development is particularly fabulous.
What I do have is much experience in the UK and South Africa of Local Residents Associations outright objection to new developments for all the reasons that have been given here. When this stance is taken there is only ever 2 outcomes and neither I feel is good for the local residents in the long run :
1. The developer gets exactly what they want regardless with no concessions to local needs
2. The developer cancels the project and nothing is done.
This I feel is the ojective of Viva Vauxhall and I feel it is a missed oppurtunity and I cannot support.
My objective is neither of the above.
I believe that further residential / commercial development of the river and areas that are cut up by endless roads in Vauxhall would benefit existing residents. The proposals for the Vauxhall Island and Hamilton House (Embankment) only work as high rise buildings both aestehitically and commercially.
RA’s are seen more favouably and taken more seriously by planning authorities when they engage with the developer. When they take a pragmatic approach understanding commercial needs as well as community and enviromental needs and accepting that the area would benefit with further development.
Once you accept that the footprint of the development area is so small that only a high rise building will male any commercial sense then we can engage with the developer and attempt to crreate a building that enhances everyones life and enjoyment of the area and still makes a profit for the developer. A sucessful profitable development should not be a reason for an objection.
The issue regarding parking is a typical example of the RA’s obstructive approach. If the developer had proposed 300 parking spaces then I can hear all the arguments against that, more trafffic more congestion etc.
London’s sucess has always been built on its ability to learn from the past and embrace the future. Future prosperity for our YOUNG citizens will only come by accepting that we are competing with moden metropolisis in Asia and the Middle East (Beijing Mumbai Hong Kong Singapore etc) and to be sucessful we need to embrace the future and not standstill.
Even Paris is begining to realise that it cannot rely on its position of Historic beauty for continued success and oppurtunities for the YOUNG.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
The Commission of Architecture and Built Environment has given some enthusiastic support to Make Architects with regards to their plans for a new 149 metre tall residential tower in London’s Vauxhall.
The Vauxhall Bondway Tower features a distinctive cascading zig-zag as it rises to its 149.5 metre tall pinnacle with 400 apartments inside for developer London & Regional. No one knows whether this is inspired by the CIMB Bank Tower in Kuala Lumpur that has recently be completed, but that has the same sort of cascading diagonals when viewed in profile.
In reviewing the tower CABE praised the form of it, and the way it fits into what is one day expected to be a fully fledged cluster of tall buildings with particular praise for the zig-zag that they feel “breaks down the scale of the building when viewed from the north and south”. These are the views where the tower will appear particularly wide.
On the western part of the site will be a new 40 metre public space, a reasonably generous amount for somewhere this central in London but CABE has some reservations feeling that the ground area will struggle to be integrated into the tower successfully in terms of being animated rather than abandoned. In other words, it presents a challenge to both the architect and the local planning authorities to have its full potential realised.
CABE also mention the cladding on the building mentioning how the use of stainless steel could make people think it is an office block, not a residential tower. The implication of this is that CABE believes an office tower should have one look, with an apartment building having another.
They mention how this can be avoided by warmer, less metallic and more dusty materials like copper and wood and say how the local planning authorities should make the materials used a condition of planning approval - something that will help avoid people thinking they are getting one thing when another goes up.
CABE also like the winter gardens which they feel are a great solution to residents having their own space, even in bad weather. One cannot go out on the balcony 100 metres up in the middle of a gale unless they want to end up in the street below.
Combined with the fact that every apartment has double aspect views thanks to the skillful use of corners throughout the building CABE are largely happy with the quality of life that residents could enjoy.
Criticism is reserved for the canopies on the building that they feel are poorly placed compared to the diagonals that dominate the rest of the scheme, and that these should be revised so they are re-angled adding to the harmony of the buildings lines rather than clashing with it.
All in all though, CABE like it which thanks to this influential support bodes well for the project when it finally gets before the planning committee of local authority, Lambeth.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
CABE support of the Bondway Tower
69-71 Bondway, Vauxhall
Lambeth
Residential-led tower of 47 storeys and 400 flats close to Vauxhall station. Designed by Make Architects.
