╨╧рб▒с>■  68■   5                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ье┴!` Ё┐ &bjbj\н\н .0>╟>╟       д(((((((<Д Д Д Д Р <░╢░ ░ ░ ░ ░ Л Л Л /111111$fh╬nU(╟Л Л ╟╟U((░ ░ █jыыы╟╛(░ (░ /ы╟/ыы((ы░ д Ё╥Ин╞C╚Д Е.ы/А0░ы<│"<ыы<( 0Л О ы5фоЛ Л Л UU╒Л Л Л ░╟╟╟╟<<<дрд<<<р<<<((((((     Design Review comments Bishop's Place Review date: 29 November 2007 Lead designer: Foster and Partners Client: Hammerson Local authority: London: Hackney Location: Land bounded by Worship Street, Curtain Road, Hearn Street, Plough Yard, and Norton Folgate Region: London Description: City-fringe mixed used development including residential and office tall buildings. Summary We welcome the development of this brownfield site and support the principle of buildings of this height in this location. We also applaud the decision to depart from the previous planning approvals for the site. However, whilst the schemeТs public face onto Norton Folgate demonstrates an adept handling of architectural expression, the same cannot be said of its response to its neighbours on Worship Street, Curtain Road and Hearn Street. Given its edge of City location, it is critical that the diagram, scale and the mixture and disposition of uses reflects the transitional nature of this site. This has not been fully translated in the proposals as submitted. In our view, the failure to relate to the inherent grain or character of South Shoreditch in terms of use and scale represents a fundamental flaw in the proposals. This needs further examination before CABE can lend its full support to the scheme. We do not think the proposal should gain planning permission in its current form. Character and use A key challenge is to ensure that the built form can accommodate an appropriate mix of uses at the lower levels to allow proper integration of the development into the urban fabric. If Northgate is to perform effectively as a zone of interaction between the City and Shoreditch we believe it must reflect a changing character and typology across the site and demonstrate a strong relationship between use and form. A greater mix of uses within the blocks themselves would enhance their character and add value. The lack of a variegated mix of uses within them makes the development less able to establish a relationship with its South Shoreditch neighbours and resistant to change over time. We are concerned that this part of the site will not be differentiated from the more sanitised and corporate landscape of the City and that this will inhibit a richness of character remaining there. We would advise a re-examination of the approach to use, particularly on the lower floors, and the impact of built form in this location to tailor it to the needs of neighbouring character areas. Built form and massing We think the residential tower and front section of ║┌╢┤╔ч╟° One are both well executed and will create a dramatic setting for the Сurban roomТ on Norton Folgate. The scale of residential ║┌╢┤╔ч╟°s Four and Five are also well judged and fitting in this location. However, in our view, a revised approach to heights and orientation would be beneficial to realise the optimum solution for the site and release further space at ground level. Our overriding concern relates to the nature and character of ║┌╢┤╔ч╟° Two and the rear element of ║┌╢┤╔ч╟° One; their perceived scale makes them manifestly unsuited to their context. The subdivision, set back, and alternative modulation of ║┌╢┤╔ч╟° Two on Curtain Road does not, in our view, go far enough to address the change in scales or character between the City and South Shoreditch. The overbearing nature of these blocks - the scale of ║┌╢┤╔ч╟° One reinforced by the diagrid structure Ц does not respond to the finer grain and character of Hearn Street, Curtain Road and Worship Street or make the scale transition to the adjacent Grade II* listed three storey terrace on Worship Street and conservation area. Further, even allowing for the colonnade on the Worship Street elevation of ║┌╢┤╔ч╟° One, its extensive unbroken frontage is likely to create a canyon effect. The depth of its floorplate needs to be reassessed in light of this to provide some relief to this street. As proposed, the block structure gives the impression that there is too much on the site and, as a result, the arrangement of the buildings appears quite arbitrary. Permeability and public realm The piazza fronting Norton Folgate has the potential to become an exemplary public space and a valuable addition to this part of the city. The use of York stone and tree planting across the site will also help create a robust landscape and provide continuity throughout. However, a direct consequence of the arrangement and scale of buildings on the site is that the generosity of space at the front of the site is not matched to the rear. In our view, the disposition of buildings on the site works against good connections and well functioning public spaces, especially to the rear. There may well be a case to increase the height of some blocks to allow for the release of space at ground level to help resolve this. It is unfortunate that some of the key routes to the Norton Folgate piazza donТt work effectively. The diagonal ramp crossing the steps to the square will be difficult to navigate especially for the visually impaired. Further, it is unfortunate that concerted efforts were not made at an earlier stage in the development process to continue the north south link created by 201 Bishopsgate across Worship Street in a more meaningful way. We are not convinced that the narrow staircase in front of ║┌╢┤╔ч╟° One is a satisfactory solution or will invite use by pedestrians let alone those with disabilities. We would suggest a movement analysis to test the effectiveness of these and other routes across the site.