Petition launched against plan to turn Mecca Bingo Hackney Road into high-rise flats
Now closed: the Mecca Bingo building on Hackney Road. Photograph: Hackney Citizen
Plans to convert the Mecca Bingo building on Hackney Road into high-rise flats have been met with outrage, with those opposed arguing the development will create a “visual eyesore” out of character with neighbouring buildings.
Mecca Bingo on Hackney Road closed its doors in June last year after more than half a century in business.
Under proposals unveiled earlier this month, the Hackney Road site will be converted into a 16-storey building of 120 flats, along with 1,350 square metres of office space.
A petition has been launched against the plans, supporters of which want to ‘Keep Hackney Road’s Mecca Bingo Mega not Meagre’.
The petition argues the scheme “does nothing with regards to upholding … its aesthetic, doesn’t offer any subsidised work or living space and will overlook most residential properties surrounding it”.
It states the proposed design “in no way reflects a vibrant, artistic and creative community. It does not offer communal spaces (shops are not communal venues) or offer up perhaps a music or arts venue to benefit and engage those around it.”
A number of those supporting the petition have slammed the plans for failing to offer sufficient community space and being out of character with existing buildings in the area.
Edmund Curtis, who is one of the signatories of the petition commented: “This was once a beautiful building that has good architectural character. What is being proposed to replace it not only would be unaffordable to the local community but a visual eyesore to the area.”
Deborah Ball, another resident, added: “I don’t want Hackney carved up and sold off to the highest bidder, with no consideration for the community of people that live in it, the aesthetic of the area and the genuine diversity and creativity that has made it such a desirable place to live. You can’t buy that.”
‘Stop the block’: a poster protesting against the new development pasted on the Mecca Bingo building. Photograph: Hackney Citizen
Nick Perry, Chair of the Hackney Society, which works to promote high standards of planning and architecture in the borough, said he will be meeting the developer, LBS Properties Limited, to discuss the project.
Mr Perry said: “It’s clear from the initial presentation to the public that their plans are ambitious and on an unprecedented scale for the area.
“For a successful development of this magnitude the designs will have to evolve to take into account all the public feedback and a final proposal will need to offer exceptional public benefits.”
Your Shout, part of Thorncliffe Communications Ltd, is currently holding a consultation on the proposals and residents, businesses, and community groups are invited to submit their feedback before the planning is submitted to Hackney Council.
The developers have outlined a number of key benefits of the development which they say includes helping to reduce the current housing shortage by providing 120 new homes, a number of which are intended to be affordable.
They say it represents “a high-quality, sustainable approach to design” that “will transform a redundant property into a prestigious landmark building that will provide an active frontage along a key arterial route through Hackney.”
Note: This article was amended at 5:05pm on Thursday 26 May 2016. The story originally quoted the petition’s claim that the building is Grade II listed, whereas in fact it is not.
Happier times: one of the final nights at Mecca Bingo. Photograph: Hackney Citizen
Firstly it is important to note that the Hackney Citizen erroneously stated that this building is Grade II listed, repeated in this petition. It is not. Not even locally listed which is a disappointing oversight by Hackney which, whilst not offering protection as such, raise a flag on what is clearly a well loved building of merit and distinction with not only a good exterior but also a well maintained interior. Indeed around the country many of the old Odeon buildings are Grade listed.
However, it is clear that the consultation is something of a sham if not just shambolic. Loaded questions on the initial website asked questions that were along the tried and tired lines of “would you rather see this site developed with jobs being created or watch us kill kittens?” guaranteeing a positive feedback that could be spun when presenting the results. Yet the old Odeon building did not have any adverts for the consultation, and the ladies who used to play bingo there (and who said it was busy up to the unexpected closure) knew nothing of it. Nor did the local church nor did the community centre have signs advertising the consultation. Almost as if they did not want people to really give their views. But then all too often these public consultations are simply a dull PR sham.
But then we have the developers already presenting complete and utter nonsense and the usual tick boxing of “much needed housing”. Well a different design might have approached it in less greedy terms. Perhaps seeking to retain and utilise this “redundant” building that served the community well until the sudden closure and sale of the building. Perhaps seeking to build flats with the old cinema cum bingo hall given a new lease of life rather than more offices and shops (not really needed). And how many of the flats will be affordable? And what level of affordability? Bank of Mum & Dad affordable with the rest marketed to overseas clients to make up the profit? Oh, and by the way on a build of 120 flats it is a legal requirement to include affordable so no great public spirited giveaway by kind-hearted developers, just a hard fact that many (and we shall watch with interest) seek to avoid providing through the old viability con trick.
As it stands I personally don’t think the design meets the notion of a prestigious landmark design that they are touting when it means the loss of a beautiful old Odeon building. But then few developers like to restore when to demolish is easy and sometimes cheaper (restoration attracting 20% VAT new builds 0% VAT) so question the use of sustainable in this context too.
@David: Thank you for your correction, we have removed that part of the quote. – Ed.
“A number of which will be affordable”. What is that number? One? Two? These developers never deliver on affordable housing promised.
“out of character with neighbouring buildings.”
An utterly meaningless argument.
I would disagree that the argument is meaningless. Hackney Road may not be the most attractive stretch of real-estate I’ve ever seen, but that is no reason to inflict on it such a hideous construction as this.
I’m sure a lot of cutting-edge architects would describe the proposed development as “bold and exciting”. Not so – it is simply ugly beyond belief. Its as though they started with the discredited design of a 1960s tower block and determined to make it even worse.
