Forum Topic

Town Hall continuing

Yes, it provides housing but to whom? Not to H&F residents in all probability. Flats will be hugely expensive if similar towers at Brentford are anything to go by. It will demolish 54 Pocklington Trust homes for the blind and low paid. It will demolish the 1930s cinema (and not replace it), despite it being profitable and despite all studies showing that a cultural offering is essential to regeneration. It will introduce a bridge across the A4 and land-grab part of Furnivall Gardens. Yes, it will reinstate the north face of the Town Hall and remove the Town Hall extension (good) but it will obscure the west face of the Town Hall. English Heritage and 38 resident and amenity groups - including the Georgian Group, Victorian Society and 20th Century Society - are against it. It will give new offices to benefit the Council.  Apart from the Premier Inn (a 1960s aberration) there are no tall buildings at this end of King St.It will ruin the skyline from the Thames of the oldest and most beautiful part of Hammersmith.

Rosemary Pettit ● 4890d10 Comments

Dear Emily,There are physical constraints on increasingly dense development in the Thames valley and in particular in London, and the inadequate sewerage system is the most difficult one to address. In the last 6 years the Conservative administration in Hammersmith have gone "development-mad", and they propose to add 25,000 more flats and houses in the borough in the next 15-20 years (mostly at the top end of the market, of course!) Hammersmith is already one of the most densely-built boroughs. So they now find themselves trying to "re-direct" one of the entry points for the Thames Tunnel ("super sewer") to another location. Isn't this "NIMBY"-ism?Remember that New York, Singapore and many other high-rise cities are (1) relatively new - 19th century and later and (2) built on rocky islands. The urban planners there knew from the start that the city was going to have tall buildings. They built on solid rock and they put in the right infrastructure. London is built by the banks of the Thames on clay, sand and chalk, which absorb water. For centuries, until the invention of the concrete "raft" foundations, it was impossible to build more than 5-6 storeys high without subsidence. Yes, it is glamorous to have a "high-rise" city, but there are good reasons why London was not built this way, and to try to adapt the infrastucture now is very, very difficult.

Una Hodgkins ● 4860d

It's an interesting discussion. The way I see it, the design of the proposed footbridge comes down to personal opinion. I  have seen some drawings of it and one 3D view in a YouTube clip from the Save Our Skyline campaign and I have to say I personally find it pretty and well designed. Just my opinion.The same goes for saving our precious skyline. I am personally not that fussed about the view at the riverfront. Again, just my opinion. I can see that London will inevitably have to build upwards in order to create more living space. Considering its number of residents this city has always been incredibly flat compared to other large cities.I still emphasize though that I think it is outrageous not to include any affordable housing in the new project.

Emily Wood ● 4860d

No, of course everyone would be able to use the footbridge. But the landscaping required to create the footbridge is a monstrosity: I am not sure if you are aware that the ramp in Furnivall Gardens leading up to the bridge will have to rise to 6m above the Great West Road, in order that tall lorries can pass underneath. This means that there will be a triangular mound of earth supporting the bridge at the point where it lands in Furnivall Gardens. The landscaping is absurd: the footpath to the underpass, which must be retained for cyclists, will be in a "canyon" and the (listed!) "little old houses" adjacent on the west side will appear to be crushed by the ramp and the footbridge.The owners of Sussex House, the house which is most affected by the proposed ramp, used to have a number of architectural drawings and photomontage images stapled to their fence in the Dove Passageway showing the exact effect of the footbridge on the setting of their house and especially the fact that pedestrians on the footbridge would be able to look directly into the back windows of their house on the first floor just 19m away and at the same level. These architectural drawings were torn down by persons unknown, perhaps working for the developers....There is a lot of money at stake, and telling the full truth is not in some people's interest.

Una Hodgkins ● 4861d

Dear Una, thanks for your reply.You start with a long paragraph explaining that this scheme is not about providing affordable housing. If you read my original post again you will see how outraged I am by this, too.quote "the footbridge is not about "reconnecting Hammersmith with the river": it is about providing the owners of the penthouse flats with the illusion of their "own" "private" access to "their" riverside gardens"will other people in hammersmith not be permitted to use this footbridge aswell ? will there be some kind of scheme to check only residents from the new housing block use this bridge?

