London SE1 community website

The hideous carbuncle "Tower" at One Tower Bridge !

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2
Wednesday 1 July 2015 12.06pm
I've watched this dark, Satanic, DULL tower, with a weird bit of plastic on top, going up over the last year or more and as it nears completion I am just gobsmacked that they were allowed to get away with something so UGLY in such a prominent position !

I'm guessing it was not on the original plan but the developers twisted the Council's arm at a later stage to squeeze some more profit out of the development. It looks like the design aesthetic of this tower, or rather the complete lack of design aesthetic, was the result of a rushed job. How else to account for the fact that this high-rise, so close to The Shard and standing out like a sore thumb in what is still a non-high-rise area, was allowed to be built with such dark brick, rather than something lighter and more suitable ?

It's just this big, dreary rectangle with, as I said, a tacky-looking window arrangement on the top for what I think is a penthouse flat, rather than a communal roof garden.

I've put my concerns directly to Berkeley Homes but have yet to hear back from them.

Viewing it from the South (Bermondsey street area), it really looks like the developers have given ZERO thought to how it's "backside" will look ! (And not much more for its front either).
Wednesday 1 July 2015 12.15pm
Have just received this reply from Berkeley homes:

"Thank you for your email concerning the design of one of our buildings at One Tower Bridge.

To provide you with some background, One Tower Bridge went through a rigorous planning process and two public consultations to ensure as much support for the scheme as possible.

In terms of materials, massing, scale and layout, designs for the One Tower Bridge development are to create a lasting high quality residential development appropriate to the surrounding historical and riverside context of Potters Fields Park, Tower Bridge and the River Thames.

The tower has been designed to act as a counterpoint to the horizontal building on the edge of Potters Fields park, and affords the development an elegant identifying marker. The tower and the linear building overlooking the river are similarly detailed with slender strips of Catalan Gris limestone which feature a brown filigree adding richness to the façade - the dark grey colour was selected to relate to the adjacent heritage sites of Tower Bridge and the Tower of London. The limestone is offset with thinly detailed bronze anodised windows and feature panels running vertically up the tower.

The tower is heavily glazed towards the river, offering spectacular views across the city, and more solid where it faces south for sustainability reasons. At the top floor the tower features a glass and steel frame lantern, which acts as a glowing marker for the development, referencing similar illuminated markers at the Oxo Tower and Tate Modern further to the west.

It is also worth noting that Squire and Partners’ design also replaces a previous consented scheme by Ian Ritchie Architects, which was objected to by the local residents association for its use of glass which was felt not to be in keeping with the heritage site. The residents association stated they would prefer to see a development which used traditional materials including brick and stone, as they would more closely related to the surrounding context including Shad Thames and Tower Bridge..

Kind regards,

Douglas Acton
Development Manager"
Wednesday 1 July 2015 12.16pm
And my response to his response: Personally, I think those people who objected to more glass, although I haven't seen that design, were wrongheaded. Modern cities need the bold juxtaposition of new and old, glass and brick, not some half-a**ed compromise that results in a high-rise with an identity crisis !
Wednesday 1 July 2015 12.35pm
The original planning application looked like eight Daleks which, although granted approval, sparked howls of derision. Rightly in my opinion. This plan seemed to be accepted on a not-as-bad-as-the-first-one basis, which is classic developer tactics.
Wednesday 1 July 2015 12.47pm
The tower is supposed to be inspired by St Mark's in Venice

The development includes a slender 20-storey tower, dubbed the 'campanile', which has been criticised by some objectors.
Mr Squire said that the tower would "signal the unusualness [sic] of this development – it's not just another housing estate".

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Friday 17 July 2015 11.37am
Want to live in the tower? You'll need $23 million to spare.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Friday 17 July 2015 12.00pm
Small change then James :)
Friday 17 July 2015 12.07pm
The other carbuncle at that development is hopefully less permanent: the middle penthouse on the lower block, closest to the river, has had its big glass windows all misted up for ages now. Obviously, there is a problem but I assume it is being left as a private matter, even though the very prominent position makes it also matter for public concern too. It looks awful and drags down the whole building with it. Why do these things get left for so long ?!
Friday 17 July 2015 12.29pm
James Hatts wrote:
Want to live in the tower? You'll need $23 million to spare.

Could have beenworse, could have been in pounds.... :o)
Friday 17 July 2015 4.15pm
James Hatts wrote:
Want to live in the tower? You'll need $23 million to spare.

i'd rather spend £15.5M on this and use the remaining £8M to live the rest of my life without any worries....
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions