Campaigners slam revised Bishopsgate Goodsyard plans as ‘disappointing’
Design proposals for the Bishopsgate Goodsyard redevelopment.
Revised plans for the £800m development of the Bishopsgate Goodsyard site in Shoreditch have been slammed by campaigners as “disappointing”.
Joint developer Hammerson and Ballymore propose turning the 10.3 acre site which includes the historic Braithwaite Viaduct and has lain empty for 50 years into flats, offices, retail and a public park.
The developer is now submitting amended proposals for a “tech-focused” quarter with a reduction in tower heights but More Light More Power, a campaign group formed in opposition to the development, argue the changes are merely cosmetic.
A petition has been launched calling on the local authorities of Hackney and Tower Hamlets to throw out the application.
In the new plans, four of the towers have been cut by the equivalent of six storeys – to 26, 30 and 38 storeys and the tallest 48 storey tower has been trimmed by the equivalent of one storey.
Many of the one bedroom flats in the original plans have been enlarged to two bedroom units, meaning a reduction of the overall homes proposed for the site from 1,464 to 1,356.
The development will still contain 10 per cent affordable homes.
The amount of glass used has been reduced and replaced with brick to mimic the surrounding Shoreditch buildings.
David Donoghue, speaking on behalf of More Light More Power told the Hackney Citizen: “Whilst the height of one of the tall towers at the south west end of the site has been reduced marginally, the other one remains at 46 storeys high – double the height of the appalling Avant Garde Tower on Bethnal Green Road which blights the area.”
“Worse still, the heights of the office blocks on the north west side of the development along Bethnal Green Road have actually been increased.”
Hackney Council has already said it opposes the development, with Mayor Jules Pipe calling the initial proposals ‘out of scale’.
A spokesperson for Hammerson and Ballymore said: “Our plans for The Goodsyard will open up a fantastic space in the heart of one of London’s most interesting areas.
“The amended scheme, including over 1,300 new homes, 840,000 sq ft of flexible office space and 200,000 sq ft of space for shops and restaurants will not only breathe life back into this derelict site but will also create 7,000 new jobs, provide 2.4 acres of new park for Londoners and preserve historic architecture like the listed Braithwaite arches.”
We need to show the decision makers that the community are wholly opposed to this destruction of our creative, diverse and unique culture and community.
Please sign the petition!
https://www.change.org/p/local-councils-and-the-gla-reject-the-bishopsgate-goodsyard-development-proposals
NIMBYs are going to bleat about height no matter how much they reduce it. They really are tedious.
More Light More Power? What a joke this is a piece of wasteland doing nothing for the community. This is central London, a world city and financial centre, house prices are ridiculous and out of reach. We need more homes so why not have skyscrapers which can provide decent homes, City views and close to The City (full of skyscrapers). This isn’t the Cotswolds, wake up – don’t hold London and its people back.
More Light More Power state: “the community are wholly opposed to this..”.
Perhaps they can shed some more light on this unsubstantiated claim?
“the community are wholly opposed to this destruction of our creative, diverse and unique culture and community”
Would that be the beardy, vintage clothing wearing community that pushed out the original community some years back now?
You people are now beyond parody.
I’m a local homeowner and stand to personally benefit from the regeneration of this area by the increase of local house prices promised by the developers at consultation. And yet – I do not support this scheme.
I don’t support it because I do not believe this is the right thing for the majority of people in my community or indeed for London.
I don’t support it because of it’s offensive lack of social housing – a mere 10% of habitable rooms allocated to be ‘affordable’. 40% less than Borough guidelines and 25% less than what the developers originally signed up to.
I don’t support it because of the increased heating bills that will be imposed on the people of the Boundary Estate as a result of the shadows cast by a tower 3m shorter than the Gherkin.
I don’t support it because I don’t believe many in my area even know about the plans and haven’t had the opportunity to make their voices heard.
Development – yes. This one? No.
I would urge locals to really understand the proposition here before taking a view on the development. It is not as clear-cut as it may seem.
p.s. I neither have a beard nor wear vintage clothing.
@ Peggy the local home owner and the “More Light More Power” movement…. I’m sorry, but my mind-boggles at what you are trying to achieve here. Your logic and approach is non-sensical and incredibly damaging, look what you have done so far, so LESS housing and WORSE living conditions! Hope you are really pleased with yourselves because future generations won’t be:
“While the tallest tower – known as plot F – will stay at 46 storeys, the developer said it had effectively been reduced by a storey because floor to floor heights had been squeezed. It added the heights of the three other buildings had also been squeezed by a combined 17 storeys, again because of reduced floor to floor heights.
The reduced heights mean that 108 less residential units will now be built, bringing down the overall number to 1,356.”
@ Peggy “the local homeowner”, Sorry but increased heating bills is complete hyperbole.
for that hour on those few days of the year when the Sun is low enough in a cloudless sky to be able to cast a strong enough shadow. You wouldn’t even notice in your dense mansion blocks, let alone turn the heating up! Would you support chopping down the trees in the Boundary Estate to reduce your heating bills?
And I assume that you would support towers at twice the height if it increased the numbers of affordable housing units?
Darlings, if you think that the properties in this proposed development will bennefit anyone but the super rich, you obviously are completly oblivious to the housing crisis that exists in London. The average price of a property in Tower Hamlets currently sits at 620k meaning that in order to get a mortgage you’d need a household income of £124k pa and a deposit of 62k, minimum. The housing that the developers are proposing will no doubt be “luxuary” and a significant amount more than the current average price. As Peggy points out, the development will also hike up the price of properties all around the site. If your children will have the money to buy one of these flats then they are of a priviledged few. I think few people are against the development of this site, most are just concerned with the way it is proposed to be developed which adds to the current housing crisis rather than looks to solve it. As it stands the developers refuse to comply with the councils own guidelines on the percentage of affordable housing to be offered, slashed from 50% to 10%. All of this and I haven’t even touched on the natural light that will be stripped from the residents of the boundary estate.