| Topic: | Re:Re:Putney Exchange/Planning Application 2011/5639 | |
| Posted by: | Roland Gilmore | |
| Date/Time: | 25/01/12 13:22:00 |
| "Policy TBE1 requires new development to physically integrate with its surroundings." It seems that this is the designers 2nd attempt at designing the frontage since WBC planners didn't like their 1st attempt. I don't see how the design can be said to "integrate" when it is in such stark contrast. The position of columns in the fenestration does not mean the facade as a whole integrates as the designer claims. Having scanned the plans and documents, this isn't only about incorporating the two adjacent shops into the Exchange (possibly for M&S to move into). They will effectively be increasing retail space by about a third. Unfortunately, this includes blocking in roof lights and that can hardly be said to enhance the experience of shopping in the Exchange compared to the current feeling of airiness. Detaching shoppers from the outside world as determined by retail psychology to be good for business may actually end up making the Exchange a less attractive to shop. More retail space requires more parking provision and as pointed out earlier, queuing cars in Lacy Road, sometimes backing up into PHS does not reduce emmissions. Not everyone wants to carry their shopping home on a bicycle. The aim is to reduce harmful emmissions, not to reduce traffic which would be an impossible task. One other point that struck me while considering this is the name. "Putney Exchange" does not imply a shopping mall behind the facade. Time for a change? The impressions of the completed facade (Document CGIS) indicates the intention that much of the glass would be used as a front for advertising posters. Attention grabbing perhaps but desireable; I'm not so sure. |