Kylun Towers, Vauxhall – It’s time to cut the Gyratory out

Malcolm Davis comments on the decision to give the OK to the Kuylun twin towers:

It really does call into question the process of consultation and, dare I say it, common sense. How on earth can anyone with any sense whatsoever agree to build high density properties in the middle of one the most heavily congested traffic islands in central London? There has been no transport impact consideration at all. How many people will be killed trying to get to and from their homes, the offices and so on across ever more congested roads? Or are the developers and authorities hoping that the gridlocked traffic will pose no danger to pedestrians?

Read his blog:

This entry was posted in The Vauxhall gyratory, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Kylun Towers, Vauxhall – It’s time to cut the Gyratory out

  1. flotsam says:

    Europe’s tallest residential tower in London gets planning go ahead

    Europe’s tallest residential tower is set to be built in Vauxhall central London with a decision that is regarded as demonstrating the government’s new hands off approach to planning and housing delivery.
    Ministers have confirmed that they will not seek to call in the planning application for Green Property’s £500 million One Nine Elms scheme in Vauxhall which includes a 200 meter tower.
    The project becomes the tallest residential tower to gain planning consent without going to public inquiry after UK Secretary of State Eric Pickles confirmed that planning consent for the project, a collaboration between Green and their Development Managers CIT, would not be called in by his department.
    Coming just four days after the Chancellor George Osborne signalled a major deregulation of planning laws as a means of boosting the British construction industry, the decision will enable the creation of up to 1,000 jobs during and after construction.
    The scheme had the backing of London Mayor, Boris Johnson, who in a letter to Eric Pickles on 31 August urged him to; ‘Demonstrate the Government’s commitment to economic growth and allow this decision to proceed at the local level’.
    ‘The decision of the Secretary of State not to call in the ONE project is a ringing endorsement of the hard work that the development team have devoted to delivering a scheme which is of the highest architectural standards and will bring real benefits to this area of London. We have worked closely with the London borough of Wandsworth and neighbouring Lambeth, the Greater London Authority and Mayor, to deliver a scheme which had the support of local community groups, and now the Secretary of State,’ said Michael Tapp, director of Green Property.
    ‘We have achieved a lot in 18 months which is a testament to the spirit of co-operation we have found with all involved. At a time of concern about the state of the property industry this decision sends a strong message that Government supports the development industry and believes in supporting growth and jobs,’ he added.
    The twin tower development, designed by architects Kohn Pederson Fox (KPF), will be built on the site of the current 22 storey Market Towers building. When complete it will have a 50 storey, 200 meter City Tower and 43 storey, 160.5 meter River Tower which will have 487 high quality new homes, including 51 affordable, 11,000 square meters of modern office space, a 209 room four star hotel and 720 square meters of retail space.
    The Market Towers buildings are now entirely vacant, enabling an early commencement of the redevelopment scheme. Green Property is likely to consider funding options imminently.

  2. vivavauxhall says:

    Dear (Mr, Mrs or Ms?) Flotsam,

    what a ringing endorsement of Green Property’s achievements in Vauxhall! Are you in any way associated with Green Property? In this case you should have declared an interest.

    According to you it would seem that Green Propery, Eric Pickles and Boris Johnson (of the the Hillsborough Desaster) are blissfully united in their desire to blight Vauxhall with the tallest residential glass box in Europe.

    Do you expect us to believe that they really ‘know best’ what’s good for Vauxhall? As to economic stimulus argument – it is now commonly accepted that what is needed is stronger investment in the economy, rather than fuelling an uncontrolled building boom, which, if I remember rightly, got us into this mess in the first place.

    You mentioned the new planning laws – I thought that the Localism Bill was designed to give local residents more say in planning matters, not less. Osborne’s drive to deregulation is obviously set to put developers’ interests above any other concerns.There goes the Green Belt (and Vauxhall’s skyline)!

    And what about the people of Vauxhall, who are going to have to live with yet another super tower in their neighbourhood? At this year’s Vauxhall Park Summer Fete within only a few hours up to a hundred local people signed a petition asking the Secretary of State to call in the decision to give planning permission to the One Nine Elms Tower, partly because of irregularities in the planning procedure, but mainly because they are horrified by the prospect of a skyscraper that will be considerably higher even than St George Tower (or ‘Bogroll Holder’ or ‘Prescott Tower’) which us locals had been assured would be by far the tallest tower of the Vauxhall cluster.

    I can’t help but think that all this hyperbolie extolling the virtues of super tall glass and steel structures promulgated by sock puppets and astroturfers on all kinds of blogging sites, is in reality underpinned by the creeping realisation that ‘the tall glass box is dead’ as ‘Gherkin’ architect Ken Shuttleworth stated in a recent Guardian article.

    Apart from being increasingly unpopular, they are not even necessary (as is often claimed), because, as for example Clive Fraser of Lambeth Planning has pointed out, it is possible to match the extreme population densities (if that’s what is desired) associated with tall towers by building low rise buildings.

    Why else would you go to such length to try and convince us that developers’ interests should be our interests too? – Could it be possible that having all the money, power and influence over politicians and planning authorities is still not enough?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s