Plans revealed for the “ugliest building in Sussex” (From The Argus)

First term???? "LAST TERM!" as much as I appreciate some councillors I do not see the Green party surviving another term! they do not listen to constituents nor do they appear to think !!
if they bring 20mph in Brighton more fuel will be used creating more pollution! and for the idiot that seems to enjoy anarchists !!!! I think that says it all!!

Long overdue - looks great in principle!

great - and so some other building in Sussex will become the new 'ugliest building' in the area.
This is just passing the problem onto somewhere else.

But it's NOT the 'ugliest building in Sussex'! But yes, it is a bit of an eyesore, and as since the Falmer campaign I'm always (initially anyway) on the side of the developers and against nay-saying, reactionary Luddites this can only be good news.

Dirk Von Roden wrote:
First term???? "LAST TERM!" as much as I appreciate some councillors I do not see the Green party surviving another term! they do not listen to constituents nor do they appear to think !! if they bring 20mph in Brighton more fuel will be used creating more pollution! and for the idiot that seems to enjoy anarchists !!!! I think that says it all!!

I hope that you are right. They are doing their level best to destroy this city.

Impossible to tell anything from this picture. Beware any artist's impression that includes trees blocking the view. For the moment, it looks like a load of containers stacked on top of each other. However, if it brings an eyesore site back into use, so much the better. A lot will depend on the cladding used.

I can see a load of trees. Where are the building images??

I can't find any documents on the council website about this so how can we comment? Argus please let us know where the documents are.

How high is the present building? Will this be higher & larger? It certainly sounds as if it will

As a local I'm concerned about the impact of hundreds more people living & working in an already overpopulated area.

You have to walk along the pavement in single file as it is & goodness knows how vehicles would get in & out across Preston Road without causing traffic chaos

Are they providing doctors, dentists etc for all these new residents?

BeeJam wrote:
I can see a load of trees. Where are the building images??

Exactly - don't know how much the client paid for this 'artist's impression' but I'd be askling for a refund

Why not something more interesting like the cube houses in Rotterdam?

keswick wrote:

Dirk Von Roden wrote:
First term???? "LAST TERM!" as much as I appreciate some councillors I do not see the Green party surviving another term! they do not listen to constituents nor do they appear to think !! if they bring 20mph in Brighton more fuel will be used creating more pollution! and for the idiot that seems to enjoy anarchists !!!! I think that says it all!!

I hope that you are right. They are doing their level best to destroy this city.

Here, here. The city is going to rack and ruin! Not only is a derelict site going to be redeveloped, in the other days paper some businesses said they had been attracted to B&H due to the people having voted in a Green adminstration and MP! And can you believe it, that the Greens have even had a cycle lane built and are planning more! Green Party supporting cycle paths? What hypocrites!

The sooner we get them out and get a propoer party in Labour or Conservative, doesn't matter which as they are pretty similar in office, the better. Just got to actually think of a reason why to actually vote for them. Erm...hmm. Difficult one that.

HJarrs wrote:

keswick wrote:

Dirk Von Roden wrote:
First term???? "LAST TERM!" as much as I appreciate some councillors I do not see the Green party surviving another term! they do not listen to constituents nor do they appear to think !! if they bring 20mph in Brighton more fuel will be used creating more pollution! and for the idiot that seems to enjoy anarchists !!!! I think that says it all!!

I hope that you are right. They are doing their level best to destroy this city.

Here, here. The city is going to rack and ruin! Not only is a derelict site going to be redeveloped, in the other days paper some businesses said they had been attracted to B&H due to the people having voted in a Green adminstration and MP! And can you believe it, that the Greens have even had a cycle lane built and are planning more! Green Party supporting cycle paths? What hypocrites!

The sooner we get them out and get a propoer party in Labour or Conservative, doesn't matter which as they are pretty similar in office, the better. Just got to actually think of a reason why to actually vote for them. Erm...hmm. Difficult one that.

Stability and common sense. In living memory (since WW2) we have had roughly equal periods of Con/ Lab rule. Joking apart, we are still doing reasonably well. Don't **** it up by voting in minority parties with only a narrow agenda.

A public consultation was held? That would be showing the plans over a single weekend at the Rotunda? This reads like someone's just copied straight from a press release.

And while I'm at it, I have to say that not only do the designs look hideously uninteresting, but 14 floors? This is just cheap housing being crammed into the space. 231 flats? I only hope the developers are being made to stump up the bill for the 200+ extra school places that that will require.

johnthomas wrote:
I can't find any documents on the council website about this so how can we comment? Argus please let us know where the documents are.

How high is the present building? Will this be higher & larger? It certainly sounds as if it will

As a local I'm concerned about the impact of hundreds more people living & working in an already overpopulated area.

You have to walk along the pavement in single file as it is & goodness knows how vehicles would get in & out across Preston Road without causing traffic chaos

Are they providing doctors, dentists etc for all these new residents?

http://www.brighton-
hove.gov.uk/index.cf
m?request=c1199915&a
ction=showDetail&APP
LICATION_NUMBER=BH20
12%2F02205

Not yet registered. johnthomas but it's worth getting together to discuss this when the plans are online. It looks like they're building on the derelict site next door too, and much higher than existing at 14 floors.

Sussex jim wrote:

HJarrs wrote:

keswick wrote:

Dirk Von Roden wrote:
First term???? "LAST TERM!" as much as I appreciate some councillors I do not see the Green party surviving another term! they do not listen to constituents nor do they appear to think !! if they bring 20mph in Brighton more fuel will be used creating more pollution! and for the idiot that seems to enjoy anarchists !!!! I think that says it all!!

