please empty your brain below
Thought I hardly dare imagine the collective rage that will be directed at me for this: I agree with the redevelopment.

Of course if the Spiegelhalters were still there then they would have every right to continue to hold out on their land. But their building isn't reminiscent of anything - it's just a shabby plain block, whereas your blog post and other articles contain the history. I agree that London shouldn't lose its heritage, but does that mean we're not allowed to knock down any building ever, because we have fond memories of someone that was once there, but has now moved on? That we should allow London to decay and become a dead city, so that we can better remember when it was thriving? That we shouldn't allow anyone who dares to seek a profit to do anything, even though capitalism is basically how most things get done in our society? (How many new homes are being build by budding family entrepreneurs like the Spiegelhalters?) You even mentioned in the article that the developers are planning to retain more than they're legally obliged to, so I don't think they're quite as evil as you're gently hinting.

You might have a case for the remainder of the building, but that concrete block in the middle has no architectural merit. And it's worse than useless to campaign to save it - silly campaigns like this just reduce the credibility of campaigns to save buildings that seriously deserve it, and IMO that is sad.

(No, I do not work for Resolution Property, or anyone else involved.)

Jim | 19.01.15 - 7:28 a.m. | #

A schoolfriend vowed to purchase this site and keep it as a monument to bloody-minded individualism in the face of overwhelming power. If it never happened, his career as a City bond trader must have got derailed somehow.

A shame - and I wish him well.

Roehamster | 19.01.15 - 7:51 a.m. | #

An "emotional curmudgeon"? I don't know what that means but I must be one!

| 19.01.15 - 9:05 a.m. | #

As long as it is not as tall as the rest of the facade and in a different architectural style, putting anything in that gap would perpetuate the joke. How about a thatched cottage?

timbo | 19.01.15 - 9:40 a.m. | #

Wow. Just like Batteries not included...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092494/?ref_=nv_sr_1

But with fewer aliens.

I've driven/cycled past this building dozens of times and never ever noticed...

Steve | 19.01.15 - 10:43 a.m. | #

I never noticed until recent years how, had the 'gap' been filled in subsequently, Wickham's would still have been asymmetrical; thus showing that in reality they must have given up on ever getting full completion.

Kim | 19.01.15 - 10:47 a.m. | #

That was an ironic post, DG?

Bronchitikat | Homepage | 19.01.15 - 11:08 a.m. | #

I am disappointed that this mixed use development will not have residential property which I can purchase for investment. Of course, I have never been to UK so property would probably lie empty, but provide good return on investment should rouble plunge further in value.

Aleksander | 19.01.15 - 11:29 a.m. | #

I vaguely remember a plot thread in a Jeffrey Archer novel involved a department store being built round a property that a vengeful rival refused to sell. Is Speigelhalter where he got the idea from?

timbo | 19.01.15 - 11:59 a.m. | #

@timbo-possibly but in New York in the 50s and 60s these stubborn little property owners were known as "hold outs" and weren't that uncommon. There are a handful left.

Back to the post-is this the first petition ever to retain what is effectively a *void*?

HoosierSands | Homepage | 19.01.15 - 12:13 p.m. | #

I know you're joking, but you were right first time.

Chris | 19.01.15 - 1:22 p.m. | #

And the alternative is? Let it rot. It's not cming back as department store. Not with Westfield Stratford and Canary Wharf as the new East End retail Mecca's.

Any alternative use is going to require large scale demolition and rebuilding.

Crossrail is changing the fortunes around all it's stations, even it seems Whitechapel, but is also due to the rise of the East End as a hub for new creative industries.

You should be glad they are looking at creating employment uses rather than more luxury flats.

Rational Plan | 19.01.15 - 1:23 p.m. | #

when do our councillors and planners understand that we need more spaces to live (and I'm not talking shoebox studios for 500k) and not Office Space or holiday retreats for foreign investors?
I know the answer: never.

Max | 19.01.15 - 10:19 p.m. | #

Spiegelhalters is an empty shell, because either the then leaseholders or freeholders demolished most of it in 2010 and removed the front windows. This was in breach of the planning permission granted in 2008 (PA/08/02274) to restore the shopfront and remove a 1960's rear addition.

The current freeholders bought the building knowing they had an obligation to restore Spiegelhalters and Wickhams as they are both in the Stepney Green Conservation Area and Tower Hamlets have stated that "The loss of Wickhams and Spiegelhalters would have a very detrimental impact upon the character of the conservation area "

The petition will hopefully ensure that the council take action to ensure that Spiegelhalters is restored. So do sign it.

There are now tech based businesses on the first floor of Wickhams and one would think that these quirky businesses are more likely to be attracted by a restored Spiegelhalters, than a void. It is unfortunate that the architect, behind the proposals, did not have this "clear simple thought" when designing his unimaginative scheme.

Martin E1 | 20.01.15 - 7:42 p.m. | #

Martin: It sounds like the people that violated planning permission will not face any consequences regardless of what happens next. "Restoration" of Speilgelhalters won't mean much unless the Speilgelhalters themselves move back in. The petition is just a campaign to make things worse for the area for the sake of making a point to someone who isn't listening.

Jim | 21.01.15 - 8:29 p.m. | #

It’s looking good now, as part of Queen Mary university. Second thoughts anyone?

andrew | 29.02.24 - 10:43 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy