Updated COLPAI Scheme

[Charles Humphries]

The updated scheme is available from the CommComm site here:  

http://www.colpai-project.co.uk/assets/colpai_boards_0417_final.pdf

The scheme has been reduced from 70 to 66 new residential units with a new stepped design. 

The School Hall has been moved slightly away from the allotments and is now appears to be single storey. It is no longer accessed from Basterfield Mews.

[Iain Meek]

My response:

1. Nursery play area still entirely North facing.
2. New geometry copies the Listed estate rather than visually separating new-from-old.
3. The frontage to Golden Lane is still very utilitarian.

Hawkins Brown  p6

1. No 'hat' on the tower!  A bit dull compared to the fine example of Great Arthur.
2. Why only 66 units in 14 stories rather than 70 in 14 stories?

 

Hawkins Brown pp12-13

1. A space between buildings to maintain views through the estate.  

There have never been long views out of the estate across Richard Cloudesley.  Why is this being introduced?

Hawkins Brown pp20-21

Alternative Locations for School Hall Between the school and housing? 

1. Configuration of hall and studio means that the school will not be able to have a whole school assembly. 

HB show an L-shaped hall & studio!  Hall & studio can be remodelled to stay within HB's preferred rectangular volume.

2. One combined play space with little variety. No noise barrier to housing. 

garages and walls can be retained AND enhanced to create part of a 'noise barrier'.

3. MUGA play at the boundary of Basterfield House. 

MultiUseGamesArea play can be anywhere within the open area- move it!

4. Access to Kitchen. 

Superb.  Vehicles can park on Golden Lane where there is plenty of width rather than in the narrow confines of Baltic Street.

5. Reception unit compromised due to need for circulation. Toilets dislocated from classrooms. 

HB's attempt to lay out this area is frankly appaling- see above.  

6. Rights of Light issue created to London School of Fashion.

Is the kitchen to be double height?  Surely single storey and no higher than existing boundary wall!  Rights-to-light are negotiable.

http://www.colpai-project.co.uk/assets/colpai_boards_0417_final.pdf

p17- reduced width of residential block loses 16 x one bed flats.  Gains a roof terrace?  Why?

These are first thoughts.  More may follow.  Very rough sketch drawing below.

Best wishes

Iain Meek  DipArch RIAS RIBA FBIS

[e-mail]

07960 173903

[Iain Meek]

slightly better version

[Nicholas Farhi]

Why not halve the height of the block and double its floorplate?

[Iain Meek]

That's an interesting idea.  The architect from Hawkins Brown said the playground is already smaller than it should be.  I suggest you pass the idea on to the CommComm people who are running th econsultation.

Nicholas Farhi said:

Why not halve the height of the block and double its floorplate?

[Nicholas Farhi]

They could put a playground on a roof like they have done on the school on Whitecross Street. I will email CommComm as you suggest.

[Iain Meek]

Hi

I think they have already included that- the rooftop playground.