Q1: What do you think of the design of the buildings above?

Negative

Q2: Tell us more

The project appears to have lost its way.

Q3: Do you have any comments on these design codes? Is there anything else we should include?

The Landscape Is Leading But The Buildings Aren’t Following: . Despite great talent assembled, bold intentions declared and hard graft endured - all duly acknowledged - these phase one images are indicative of an ideological shift and a retreat to a default position. Rather than evoke a spirit of bold adventure, they speak of resignation in the face of conflicting planning policies, political tensions, and the scheme’s lack of confidence in its own viability. . So it’s falling short of not only the ambitions of a London Opportunity Area, but of the aspirations of a Clean and Climate Tech hub in the global context of the Climate Emergency. In basic terms, it’s not doing what it says on the tin. What’s most concerning is that in many respects it’s not even close. . It’s Drifting With The Currents: . Broad public engagement, along with Local Councillors, Members of Parliament, Planning Departments, Residents Associations, Conservation Societies and a litany of stakeholders, can be of immense service to great design. Equally the confusion, tension, oppositions and contradictions can do the process a disservice, resulting in a figurative dog’s dinner. The impression is that this is what has happened. . The clarity of the ambition to create a Clean and Climate Tech hub is visionary, timely and one of the boldest developer mission statements of our time. But it is not featured in any policy document. If it is to carry any weight in planning and design conversations it needs to be. . The statement came after RBKC’s Placemaking Framework engagement had concluded, and it has so far not been inserted in the New Local Plan Review. Pushing its implementation into a later phase by designating the West Kensington character area as the focus of the Climate hub means that the phase one buildings might not have this mission coded wholeheartedly into their DNA. . There is a concern that this bold mission, as sincere as it is, could be relegated to the status of the empty rhetoric of a marketing campaign. If Clean and Climate tech hub is where we’re going, then this must be hard-wired into the journey of the design and delivery process. Do Coding Before Drawing: . It’s understood that the CGI drawings are only illustrative. Even so, they should express the aspiration of that mission statement, but they do not. . The design codes are also only examples and works in progress. But they too should lay down the rules that align with that mission statement. Not all of them do. . So the opportunity to view and comment on the design codes themselves is received with sincere appreciation. It enables the conversation to extend beyond illustrations of designs to the codes that underwrite them. However, judging by a few, there is a sense that the design codes were written retrospectively to justify an illustration. If so, this would be a cart-before-the-horse strategy and could lead to problematic interpretations, or designs that will not align with the Clean and Climate Tech hub mission. Such an outcome would be disappointing and must be avoided. . Suggested Design Codes: . SITEWIDE CODE: All buildings and urban planning MUST demonstrate alignment with the mission to deliver a Clean and Climate Tech hub and associated ethos, principles and state-of-the-art solutions. They MUST be optimised in all facets of their design, building, operation, program and occupier activities. . SITEWIDE CODE: All materials, their provenance, processes and construction methods and their environmental impacts MUST be calculated thoroughly and holistically. [To calculate not only initial environmental impacts but take into account projected lifespan, maintenance, repair and replacement strategies. For example, local sourcing of materials may or may not be the optimal choice and would depend on multiple considerations] . SITEWIDE CODE Studies of context that inform building design MUST include local green spaces. [To ensure that the interpretation of placemaking and response to context includes provision of green open space but also includes the greening of buildings, such as by planted terraces or vertical planting, even if this is not a common local building typology] . SITEWIDE CODE: Buildings MUST optimise their contribution to Green Infrastructure. They SHOULD maximise Urban Greening Factor irrespective of targets met on their behalf by sitewide ground level landscaping. Buildings COULD provide for low/no maintenance wild growth, for example mosses and ivies through choice of facade material and texture. Buildings SHOULD be designed to support biodiversity. Buildings COULD be designed to support local food growing. . SITEWIDE CODE: Designs COULD be inspired by local vernacular but MUST consider the principles from which past styles emerged. Continuation or discontinuation of all or part of these historic manifestos and their manifestation MUST be justified with relevant rationale. [To discourage inappropriate or anachronistic pastiche, and encourage critical and innovative design] . SITEWIDE CODE: The tops of buildings MUST coalesce to read as a single coherent entity in relation to all significant viewpoints from the surrounding area as an extension of the landscape-led concept at ground level. The buildings’ tops MUST individually and collectively demonstrate the sitewide mission to mitigate climate change. [Vertical unification as a concept can be challenged - Policy D9 in the London Plan is overly prescriptive and therefore problematic, the notion of a building crown, equally so] . SITEWIDE CODE: Buildings, regardless of their character area, MUST demonstrate alignment with the Climate and Clean Tech vision principles of the scheme overall. Distinctions between them, whether through programs or character area, SHOULD reveal themselves within the site but MUST be harmoniously balanced with this overarching vision. [To ensure that the scheme is coherent and iconic overall, while allowing for a variety of iconic parts] . SITEWIDE CODE: Space for nighttime activities of the site MUST be provided so as to minimise light and noise pollution. [To have regard for urban wildlife and residents] . SITEWIDE CODE: To demonstrate the sitewide commitment to inclusivity, some buildings MUST provide publicly accessible roof gardens, conservatories and observation decks, including relevant mechanical means of access. These public access elements MUST contribute to liveability, by having regard to beauty with consideration for the emotive qualities of urban design and architecture as a function to be fulfilled. [Beauty, as defined by the Living with Beauty report, by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission (2020), “includes everything that promotes a healthy and happy life, everything that makes a collection of buildings into a place”] . EMPRESS PLACE CODE: Empress Approach, situated between the Empress State Building and the Empress podium, MUST provide a designated route for pedestrians and cyclists from Lillie Road to Lillie Sidings Square. This route MUST ensure access is not prevented by servicing and delivery vehicle traffic. [To prevent a service-only alleyway] . THE TABLE CODE: The winding route of the Cascades MUST be inclusive, accessible and allow for assisted mobility, but be pedestrian-only, without bicycles, skateboards, skaters, scooters or similar modes. [To enable the Cascades to function as a place for dwelling, recreation and play] IMAGES: Kyoto Garden, Holland Park and Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain, Hyde Park

