City Pride development could be 75 storeys

By Rob Virtue on January 7, 2013 11:17 AM |


The proposed City Pride development could be the second tallest tower in the UK behind The Shard.

Plans for the Isle of Dogs site have been submitted to Tower Hamlets Council's planning committee for the building which would rise to 75 storeys if it receives the go-ahead.

However, despite being a bigger structure it may still not be as high as One Canada Square.

While City Pride would be 239 metres above sea level, Canary Wharf Group claims its centrepiece is five metres higher - despite being only 50 floors.

This is because the 1990 structure was built on ground above sea level.

The proposed development, which is being put forward by Chalegrove Properties Limited, is on the site of the former City Pride pub at Westferry Road.

As well as 860 residential units and 84 serviced apartments, the plans include amenity floors, a roof terrace and basement car parking.

The site was previously owned by Irish firm Glenkerrin which received permission for a 62 storey tower on it back in 2009.

However, those plans were scrapped when the developer ran into financial trouble in 2011.

The pub, opened in the 50's, was closed in March last year by the site's new owners.

Chalegrove, which bought the area from administrators, has also submitted plans for nearby Island Point at 443-451 Westferry Road. This is for buildings of three to six storeys, with 173 residential units.


Nick said:

Hmmm, surely its height from the base of the tower rather than height above sea level?

Ellis said:

860 units! The area ia already at capacity! I don't suppose they will be providing any family housing or open space (aside from the roof terrace - I can only presume this will not be publicly accessible or on top of the 75th storey!)

I can't imagine there will be many shocked faces around here if Tower Hamlets approve this travesty.

Anna said:

I don't think anyone living on the Isle wants yet another stupidly tall residential tower. Greedy developers: please stop trying to build all this tat around here.

Max said:

This is a high-rise area and buildings like this should continue to be built around here. I support the proposal. Those who want to live in villages should relocate to Greenwich, Muswell Hill etc.

Ellis said:

Max, I can only assume you have a good handle on the social infrastructure needs and the capacity of the Isle of Dogs. I too am in favour of urban development, be it high rise or otherwise, but the fact of the matter is these tower developments (when built in isolation, like the proposal) offer little in the way of necessary uses to support new and existing residents and fail to offer a good balance and mix of unit sizes to encourage a range of people (which includes families) to live in the area.

Max said:

I think there is already permission for 61-storey tower, so it is not like we are choosing between a school and a skyscraper there. Yes, there is a need for social infrastructure but not at the expense of construction of high-rises. It should be dealt with like in any other modern city and if TH people don't know how they should pay a visit to NY, Chicago, HK, Dubai etc. I firmly believe that CW should continue with building high-rises as big as they can and the council should do their job and cater for the increasing needs. Rejecting the construction proposal is a lazy and counter-productive solution for this area.

Ellis said:

Unlike NY, Chicago, HK and Dubai - Canary Wharf is not a city in it's own right, so therefore is not planned like one, to it's own detriment probably. A great deal of the high rise that you refer to within these cities aren't infact residential, as this proposal is, which means they have different types/ levels of impact.

As far as how each respective planning department deals with proposals like this, most development plots are governed by a wider masterplans which prescribes the density, use, open space in order to manage the over impact of development to ensure it is balanaced - this is something that Canary Wharf and Tower Hamlets does not have - or if they do, they don't appear to be using it.

You're right in stating that Tower Hamlets should be responsible for managing developments, but lets not pretend that stacking up heaps more residential, just for the glory of it is ever going to benefit anyone aside from the developer in the short term and no one else in the long term, least of all existing/new/future residents.

Max said:

Please, 75-st. resi are as commonplace in the cities I mentioned as 20-st. in London. The skyline, the modern megapolis feel is what's attracting people to this area. Highrises like this add further to the appeal. Imagine going out of the tunnel and facing this and Riverside South. More tourists, more restraurants, cafes, nightclubs etc. The council will have to find ways to satisfy social infrastructure needs. If they can't we need another council instead of stumping on the very things that made this area famous.

tony said:

I agree with Max. Build the residential, get higher occupancy and then businesses will come! If you want pretty parks and tourist attractions then Greenwich or west London are your places. Where else in London do they have the opportunity to build high rise like the countries mentioned apart from here? This will benefit everyone who lives here in the longer term and is already having an affect with the cross rail adding to the already amazing links we have. It will be a city within a city and will attract overseas investment which is exactly what our economy needs.

Concerned Resident said:

Tony, I suspect Crossrail has more to do with the businesses at Canary Wharf than residential developments especially as for many the DLR will remain the bottleneck.