We don’t want some poncy architects vision of what they think is bold or exciting. Is it too much to ask for a building that just looks nice? I suppose there will be those who fancy themselves as intellectuals demanding that I define what I mean by “nice”. To them, I can only say try using your common sense.
If the people who have to look at it don’t like it, it shouldn’t be built.
To LBS Properties Limited
Proposed development high tower block on site of Mecca Bingo Hall
I would like to express my feelings at Wednesday nights meeting (25th May) regarding the public exhibition at the Fellows Court Community centre, and the proposal of high rise flats and offices.
I wish to oppose this 16 to 20 storey high tower block on the site of the old Mecca Bingo hall on Hackney road, which I and many residents describe as a total monstrosity to say the least. This monstrosity is not only one big eyesore but is totally out of scale with the surrounding area.
This proposed high-rise tower will block out sunlight to the surrounding area and from my home and will block out all the magnificent views I have of Canary Wharf.
It will increase the traffic on our streets, as well as cause congestion and parking problems.
We need low-rise buildings with decent forecourts where children can play and be more relaxed. We’ve done this before in Appleby Street and Fellows Court.
The developer, LBS Properties Limited in my opinion has no idea of the impact of this proposed design affecting other surrounding homes.
If it had, would know that it would lead to pressure on public services.
Have LBS Properties Limited looked to see that there are enough health facilities, school places, employment spaces, and enough local amenities available?
Personally I don’t think so as all of these services are already under extreme pressure and strain
Regards
Lord Peter Petrou
The complaint that the proposal is “out of character with the existing buildings” is ludicrous.
Firstly, the existing bingo hall is starkly different to its surroundings anyway. But, more importantly, why would 21st century inner city architecture built in a era of housing shortage look anything like 19th century suburban architecture?
We need to design buildings “in the context” of the housing shortage, not the conservative aesthetic tastes of Nimbys.
Out of scale with Neighbouring buildings though
we do need affordable homes with the features to make them sustainable for family use – play space – liveable scale etc
we dont need more high cost investment properties – Hackney already has more than its fair share of these and they do nothing to solve the housing shortage
If you want to build at neighbouring heights, the site will only have a few homes, probably none affordable. If you want more affordable homes you should be arguing for taller building.
We need all kinds of homes – including market-rate.
@HackneyYIMBY
I personally don’t object to a tall building. What I do object to is an ugly one – and this is an ugly one.
I wouldn’t accuse the protesters of having “conservative aesthetic taste”. They simply have better taste than LBS Properties. As for me, I rather like (for example) the Shard and the Gherkin and several other new developments in the City. I don’t want future buildings to look like they were erected 200 years ago. But then again, I don’t want them looking like the disastrous designs of 50 years ago either.
Yes, the proposed development may be an example of what you call “21st century inner city architecture”. So what? This, to me, is an example of the architecture that gives the the inner city a bad name. It looks tired and grubby before it has even been built.
In short, think you have a bit of a cheek. People have a right to say they don’t want an ugly building on their doorstep without being sneered at.
Sorry to break it to you, but your perception of your own good taste is entirely subjective.
If, however, I perceived the proposal as ugly, I’d understand that my own taste would not be a good enough reason to block vital homes.
I don’t know if I have good taste. Do you know that my tastes are conservative?
Of course matters of design and taste are subjective and in planning law it is very clearly not a reasonable objection to “like” or “dislike” something. But we should not be too quick to dismiss concerns about design since it is clearly a concern for many and needs to be addressed by those wishing to impose their ‘visions’ and schemes rather than towns and cities, communities and individuals having to simply accept. It should be a reasonable dialogue.
More to the point I doubt very much that the developer here is being altruistic in intent, motivated by a desire to provide “vital homes” – perhaps by vital we mean truly affordable ones or social housing.
As I and others have stated earlier on this thread the concern with these developments are the desire by many developers to talk about providing “much needed” homes yet when it comes to sales many are sold off-plan as investment opportunities to absent owners presumably at a fairy eye-watering set of prices.
The affordable elements are kicked into the very long grass using highly controversial viability methodology that councils struggle to challenge without risking expensive legal battles which they are rightly keen to avoid. Add into that toxic mix of negotiated off-site affordable units (if any get through the viability con) which are not always built (so still a way off from those ‘vital’ homes or worse still the likes of Hackney council stating (questionably) that they have met their targets for affordable units and therefore the developer need not worry about including them.
Re style: If architecture is designed by committee it invariably ends up as lowest common denominator or generic. Let architects be architects.
Re affordability: I don’t disagree with you that viability assessments should be more transparent, but all homes – including market rate homes – are a benefit to society. This faux-radical contempt for market-rate homes is damaging to all but especially the poor. If you don’t build for those with money, they don’t disappear, they just bid-up extant homes currently occupied by the less well-off.
Who is arguing for design by committee? Simply that design concerns are real and need to be addressed by discussion, debate and argument to win over those who have concerns about what can often feel imposed upon a community by those who have no connection other than as hired hands.
Somewhat baffled by this logic: “if you don’t build for those with money (…) they just bid-up extant homes currently occupied by the less well-off” – There is more than enough homes for the wealthy owner/occupier, to keep building penthouses and expensive houses for investment portfolios is also damaging reducing capacity for affordable/social. Yet doubly damaging if those investment vehicles of expensive new flats are then let at high rents pushing up the overall rental average further pricing out those on lesser incomes. Particularly with current legislation pushing for 80% of market rent from social homes.
So perhaps time to stop this building for portfolios, start building homes for those wanting to either own or to have security of tenure as tenants and taking other measures including an end to viability nonsense.
NIMBYS out of touch with a housing crisis reality. Tear the ugly eyesore down, let the architects do their job and build it twice as high.