please empty your brain below

I think many would acknowledge that providing new housing on a brownfield site like this in principle is a v sound idea.

However, the planning authority here - its not Hackney or Tower Hamlets, but the LLDC, is, despite all their buzzwords of legacy, etc (straight out of the TV series 2012) to blame for the bland developments and soulless character of Hackney Wick and Fish Island.

A shame, as there are plenty of examples in the area of sympathetic conversion of former industrial buildings to residential use which retain the heritage of the former use.
This is just a concentrated example of what happens elsewhere in London, in my local area nearly every office block has been converted into flats, the isolated pockets of industry have been sold and replaced with flats, any detached house has been sold and replaced with flats.
For once, I see this development as wholly positive. Having lived in the area when I first came to London and being too terrified to leave my house late at night, I’m happy that small dark streets are being replaced. Having been forced out due to lack of homes, I’m happy to see thousands more being built in an area that can both support them and requires them. True, the houses and flats will be too expensive for me, but that’s true of the entirety of London these days.

Also great to see Hackney Wick station getting the upgrade it deserves as part of this process.
It's the artists fault really. There's an established pattern that when the "creatives" move into a cheap area, gentrification is sure to follow.
But why is all this new housing necessary?

Because of over-population.

The biggest danger facing this county, and indeed the world, by far.

And it's not just London where it is happening - it's everywhere.
Yes- agreed with Matthew. We moan about the lack of housing in London, then complain when new houses are built.
I have the honour of having lived here on Fish Island longer than anyone else, way before there were any houseboats on the canals, before any artists created their studios in former factory buildings and before any residential permissions were given, before there were any cafes or hipster drinking establishments, when I moved here in 1999 the only vehicle movement you saw at weekends were a convoy of learner drivers crawling around Roach road at ten miles per hour, the worst thing we have to contend with these days are not the new developments, it is not the infrastructure changes, in my opinion its the constant battle with the mindless taggers, whenever someone takes the time and effort to create a beautiful stunning piece of artwork along they come and deface it with their mindless tags that mean nothing to anyone except the twat who sprayed it, they deface road signs street furniture and private property, they overhang the beautiful brick built listed buildings and deface them with tacky tags and comments, they are the scourge of Fish Island, not the developers.
I wonder if the graffiti vandals will deface the new buildings.
The new developments look very uninteresting buildings.
Agree the design could and should be better but people need these flats. The pricing of them is another matter.

Hackney was an absolute dump until recently so I'm not crying that many tears for this. No doubt we'll have the same moaning minnies when the artists descend on East Ham or whatever next place is considered hip.
The real question is, how many will go to London residents, and how many will be snapped up by overseas developers?

Lots of controversial building going on in central Harrow which was apparently given the go-ahead because it was promised to be local homes for local people.
It seems only one local person can afford them and the rest have been snapped up by overseas buyers - presumably to rent to local people.
Why, in the artists impressions, are there never any little old ladies wheeling shopping bags, or old men featured?
Even in the appropriately diverse picture shown, the token wheelchair user looks like an older child/young adult!
Indeed a development which provokes mixed feelings. Yes, more London housing is needed. But can it not be provided in a more interesting form?

I disagree slightly about the root cause being global overpopulation. Yes there are too many humans worldwide. But London would still be overcrowded even if the birth rate dropped to zero overnight. Much of the rest of the UK has houses, but no jobs. Fix that and London could breathe again.
Just replacing one dump with another.
I think a couple of people have missed the point - DG right at the top of his post acknowledged that the idea of development taking place here is a good one, its just the execution of it. Nobody wants to go back to the old days of how Hackney Wick was, and to be honest that was never going to happen once the Olympics came along.

However, there are plenty of examples around where new developments have taken place which have managed to preserve some character rather than the bland nature of this development - LLDC should have done much better.

I also think we shouldn't try to squeeze out so much space that's used for light industrial employment - yes we need lots of new homes, but we also need land for variety of employment types too.
Ok, I have to defend the so called bland aesthetic. I genuinely would like someone to actually show me a good current example rather then just moan and whinge that everything built is the same.

I fully recognise that many of the new housing developments are of little interest, poorly executed and just plain dull but today there are many good architecture practices in this city who are trying their damnnest working with greedy developers and local authorities to create good, solid homes, as opposed to the rubbish that was haphazardly thrown up in the 90s and 00s.

Piercy and Co are one of the absolute best and yes Sweetwater may not be to everyone's taste, the execution and detailing of the building will be no doubt top notch. Simplicity and order does not equate IMO to a "bland aesthetic ".

By this thinking Georgian architecture could be considered a bland aesthetic, but of course is considered London's finest housing stock.

Agree with most every else DG though!

...and as you can probably guess I am an architect!
In the end it boils down to the same result.

The development should be elsewhere, but - as ever - London sucks some more of the life out of the rest of the country.

Stop all this nonsense and moves the jobs out of London - not yet more people in.

And give local authorities back some of the powers they lost. But no so much that everywhere looks like Newham.
Go and have a look at Rotherhithe-by-the-Wharf and that is what you're getting.

Plenty of flats, but hardly one my 24 year old son earning 25 grand a year can afford.
Im not holding out for much, i dont understand why cant they architect like did on shad Thames, people pay for heratige and a place with a bit of difference. Im sure the new places will be nice business wise, but the fact it was not 'perfect' was part of its charm.

Ive taken many pictures during its change. It was a rough diamond, a hidden gem that came out of no where with its warehouse converted to bars...again something different.

DG, Vittoria Wharf they want to become a bridge for cars! what are they playing at
>>Yes- agreed with Matthew. We moan about the lack of housing in London, then complain when new houses are built.

The key here is "affordable" (i.e. cheap. THAT is the housing that is needed. Not more over-priced "luxury" flats.
By strange coincidence(?) there is an "advertorial" in tonight's Standard extolling the new flats at Fish Island.
Agree with Blue-Witch. But to say so is the equivalent of saying that you spend your saturday nights boiling kittens.










TridentScan | Privacy Policy