This was an opportunity to hear about the feedback to the emerging scheme from local residents and to probe the plans well before any application is submitted later in the year. For more information and photos please visit our EDEN WALK page.
The presentation
A team of 4 or 5 talked us through their scheme and rationale for their form scale and height. The design they presented had not changed significantly from what we saw at their public consultation a couple of weeks earlier. The one exception being the 'Eden Circus' which showed radial seating near three edges and an awkward structure to house the stair down to a basement. ( no its not a pond ). This space is intended for rest, exhibition and performance - the same as now.
Their aim is to reinvigorate the shops and reintegrate the site to the town center. "The site is well within the retail core area, but has a lack of active frontage, and is poorly connected - especially at night".
Two of the three buildings will be rebuilt:
Eden Cresent Building ( currently BHS ) & Union st Building ( currently Boots )
The Neville Yard Building retains M&S and the carpark tower.
Unlike the TOPO proposal - the viability report will be done after the build, to calculate the amount of money to allocate to [off site] Affordable Housing.
Download full Presentation here
Their aim is to reinvigorate the shops and reintegrate the site to the town center. "The site is well within the retail core area, but has a lack of active frontage, and is poorly connected - especially at night".
Two of the three buildings will be rebuilt:
Eden Cresent Building ( currently BHS ) & Union st Building ( currently Boots )
The Neville Yard Building retains M&S and the carpark tower.
Unlike the TOPO proposal - the viability report will be done after the build, to calculate the amount of money to allocate to [off site] Affordable Housing.
Download full Presentation here
Our response
At ground level the proposal looks significantly more successful that the TOPO effort.
They have obviously given some careful thought to the open spaces and thoroughfares; their aspect and shading is generally better. However there are concerns at higher levels:
Height: The key issue of tower height only came out in the question time: Ground + 20 stories - which is 66.5 m high. This is a major sticking point. The proposals total height should take it's cue from the surrounding buildings, i.e. no more than 45m (instead of 65m - equivalent to removing 7 storeys?) . A quick show of hands indicated just one out of about about 100 people present was in favour of the proposed tower height. The problem of setting a new height precedent for the other two Eden Quarter tall elements remains. If we allow this then it could be impossible to stop others from putting up anything of equal height.
Affordable Housing: British Land are saying up front that they wont achieve 50% Affordable Housing on the site and propose determining the amount provided after the build. This is worse than the proposal for TOPO - where a figure was known up front, that might be improved upon after the build if costs permit. Here we have no basis for granting Planning permission.
Connections & way finding: The rationale of needing better connections and way finding was questioned. Is this supported by any data from existing shoppers or residents? M&S, one of the most successful in the UK, benefits from a strong footfall flow through their shop that connects Clarence street and Eden square through all seasons.
One of the charms of Kingston is its discover-ability.
Bulk: It was thought that the Neville Yard Building was too bulky and would compete with the way finding rationale for the tower when seen from the north of Eden Street. If this bulk was reduced then the tower height would be more in view, and could be reduced as well.
Impact on protected views: Worryingly British Land are already at odds with Heritage England on the impact on views from Hampton Court with / without the trees. We quickly pointed out they need to consider the impact if the trees were not there at some point in the future. Trees could very well last less time than tall buildings. Once a tall building goes up, it will never be viable to take it down and replace with something smaller. Tall buildings are for ever. We requested the view impact analysis as soon as possible.
Some other doubts:
They have obviously given some careful thought to the open spaces and thoroughfares; their aspect and shading is generally better. However there are concerns at higher levels:
Height: The key issue of tower height only came out in the question time: Ground + 20 stories - which is 66.5 m high. This is a major sticking point. The proposals total height should take it's cue from the surrounding buildings, i.e. no more than 45m (instead of 65m - equivalent to removing 7 storeys?) . A quick show of hands indicated just one out of about about 100 people present was in favour of the proposed tower height. The problem of setting a new height precedent for the other two Eden Quarter tall elements remains. If we allow this then it could be impossible to stop others from putting up anything of equal height.
Affordable Housing: British Land are saying up front that they wont achieve 50% Affordable Housing on the site and propose determining the amount provided after the build. This is worse than the proposal for TOPO - where a figure was known up front, that might be improved upon after the build if costs permit. Here we have no basis for granting Planning permission.
Connections & way finding: The rationale of needing better connections and way finding was questioned. Is this supported by any data from existing shoppers or residents? M&S, one of the most successful in the UK, benefits from a strong footfall flow through their shop that connects Clarence street and Eden square through all seasons.
One of the charms of Kingston is its discover-ability.
Bulk: It was thought that the Neville Yard Building was too bulky and would compete with the way finding rationale for the tower when seen from the north of Eden Street. If this bulk was reduced then the tower height would be more in view, and could be reduced as well.
Impact on protected views: Worryingly British Land are already at odds with Heritage England on the impact on views from Hampton Court with / without the trees. We quickly pointed out they need to consider the impact if the trees were not there at some point in the future. Trees could very well last less time than tall buildings. Once a tall building goes up, it will never be viable to take it down and replace with something smaller. Tall buildings are for ever. We requested the view impact analysis as soon as possible.
Some other doubts:
- Will Eden Circus really become a nighttime attraction? - the riverside is so much more attractive.
- Will the footfall be high enough to sustain the Sky restaurant? Would it be better to lose the Sky restaurant and Cinema if that means we could take two storeys off the overall height?
- They've put the cinema at the top to increase the footfall, but that is a silly place for a windowless building.
Next steps...
Next meeting: British Land estimates they will be ready to show something from their developed design by about mid August. At this point the 'exemplar design' case for the proposed tower height will be revealed. We await their contact to arrange further smaller scale meetings.
A plan 'B'? : Unfortunately we are yet again heading for a car crash planning submission if we continue on this course - the height & Affordable Housing provision are again some of the main sticking points. Are we being sold a design for which the price - the height of the tower - is too much for historic Kingston? Perhaps a lower, less ambitious scheme might be the right approach.
British Land - can we have a plan 'B' please?
A plan 'B'? : Unfortunately we are yet again heading for a car crash planning submission if we continue on this course - the height & Affordable Housing provision are again some of the main sticking points. Are we being sold a design for which the price - the height of the tower - is too much for historic Kingston? Perhaps a lower, less ambitious scheme might be the right approach.
British Land - can we have a plan 'B' please?