City of London鈥檚 own public realm team tell colleagues controversial attraction won鈥檛 be able to handle demand at street level
City of London officials responsible for public space have said they cannot support Foster & Partners鈥� controversial Tulip proposals because the ground-level access for the attraction is not good enough to handle a huge influx of visitors.
Foster鈥檚 scheme for a 305m tall tower next to his practice鈥檚 Gherkin building has drawn fire from heritage groups and 鈥� which manages the Tower of London 鈥� as well as from the Greater London Authority since it was unveiled in November last year.
Now the City鈥檚 own built environment team has stuck the knife into the proposal, created for billionaire Gherkin owner Jacob J Safra, which is targeting tens of thousands of visitors a year.
The City鈥檚 group manager responsible for public realm, Tom Noble, said footpaths in the vicinity would not be able to cope with the influx of people visiting the Tulip and that officers did not believe measures proposed by the design team were acceptable.
鈥淲e have serious concerns about the capacity of the public realm to adequately manage the additional number of people that this development will bring,鈥� he said in a letter to planning officers.
鈥淔urthermore, we believe that the quality of the public realm will not be of the standard required to support and advance the development and the wider City Cluster.鈥�
The attraction would sit on a huge concrete shaft and boast 12 storeys of attractions, including a sky bar, rotating external viewing pods and educational facilities expected to attract 20,000 schoolchildren a year alone.
Firms working on the scheme include QS Alinea and construction consultant Skanska which built the Gherkin.
Noble said that public realm measures proposed in the design and access statement supporting Fosters鈥� planning application were 鈥渦nacceptable and would likely lead to people walking in the carriageway and experiencing discomfort鈥�.
He added: 鈥淲e do not believe that the current proposals will be of benefit to the City Cluster and therefore do not support the proposals in their current form.
The fears follow concerns from planning officers at the Greater London Authority who last month raised a litany of objections to the proposals on design, heritage and transport grounds.
They said that while the principle of a new visitor attraction in the City was acceptable, the scheme鈥檚 failure to provide 鈥渇ree-to-enter publicly accessible viewing areas鈥� was at odds with the London Plan, while its height was 鈥渦njustified鈥� and its shaft would 鈥渁ppear incongruous鈥�.
The City of London is targeting the determination of the application by the end of next month.
No comments yet