Diagonal exoskeleton (why?) + oddly shaped windows with competing diagonals + weird stained glass to honour the heritage + too many materials + lots of curtain wall which will get VEd.
Agreed.
Should this actually go ahead (I'd prefer it didn't)..........
Non-heritage components in the base should be complimentary/sympathetic, not pastiche, but also shouldn't be jarring/distracting, you want to let the heritage shine.
If one could make something work here, the tower needs to be pushed further away from the park, but also further back, this, of course, would require the purchase of additional properties not within the assembly. (or LDAs)
The (proposed) building pretty much goes to the rear lot line, with the tower set-in 10M specifically to allow for a tower to the north, with similar provisions to the east.
They are hamstrung by an assumption they must facilitate the development of others, where I don't think they can deliver a particularly good building here, and preserve the same ability for every abutting property.
The retained portions of the houses are fragments in an atrium.
Agreed. Though, I think it's fair to ask what the purpose of the heritage retention is here. If the purpose is simply about creating a visually appealing base building, with a heritage-feel...... you don't require a ton of depth for that.
However, this would certainly benefit from more, from at least partial returns, and some level of treatment that might make the heritage appear to be something other than a movie set for the pedestrian walking by.
Also: where is the driveway entrance in these renders?
Good catch!
Clearly it remains a part of the arch. plans, (they need loading anyway) but it is not rendered at all, so far as I can discern. Which impacts both the apparently building, but also the landscape. That's quite misleading!