аа We question whether the space between Blocks One and Two and the sunken garden to the rear of the residential tower will work as inviting places for the community. The microclimate at ground level for both spaces may prove inhospitable, dissuading people from lingering in either of these spaces. We are unconvinced that canopies will do enough to ameliorate this. Whilst we acknowledge that a playspace has been allocated north of the residential tower, we think a stronger definition of the role of the space adjacent to ║┌╢┤╔ч╟° Five is necessary. Sustainability We would expect a project of this size and significance to improve considerably on current building regulations in terms of energy efficiency. We are pleased that a commitment has been made for an 11-12% reduction in carbon emissions assisted by combined heat and power and ground source heat pumps as well as passive solar design, energy efficient plant and low energy lighting. Equally, we support the low level of car parking provision and generous cycling storage facilities to assist in the take-up of sustainable modes of transport. We support the principle of natural or mixed mode ventilation within the buildings. The degree of flexibility built into the blocks to enable natural ventilation when required is welcomed. The local authority will need to be satisfied that the faчade design is consistent with this aspiration.а Conclusion Whilst we think the proposals have the potential to provide a successful new addition to Norton Folgate, we do not believe the scheme as submitted goes far enough to address the transition between the City and the neighbourhoods of South Shoreditch, both in terms of the architectural approach and the nature of uses proposed. We do not object to tall buildings in this location but, in our view, the resolution to the massing and public realm fails to convince us that the site can accommodate this quantum of development. It is critical that the rear of the site benefits from the same level of thoughtfulness afforded to the front. In the absence of a greater mix of uses within blocks alongside a better articulation of built form and a generosity of open space across the site, we are unable to offer our full support to the scheme. For all the reasons stated above, we do not think this proposal should gain planning permission in its current form. (4FTip{ЛЭжз    t | a s │╡═"хЇ8#C#■& &ъ╒ъ╛ъ╛ъ╛ъ╛ъ╛зъ╛ъ╛з╒Ц╒ЦД╒Ц╒Ц╒Ц╒ЦАh╜i:#hў"ВB* CJOJQJ^JaJph3f!hў"Вh╡ВB* OJQJ^Jph3f,hў"Вh╡В5БB* CJOJQJ^JaJph3f,hў"Вh-DИ5БB* CJOJQJ^JaJph3f)hў"Вh╡ВB* CJOJQJ^JaJph3f)hў"Вh-DИB* CJOJQJ^JaJph3f (Fi{Э  t | a s │┤╡═T"є╜хЇ"8#C#єєєєєєєєєєющющююющщющщщющщюgd╡Вgd╡В дд[$\$gd-DИ &¤C#■& &·°gd╡В,1Рh░В. ░╞A!░"░#Ра$Ра%░░─░─ Р─ЖЬ@@ё @ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH N@RN ╡В Heading 5дdдd@&[$\$5БCJ\БaJDA@Є бD Default Paragraph FontRiє │R  Table NormalЎ4╓ l4╓aЎ (kЇ ┴(No List4^@Є4 ╡В Normal (Web) 0    (Fi{Эt|as│ ┤ ╡ ═ T"є╜хЇ8C■H0ААH0ААH0ААH0ААH0ААH0ААH0ААH0ААH0ААH0ААH0ААШ0АtH0ААШ0АaH0ААH0ААH0ААШ0А╡ Ш0А╡ H0ААШ0АШ0АШ0АH0ААШ0АхШ0АхH0ААШ0А8Ш0А8(Fi{|as│ ═ T"є╜хЇ8C■КР00I╚00АИР00I╚00АK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯK╚00ЯI╚00АI╚00АI╚00А 00И &C# & &Ё8Ё@ё   АААўЁТЁЁ0Ё( Ё ЁЁB ЁS Ё┐╦  ?Ё  dЬd№┬жdь╞&dфgdм$d|BdМK/d|╚dм╞&dд╝ d|║!dLа"d<║#dМЖ$d\A%d▄вж&dд+-'dфеж(d$а)dЬ*d▄┼&+d╞&,d\╞&-d ┌б.dL┌б/dМ┌б0d г1dLгММ╖╖╟╟╒╒  ((`шЕ Е ∙ ДД╕╕+     ТТ┼┼╙╙сс##44p°С С ТТ╝╝НН; 8*Аurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsАCityА:*Аurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsАStreetА;*Аurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsАaddressА9*Аurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsАplaceА hF│qz√ЯйЖН╡ ║ ╗ ┐ └ ├ g n ` g =D/6lwGPгкBX╛╔╡ ╠ 33t│ ╡ ■╡ ║ ┐_щ{х ╜i:╡Вў"В-DИ└`У @Ац╙ А@  Unknown            GРЗz А Times New Roman5РАSymbol3&Р Зz А Arial"1ИЁ╨hык╝жык╝жа_8а_8 Ёа┤┤ББ4dЁЁ2ГQЁHP Ё ?ф                     ╡В2  Bishop's PlaceWill Myddeltonasmith■ рЕЯЄ∙OhлС+'│┘0|РШ░╝╘рь№  8 D P\dltфBishop's PlaceWill MyddeltonNormalasmith2Microsoft Office Word@ъV·@║(г╞C╚@║(г╞C╚а_■ ╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙о0№ hpАИРШ аи░╕ └ █фCABE8Ёd Bishop's Place Title ■    !"#$■   &'()*+,■   ./01234■   ¤   7■   ■   ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Root Entry         └F╨ЫЩн╞C╚9А1Table        <WordDocument        .0SummaryInformation(    %DocumentSummaryInformation8            -CompObj            q                        ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ■       └FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8Ї9▓q