Emily Wood ● 4861d

Dear Danny and Emily,The Town Hall redevelopment is not about providing affordable housing. It will provide luxury flats costing £500K to £4M. Those who can afford these prices are very rich people who live typically in Malaysia, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, Russia and mainland China (and USA and Switzerland). Please go to the website of a "typical" riverside development, Imperial Wharf in Sands End, developed by St George at www.imperialwharf.com and click "contact us". These are the countries from which they expect to receive enquiries. The flats are sold over the internet to people who are looking to invest money in the UK property market. They never come to the UK, or if they do it is for a month or two per year at most. They do not live in these flats full-time. If you want to check just visit Imperial Wharf on a cold January day, as I did this time last year. I spoke with everyone I could find and was told that the flats there are mostly empty and the development is a blight on the area. There was hardly anyone to speak to!This casts a very different light on Town Hall project: the footbridge is not about "reconnecting Hammersmith with the river": it is about providing the owners of the penthouse flats with the illusion of their "own" "private" access to "their" riverside gardens, i.e. Furnivall Gardens. The cinema and the Cromwell Avenue mansion blocks just happen to be in the way, and the developers have no conscience about destroying an existing and thriving business (the cinema - please note that the freehold is owned by Tesco, who have their own agenda) nor about throwing out the poor (and the blind!) to make way for absent, extremely rich owners. They just want the money, money, money!Do you understand now why there has been such an outcry about this project? It is about two things: profit for Helical Bar/Grainger and new offices for Hammersmith Council. The leader, Stephen Greenhalgh, wants a monument to his stewardship of Hammersmith (as he sees it!), and Nigel Pallace, the long-serving Director of Environment (grandiose title for director of planning dept) has been trying to find a way to get new offices to replace the hated and neglected Town Hall extension for as long as he has been with Hammersmith Council. What we really need is more social housing, yes. Why not find a smaller scheme, on the car park site only, which includes truly affordable housing? That is what Save our Skyline really want.There are no benefits at all for local residents.

Una Hodgkins ● 4861d

I couldn't agree more with Danny.I too think better pedestrian access to the riverside is long overdue. I loathe the A4 underpass, especially when using it with my kids. In my opinion, giving up some space of Furnival Gardens is worth this improvement.I don't remember the last time I visited the Cinema so that too, personally, is of no great loss to me.About the skyline - London has been a very ‘flat’ city for a long time and as it continues to grow we will inevitably have to start building upwards in order to create more living space. Think New York!What I find appalling about the planned scheme is that it does NOT PROVIDE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING! I think this is outrageous. Affordable housing is the one thing we need very urgently in Hammersmith.

Emily Wood ● 4861d

To Danny and others who take at face value the Developers' claims:The wave of horrendous, homogenised luxury apartment blocks is moving upriver from Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach (St George) to Queens Wharf/Riverside Studios (A2 Dominion is under great pressure to get into bed with Arab Investments) to the Hammersmith Town Hall redevelopment (Helical Bar/Grainger).Please visit www.imperialwharf.com/contact to see where they expect buyers to come from - Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, UEA, USA, Switzerland, Russia, mainland China. The webpage can be translated into Arabic, Chinese or Russian by clicking on the flags at the bottom of the page.See the new YouTube video from Saveourskylinew6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yspk0xvhtNQMake a noise!!Make Hammersmith and Fulham Council listen!!!

Una Hodgkins ● 4887d

Charles, you are missing the point about residency. If someone buys a flat in H&F they (or their tenant) become a H&F resident. Are you saying planning policy should be designed to stop new residents coming into the borough?My comment about Furnival Gardens may be fatuous but is also strictly speaking accurate. I won't be the only person who thinks easier access to the river is a good thing.The cinema has been run down for years long before the lease was acquired by the development company. I will miss it nonetheless but if you ever actually went there you'd realise that it is very sparsely attended.Tory troll? Interesting conclusion for you to leap to. You have to accept that people with different opinions to you are allowed to have their say.

Danny Kopech ● 4889d

Oh Danny Boy....you are wrong in every respect.As Rosemary said, and I cannot put it any better: "It (this project) will ruin the skyline from the Thames of the oldest and most beautiful part of Hammersmith."The luxury flats in the tower blocks they are building will go to the highest bidders (that's why they are building them) so now can you understand why they won't necessarily go to H&F residents? They are NOT building social housing (since there are no profits to be made in that).No, Furnival Gardens is NOT a patch of grass by a dual carriageway....what an utterly fatuous remark.And the cinema has been deliberately run down by its owners St James (or Tesco! to give them their true name as everyone shouted out at the meeting) so that they can say it's not worth keeping.  Are you a Tory troll?....maybe I should not have bothered.

Charles Lawrence ● 4889d

I'm at a loss to understand how you can provide housing in the borough that won't go to H&F residents? Flats are expensive in the area precisely because every attempt to add more gets stonewalled by planning objections. Better pedestrian access to the riverside is a great thing to achieve and it will be worth giving up a bit of Furnival Gardens which lets face it is a patch of grass by a dual carriageway.The cinema is no great loss. If it is profitable that's because nothing has been spent on its upkeep for a decade. I do go there but it will only take me ten minutes more to get to Wesfield and its not that much more expensive.There are already tall buildings in Hammersmith and I don't agree they necessarily destroy the skyline. It's an urban area and they won't be out of place.

Danny Kopech ● 4889d