9 July 2009
Planning reference: 09/01520/FUL
Tagged with: Design review | Housing | London | National panel | Tall buildings
Summary
This is an exciting and interesting scheme. The elegant massing and good proportions have produced a successful form and we are satisfied, in principle, that the proposed height could be appropriate. We have reservations about the design of the canopy and feel that the building’s relationship with the ground plane requires further work to ensure that the development engages with the public realm, both existing and emerging. However, overall we are confident that the applicant demonstrates a commitment to high quality design, and we therefore support the planning application.
Form and massing
The proposed scheme will be among the first in a wider Vauxhall regeneration area and should be considered, not only as a stand-alone tower within its existing context, but also as a part of the cluster of tall buildings proposed by Lambeth’s Vauxhall Area draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). In principle we support the proposal for a cluster of tall buildings in this location but feel that the towers, and this first one in particular, must be of excellent architectural quality to justify their impact on local and distant views. Because the cluster will have a significant impact on London as a whole, we urge the local authority to closely monitor the emerging context and ensure that design quality is maintained.
The rigorous analytical work on the urban context has led to a robust architectural solution. Despite some reservations about the from-driven design and the potentially wall-like appearance of the east and west elevations, overall we find the form and massing well considered. The stepped massing skillfully breaks down the scale of the building when viewed from the north and south.
Public realm
Although we acknowledge that this is only partly within the applicant’s control, we are not convinced that the layout of the base of the tower and the surrounding public realm are fully integrated yet. We support the 40m wide public space to the west of the site, which is proposed as part of Lambeth’s Vauxhall Area SPD, and feel that the success of the cluster is, in fact, dependant on the implementation of this. However, the ground floor of this building will need to work hard to animate the space, which will be of considerable scale. We urge the local authority to ensure that the public space is well designed, carefully integrated with adjacent new buildings and offers significant amenity to local residents.
We are disappointed that the small triangular site to the south is not included in this application. In view of the density of the emerging context, the value of this space as an amenity for residents is further emphasized. We welcome the stated intention to incorporate the site as a new amenity space within the open space strategy for the Vauxhall Heart SPD area and urge the local authority to ensure that it can be delivered.
More work is needed to enhance the pedestrian experience on Parry Street, with its tight pavement and harsh road environment. We welcome the undercutting of the ground floor at the corner with Bondway but feel that the aspiration for trees within the narrow pavement may be unrealistic and further measures should be sought that provide a more generous pedestrian environment along this section of Parry Street.
Architectural treatment
We support the proposed use of stainless steel cladding in four surface finishes, which will give lightness to the building’s appearance. However, because its overuse could make the building appear commercial in use, the introduction of some earthy and robust materials, copper and timber, is vital in giving warmth to the expression and articulating the residential use of the building. We urge the local authority to ensure that this palette of materials is safeguarded within any approval.
The use of winter-gardens adds variety to the elevations and provides usable amenity space in poor weather conditions. We welcome the addition of the projecting winter-garden bay on the north elevation.
The development of the internal layouts is very encouraging: the articulation of the central corridors, the generous floor areas of the flats themselves and the corner aspect provided to every flat have the potential to generate good quality residential accommodation.
The form of the canopies is the least successful aspect of the design and needs more refinement. The angles create uncomfortable juxtapositions with the rectilinear elevations at the lower levels and do not relate to the angled terraces at the top of the building. We recommend that further development of the design is specifically conditioned.
Conclusion
This scheme has the potential to be a benchmark for the quality of future development in the potential cluster of towers at Vauxhall. Ultimately the success of this development will be dependant on high quality detailed design and the choice of appropriate materials and, in this context, will be very sensitive to any reduction in quality. The local planning authority should be convinced that the development can be built to a high quality and may wish to apply conditions to ensure an appropriate level of control on design details. We suggest that the design of the canopy, in particular, should be conditioned. We support the planning application and wish the project well.