A public exhibition showing the University of Greenwich’s plans for the run down site in Stockwell Street begins today.
The exhibitions opens to the public today at 5pm at Queen Mary Court and will be open every day up until the 9th July.
The University proposes replacing the existing 60s office building, John Humpreys House, with a brand new library and School of Architecture, which would be moved from its current site in Avery Hill.
The redevelopment would open up a new public walkway between Stockwell Street and King William Walk and include a gallery and cafe for the community at ground level.
The University is keen to receive feedback on the proposals so visitors to the exhibition are encouraged to submit their own thoughts and ideas using either paper-based forms or computer terminals which have been set up in the exhibition room. For details on the exhibition’s opening hours, visit the dedicated website.
Updated – 06/07/2010
Nick Raynsford MP has told Greenwich.co.uk that he believes the proposed new development is “a good scheme” that is “high quality” in terms of architecture.
He does, however, think that the designers “need to have a further look at making a decent public space” at the main entrance as he thinks the proposed approach and entrance looks “rather mean and disappointing”.
I asked Mr Raysnford if a larger public space should incorporate a resurrected Village Market as some critics have asked for, but he said that as Greenwich was already served by the covered market and Clocktower Market, he was “not convinced that there needs to be an additional market” at the Stockwell Street site.
—
The following official artwork from the proposals has been supplied by the University of Greenwich.
Looking forward to seeing this in detail.
Remember, this was always a space that belonged to Greenwich residents, and its visitors. Many a relationship was hatched, or a treasured piece of furniture was bought, in this location.
What better way for the University to demonstrate its links with the community than to have, amid the modern buildings, a space that can be used as a market at weekends? To make this a place that has character, texture – and REALLY engages with people?
Agreed. My main worry is the lack of access and amenity for local people. We are losing a market and gaining what? The opportunity to gaze at the exterior of a huge, mediocre office block.
I think the University is letting the residents of Greenwich down badly. Even a commercial developer would have paid lip-service to the idea of some open space for locals, but with the arrogant, unaccountable University we aren’t even being offered that.
Couple this with news from the Greenwich Phantom that Greenwich Hospital is trying to sneak its plans to rape the covered market through the back door without due democratic process, and it looks like a black day for our town.
Come on Greenwich Society, stop worrying about your garden parties and help save our town!
Yes, like the architects worst nightmare, Greenwich Hospital are back!
Laughing in the face of public opinion and sneering at the resident who dares hope that Greenwich can retain some of it’s charm and character our own personal Godzilla returns to turn the thriving market into a hotel.
We already have the ‘Heart of Greenwich’ (yes, that long empty patch of weeds that was once the Hospital) but Greenwich Hospital are here to tempt us with their latest money spinning plans.
“Get rid of that pesky market that doesn’t generate us enough income and replace it with a boutique hotel.. Yes, we know that boutique Hotels are usually pleasing aesthetically but we couldn’t be bothered with that and just stole the plans from Stratford Bus Station. Architects? Schmaritects. Why bother paying for sympathetic design when we have our army of robotic drones to support the project? Powered by just a few vague promises of business to come their way in the future these drones will tell the public just how foolish they are to believe that they can stand in the way of progress”
Whats so wrong with markets? Why are these people so intent on destroying every sign of them? We have already had Greenwich Uni swoop down and snatch the best market away from the town and now we have Greenwich Hospital back, like the proverbial bad penny, to hold some consultation meetings with the residents.
Hang on a minute! haven’t the residents already said NO? This must be the new style of consultation…ignore what the consultation finds and just keep coming back again and again. When these plans go through (and they will…Nick Raynsford told us that it is what he wants. We can only ponder his rea$ons for this..) the architect should have their names prominently displayed, then at least people will be able to see just who was responsible for that part of this latest disaster in the brave new world of Millennium Greenwich
The University made a great fanfare when it bought the site and hired its (not very experienced?) architects. Expectations were high that they could deliver an inspiring building to complement the marvellous architecture that surrounds the site. But just look at the proposed elevations in the exhibition. Aside from a few post-modern tweaks, from the street it looks like the dreariest of commerical office blocks. It is hugely disappointing. Paul T is also right when he highlights the lack of community access. Why not some form of square or other open space behind the street facade? Otherwise its just a glass fortress (ivory tower?) with no connection with the community.
At the exhibition they said there will be a cafe (as if Greenwich does not have any cafes). But otherwise, its just two fingers up to the local community who are paying for all this, directly or indirectly, through their taxes. They have stolen our market, and are giving us nothing in return.
Couple of things, just to get the hysterics to kettle-boiling, only-dogs-can hear-you-now point…
The Stockwell Street site was not “always a space that belonged to Greenwich residents, and its visitors.” It’s private land.
