Lewes Matters Discussion Forum   forum home | post reply | threaded view | help

Boardwalk :: Forum List The Phoenix Quarter General Discussion

<< Start < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > End >> charles style   Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/26 03:40 Holly, i am sorry if you feel i am either being evasive or misleading or giving things spin this is certainly not deliberate. If i say i feel a building i know is a four storey building with an eight storey section that is a very small element of the building is such, i will not agree that it is an eight storey building or that we are proposing any eight storey buildings to do so would be dishonest and misleading. likewise if i am asked if there are any similar quarters i will refer to the one i feel is most similar even if it has not yet been built, particularly if i cannot think of any others that really compare. I also said in another letter that i would ask the architect for feedback on this subject so I did answer the question though when it was put differently. if anything , i am guilty of being too open and answering criticism head on, i am not an expert on spin but perhaps i need to learn to be one particularly with an audience that is so sensitive to the tone and nature of comment, perhaps i should let a P.R consultant make sure that every word i write in reply is vetted and is seen as portraying the right image, then i might really be able to fool people into believing i am giving an honest response when i am in fact evading the issue.   | | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum. Holly   Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/26 04:59 Mr Style - I appreciate you being involved in the debate in this way. It is brave and does demonstrate a willingness to respond. I say some things tongue in cheek but if you dont intend to spin or evade then some direct answers would be helpful. It may just be that those of us who are not developers have a different understanding of the terms that you use. Language and tone can be misinterpreted in the written word and we all have a different understanding of definitions I suppose. It is just that to me, a building - some of which is 8 storeys - is an 8 storey building where as you see this as a 4 storey building with an extended area/element that is 8 storeys. I would imagine that most non-architects or non-developers would probably share my understanding here, so perhaps it is just a case of technicalities. No matter really - because the height of the buildings is only a tiny part of the overall debate. I am not adverse to change - although I like Lewes just as it is or was - but I am more concerned with the general social and economic impact on the town and this is the bit that I need to be convinced has really been considered. Developers are motivated (in my small experience) by profit and the excitement of what they could create within a space - building things, plotting layouts and maximising profit margins is generally what excites the developers that I have met. I find that architects tend to be very interested in functionality and aesthetics and leaving a legacy in terms of design. I am a fundraiser - I get excited about how much money I can raise. It is natural to get excited about one's immediate potential in work, without considering the bigger picture e.g. in my case - what is really needed and is the cause really worthwhile. I am not always convinced that developers develop in order to add to a town for social and economic motivations or that architects always design in the context of social and economic needs more broadly (the bigger picture elements). If I can be convinced that a development will genuinely be of benefit to those who live in the town, then the debate around the nature of the development (buildings and use of space) would be secondary. This is the area that I am interested in in the first instance and this is the area where I really need to see some evidence that the added housing, workspaces, jobs etc will be advantageous to those who are living here....... and that the impact (environmental, pressure on current infrastructure etc etc) won't be detrimental. Thus an example of a model with planning permission isnt enough really - so your suggestion of discussing with Piers his basis for Dorchester and Lewes is a really good one - as is identifying an area with similarities where a site has been developed in a similar way to that proposed (maybe 3-5 years ago?) to see the impact that the development has had since.   | | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum. S.Oliver   Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/26 05:19 Dear Mr Style The dictionary states that; "A storey is a structure consisting of a room or set of rooms comprising a single level of a multi-level building". My understanding is that in planning terms the building you call a low 4 story building with a slim 4 storey tower on top containing flats, is an 8 storey building, and that you are wrong. I am however happy to be corrected, if due to some kind of confusion you are basing your view on an alternative planning definition that I am unaware of.   | | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum. charles style   Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/26 05:36 Whatever you say must be correct but i fail to see what it means, I will let the planners and English Heritage tell us if they think we are proposing to build 8 storey tower blocks in Lewes. As it happens we are only proposing this as an interesting architectural feature. All six mini towers combined only house about 18 flats so if they are considered too much of an affront to the history and tradition of the town and the architecture here we would remove them from the proposal. I personally think that would be a shame as it would be to the detriment of the scheme but not so detrimental that the project could not go ahead. Please keep up the good work with the dictionary definitions, very interesting!   | | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum. S. Oliver   Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/26 06:56 Dear Mr Style The reason I try to rely on the dictionary and professional planning terms is because not only do they convey dimension and intent consistently and clearly to everyone, but they also inform the legal requirements of the planning process. I am rather surprised that you do not seem to realise why it is important to people living in Lewes that someone wishing to inspire confidence in his ability to improve the town, might be familiar with key planning terms, and what constitutes what we are now agreed is an 8 storey tower block I have no objection to some smaller towers, and no objection to interesting , even contraversial features in your design. However you are seeking outline planning permission and unfortunately it is the boring planning basics that we are all concerned with at the moment. Implying that if you are forced to remove towers we will have to put up with a bland design is not true. You keep telling us how wonderful your architects are, well they should be able to produce something wonderful, with or without 8 storey towers. I am sure they would relish the challenge. I appreciate that it is a difficult and frustrating task being faced with opposition to key parts of your plans, but perhaps it could be that you, or your architects have been too cynical of resident's ability to engage in a meaningful planning and architecture debate about their own town without demanding pastiche historical buildings and objecting to change. It is possible that with continued debate the results will be an even better scheme than you originally proposed and that it is approved, and appreciated by many people.   | | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum. Dominic Buckwell   Re:Phoenix Action - 2006/04/26 16:14 Much focus of objection and comment is on the 8 storey buildings. It is my understanding that building above 4 storeys for a development like this is not cost effective; if only 18 flats would be created from these tall buildings, the developers profit would actually be enhanced by eliminating this aspect. I am not suggesting that Mr Style was so strategic as to include the 8 storey towers so as to be seen to compromise later by removing them. Indeed if this economic point is correct it is actaully sacraficial in terms of cost, and probably does reflect a genuine attempt by Mr Style to make the development, no doubt inspired by Piers Gough's visits to San Giminamo. At the end of the consultation however, it seems that the developer is likely to say: "oh well, I'll remove the towers if I must but please give me everything else". I would therefore urge campaigners interested in ensuring the best possible plans go forward not to expend all the effort on fighting the 8 storey sections, but focus more on the density, layout, enlarging the open spaces and mix of artisan / small retail and business units. I would be grateful for Mr Style's comment on the economics of building 5 to 8 storeys, and whether he believes that removing this element would represent a saving in terms £ per square foot of residential space. Also, would not building so high and removing the few tower units (a) require a greater density elsewhere within the scheme to balance out the minimum denisty requirements? and (b) make it more viabile to get towards the 25% benchmark for affordable housing?   | | You must login if you wish to contribute to this forum.

Boardwalk :: Forum List The Phoenix Quarter General Discussion

Dear site visitor at IP address 38.103.63.61. We were forced to make it necessary for you to register and login before making forum postings because of the constant flood of unwanted and often abusive material that was being uploaded by anonymous spammers from all over the world. I'm sure you know the sort of stuff - viagra ads and the like - what a bore! But you can of course read the postings without logging in, and in any case it only takes a couple of minutes to register - you're not losing your privacy, but you're keeping out the spammers. So do please register and continue using the forum - we need your input! Thanks, Lewes Matters Admin.