This is one of the pictures from the architects prosepectus for the Brent Cross redevelopment. The area within the black boundry is the area to be redeveloped. Usually architects are proud to display their work, but in this picture, it takes less than 1/4 of the picture. Odd really
The campaign opposing the development have released this close up image, which gives you some idea of the scale. If you look closely, you'll see a London bus dwarfed by the buildings
Now ask yourself this question (I've helpfully added three potential answers). Why do you think that the developers are keen to build these monstrosities?
a) Because they have a deeply held belief that people enjoy living in concrete jungles?
b) Because they want to live there themselves?
c) Because they'll make tens of millions of quid?
An even more interesting question is why our local politicians are so keen. It is interesting that most of the Tory leaders of the Council live on the other side of the Borough.I have my own views on the matter, but then I'm a bit of a cynic. I once asked an architect friend how a certain well known development would look when it was completed, compared with the architects drawings. His answer? Good design looks ten times better and bad design looks a hundred times worse. Can you see any architectural merit in the rows of horrible square concrete block buildings
The Barnet Eye is nothing, if not fair. Here is an open invitation to ANY BARNET COUNCILLOR, to write a blog for the readers of the Barnet Eye, to explain the architectural merit of these awful blocks of flats. As to the marvellous embelishments, such as the incinerator and the 27,000 extra cars in Barnet? It seems that our Barnet Councillors think all of this is life enhancing. Personally I'm not sure whether the our local politicians are blind, stupid or corrupt.
Maybe Lynne Hillan, Leader of Barnet Council would be good enough to explain why this is actually a marvellous plan from an aesthetic perspective.
7 comments:
I live almost across the street from the thick black line on that image. I'm also an architect. I'm not a big fan of this project, but I would like to point out that the image shown is not a literal rendering of what is being proposed- it is only a massing study. All of the actual buildings for the site have not been designed yet.
I think higher density development in this part of Barnet makes sense, but they clearly have not addressed the transport issue. The Northern Line at Brent Cross Station alone can not take the additional demand, and the new rail station being proposed for the opposite side of the site has the distinction of being on a very unreliable line. There is also very minimal provision being made for affordable housing in this plan- much lower than the guidelines issued by the government.
Er ... how does a development proposal obtain approval without the actual buildings being designed?
It looks like Manhattan coming to Brent Cross. It is totally appalling. It will create an urban jungle on the site where there seems to be no light at all from the huge buildings. I can imagine the "Cash" from selling these big buildings will make some property developers ( and councillors ? ) very rich ?
It must be stopped for all our sakes in North West London.
Barnet needs to explain why it is selling the public land in the area to a single developer, without any sign of proper public tendering.
This sort of thing seems to be covered by a European Court of Justice ruling about "sweetheart deals". I believe Tower Hamlets Council has been caught out by this ruling, which is based on a case in France.
Baarnett,
ECJ ruling applies to tendering for public projects. Cricklewood is a private development where there is public land available under a Section 106, usually homes clinis sachools etc. I also have a feeling the plans were submitted just before the EU legislation, though I can't be sure.
According to the Brent Cross Coalition web site:
The planning application was lodged in March 2008, although it was not complete for about another year.
The European Court of Justice ruling was on 18 January 2007:
(Public procurement – Directive 93/37/EEC – Award without call for tenders – Contract for the implementation of a development project concluded between two contracting authorities – Definition of ‘public works contract’ and ‘work’ – Method of calculation of the value of the contract) in Case C-220/05.
The ruling apparently makes clear that, except for projects costing less than 5 million Euros, tenders need to undergo full competitive tendering.
But you say you believe it does not apply to Brent Cross.
Baarnet
You are correct on the ECJ decision, but Joseph's project is on his land as well as spare land that could be used behind his Retail Park.
The original Hammerson share as partner was £50 million. hammerson's then later withdrew. If you remember going back to 2002 He submitted proposals way back then as London UDF or something by Barnet. It's all in the Hendon Times archives. The subsidiary development was the Regeneration of the West Hendon Estate and about 100 metres of the Edgware Road in W.Hendon.
I'm very much with the sustainable Community group and the minimal housing and linguistics of affordable to whom. I'm also with you, there is something not quite right with all this and the menaing of the Directive, because it is as you say a Public Project.
Post a Comment