The market was only there for 20 years or so and it was a (private) car park during the week – that doesn’t give the local community right to access.
The University didn’t “steal our market” – it wasn’t “ours” to steal.
The local community isn’t paying for this out of our taxes – the University is
.
The designs for the new building are very dull and ugly and I sincerely hope that the architects will alter them after their weekend consultation, although if I had been forced to listen to the righteous wailing and gnashing of teeth of some of the local community for an entire weekend I’d push through the original design just to get my own back…
Fair point… that land didn’t belong to us, it belonged to the council, as John Humphries House, which is not quite the same thing.
If it’s a modern steel and glass edifice, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it’s not the cheap developer brieze-block-modernism we’ve grown accustomed to on Creek Rd etc – what they have on show is already better than the nasty pastiche scheme the previous developer floated. But if we could get a courtyard within used as a market at weekends, it would add much-need informality to their design, and could be an easy win for them.
I’m sorry but precedent, amenity and access DO count in planning applications which is why the private developers who attempted to develop this site did offer some open space for the public. I don’t see why we should apply lower community standards to a University than we would to a private developer. There was a market there for 20 years, it is being removed, and it a clear amenity loss to the community that it is not being offset in any way. At the exhibition University officials had NO answer to this point and are clearly starting to feel on the backfoot. So let’s all keep nagging them and we might get a better design, more open to the community and better integrated with the existing townscape. This is shaping up to be a good debate. Can we leave out the personal remarks?
Wolfe says: “The local community isn’t paying for this out of our taxes – the University is.” So the University doesn’t get any money from taxpayers? Pull the other one.
“There was a market there for 20 years, it is being removed”
That implies the present tense . In fact the market closed over a year ago. It is a dead market. This is an ex market! To resurrect the market as it was wouldn’t just be a case of making space for some stalls, you would also need vehicle access for the traders. Nearly all of them took cars or vans to the Village Market and had lockup facilities there.
The “access” you mention was for two days a week only. There’s probably a stronger case for forcing them to keep a car park there since that was used more often. And even if space was found for a market, it wouldn’t be the same market. So as it would be a new market, why not just find somewhere new for it if there’s demand for a market? How about a local school playground since they aren’t in use at the times the Village Market was on?
“A local school playground”. Do you even live in the area? There’s St Alfege down Creek Road, and James Wolfe, off Randall Place. Hardly in the town centre.
Greenwich needs those vital, off-kilter places, to buy books, junk, antiques, the kind of things that have drawn tourists and visitors here for decades. Yes, some of the old traders had lock-ups, plenty of them could carry their stuff in on a wheelbarrow. Many of those who sell second-hand stuff in the covered market on a THursday would move to Stockwell St at the weekend if they could.
If we build it, they will come.
If you are following the comments on this post, you may be interested to know I have just updated the main article with the response of Nick Raynsford MP.
After seeing the plans and spoken to people at the consultation I have to admit I am disappointed that the proposals for the School of Architecture (surely an architect’s dream project, even in a World Heritage site) are so vanilla: I was certainly hoping for more. My guess is that in 20 years or so we’ll be looking back at the Humphreys building fondly, in comparison. Oh well.
At least it’s better than the plans for the apartments which were to go in there before the economy went south. Thank heavens for small mercies.
For those complaining about the lack of a market, which has been gone for a year now, there are possibilities within the plans as there is to be a walkway along the railway line between Stockwell St and King William Walk: it’s possible that traders could potentially set up stalls along there.
The University has also said that they are open to closing over the railway line to provide space, which would be ideal for a market / square. The only problem is that they don’t own that land: I imagine Network Rail own it? For those looking for a public space, this is worth investigating and petitioning for.
I don’t think the University has released anything about its plans for the archeology of the site (I am happy to be corrected if they have). So I thought I would ask though this forum: What are the University’s intentions to investigate, record and, if neccesary, preserve the archeology of the site? Many residents will recall that there are some Roman remains underneath John Humphries House. Comprehensive development of pretty much every square inch of the site surely creates an unrepeatable opportunity to investigate its past. I would be very grateful if the University could provide some information on this.
And the response from our MP who is honorary vice chairman of the Construction Industry Council is……………more construction!
For a little bit of information about the archeology, you might like to see our recent release on the current preparatory works:
http://www.gre.ac.uk/stockwell-street/articles/university-starts-to-prepare-stockwell-street-site
I will look to see what further information I can get for you.
Best wishes
Caron Jones, Head of Public Relations, University of Greenwich
Thanks for the info on the archeology. Be interesting to see what you find under there.