I hope that you are right. They are doing their level best to destroy this city.

Here, here. The city is going to rack and ruin! Not only is a derelict site going to be redeveloped, in the other days paper some businesses said they had been attracted to B&H due to the people having voted in a Green adminstration and MP! And can you believe it, that the Greens have even had a cycle lane built and are planning more! Green Party supporting cycle paths? What hypocrites!

The sooner we get them out and get a propoer party in Labour or Conservative, doesn't matter which as they are pretty similar in office, the better. Just got to actually think of a reason why to actually vote for them. Erm...hmm. Difficult one that.

Stability and common sense. In living memory (since WW2) we have had roughly equal periods of Con/ Lab rule. Joking apart, we are still doing reasonably well. Don't **** it up by voting in minority parties with only a narrow agenda.

As a national economy we are not doing reasonably well and this is due to appalling economic policies that consider the "market" like a religion. Labour / Liberal / Conservative, take your pick. That is extreme in my book.

You might notice locally that the traffic problems, lack of housing, lack of development, poor road network, dog ugly modern buildings, the devestating gash left by building the A27 are the inheritence from several generations of local governments, which as you point out, were Labour or Conservative. Not all their fault maybe, but nevertheless they bear some responsibility.

"The only major change to the outside of the planned development is the addition of terracotta, which aims to match the surrounding buildings and a walkway in neighbouring Preston Park."

If the reversion to terracotta is down to planning then this is a terrible decision. Why be soooooo dull?

I am sure Urban Splash would be up for a Hundertwasser type colour scheme as you can see on any of the buildings inspired by him. Now that really would fit in with the creative side of B&H.

How do Urban Slash explain the large shadow it will cast across the adjacent park? Or is the idea to cull the plants & trees there the way they were (illegally) on the Aniston site? Sheer over-development by greedy investors with little regard for the environment or social impact.

mtmoocher wrote:
How do Urban Slash explain the large shadow it will cast across the adjacent park? Or is the idea to cull the plants & trees there the way they were (illegally) on the Aniston site? Sheer over-development by greedy investors with little regard for the environment or social impact.

It looks from the drawings as if this building occupies the Aniston site as well.

It appears that it would totally shadow the houses to the north west of it... if I was living in them I'd be furious at the size of this thing which appears to be significantly bigger than the surrounding buildings.

I'd be extremely interested in hearing the environmental credentials of this building that Green councillor Amy Green is so enthusiastically supporting.

... because on that last note, Urban Splash promised to build a similar "gateway" project in Liverpool and ended up applying for planning permission to put a car park on the site. Very "green" of them.

http://www.liverpool
echo.co.uk/liverpool
-news/local-news/201
1/12/22/urban-splash
-100m-liverpool-city
-centre-development-
to-become-a-car-park
-100252-29994408/

teaboy wrote:
... because on that last note, Urban Splash promised to build a similar "gateway" project in Liverpool and ended up applying for planning permission to put a car park on the site. Very "green" of them.

http://www.liverpool

echo.co.uk/liverpool

-news/local-news/201

1/12/22/urban-splash

-100m-liverpool-city

-centre-development-

to-become-a-car-park

-100252-29994408/

B&H should put limitations and restrictions on time and level of development as they do as with all major developments and as Liverpool Council has done. The single developer option on Black Rock has lapsed recently for example.

teaboy wrote:

mtmoocher wrote:
How do Urban Slash explain the large shadow it will cast across the adjacent park? Or is the idea to cull the plants & trees there the way they were (illegally) on the Aniston site? Sheer over-development by greedy investors with little regard for the environment or social impact.

It looks from the drawings as if this building occupies the Aniston site as well.

It appears that it would totally shadow the houses to the north west of it... if I was living in them I'd be furious at the size of this thing which appears to be significantly bigger than the surrounding buildings.

I'd be extremely interested in hearing the environmental credentials of this building that Green councillor Amy Green is so enthusiastically supporting.

From a quick look at Google Earth, it looks like the houses behind are already in the shadow of Anston House for morning winter sun and trees provide shadow for summer morning sun.Preston Park will have some additional shading in the winter, for a few hours, but no big deal.

If I was a resident I would be concentrating my efforts on reducing the heights of the blocks nearest the houses and on the north side of the site to protect what light does fall there. If I were Urban splash I would have looked to have the buildings to the road side around a raised roof garden courtyard underwhich car parking could be provided. All properties would overlook a quiet area and it would give the best option regards light for existing residential properties.

Hmm Anstone House, owned by Anstone Properties. The md Ray Anstone is a particularly ruthless guy. Anyone who's buildings freehold is owned by them then CHECK YOUR LEASE!! They hid a clause in mine when I paid to extend the lease which made my flat impossible to sell (and my useless solicitor missed) then charged me £1000s to get the clause removed!! Beware.

BiggerH wrote:

BeeJam wrote:
I can see a load of trees. Where are the building images??

Exactly - don't know how much the client paid for this 'artist's impression' but I'd be askling for a refund

If it's a verifiable view, you can't remove anything that's listed - which these trees probably are, given that they show on Google street view now. It's actually against the law if it's a planning image. This clearly looks like it is a planning image, rather than a marketing image. Do you even know what you are talking about?

BiggerH wrote:

BeeJam wrote:
I can see a load of trees. Where are the building images??

Exactly - don't know how much the client paid for this 'artist's impression' but I'd be askling for a refund

Clearly BiggerH is a lunchbox and doesn't know what he is on about. Glad quattro84 has something valuable to contribute and is well informed unlike the slush puppy that is BiggerH. I can't believe this whole article is based on an image for a planning permission application. Tata.