Q4: We are showing how construction traffic could potentially get to the site (map above). Do you have any comments?

No

Q5: Do you have any other comments?

For background to the comments above please refer to previous contributions: . https://ecdc.commonplace.is/contributions/645fe44db50ee40025750470 https://ecdc.commonplace.is/contributions/645e5e2ab50ee4002574ffd4 https://ecdc.commonplace.is/contributions/65982c257feb4c0008f2ed2a . As always, with thanks to and admiration for the design, developer and engagement teams.

Q1: What do you think of the design of the buildings above?

Negative

Q2: Tell us more

Too high rise, looks like council flats towers

Q3: Do you have any comments on these design codes? Is there anything else we should include?

Smaller buildings, why do you have to build that high in such a beautiful area, there is a lack of parks as well, but if you have massive towers around parks, no one will come and it will attract drug users. We need shops as well.

Q4: We are showing how construction traffic could potentially get to the site (map above). Do you have any comments?

Not sure why it has to be a no car zone, it will just put terrible traffic on Warwick road.

Q5: Do you have any other comments?

Just do 4-5 storey building with parks and shops. Communities will not meet with high towers. Look at some part of Fulham in front of Norman park, we don’t want that please.

Q1: What do you think of the design of the buildings above?

Negative

Q2: Tell us more

no high rises building please, it will destroy the architectural cohesion of our beautiful historical buildings

Q3: Do you have any comments on these design codes? Is there anything else we should include?

cycle lanes

Q1: What do you think of the design of the buildings above?

Neutral

Q2: Tell us more

Not enough Green spaces there should be a vertical and horizontal column of greenery

Q3: Do you have any comments on these design codes? Is there anything else we should include?

Green canopies

Q1: What do you think of the design of the buildings above?

Negative

Q2: Tell us more

The buildings a more too tall and generally ugly, not respecting the local heritage of the wider area. The height of the buildings will have a detrimental impact on light afforded to neighbouring areas. I would prefer to see a mid/rise approach across the whole site and reduce the number of towers.

Q3: Do you have any comments on these design codes? Is there anything else we should include?

Create streets, not blocks. Materials - use brick. Tall buildings - give an interesting profile - not just a square tower.

Q4: We are showing how construction traffic could potentially get to the site (map above). Do you have any comments?

-

Q5: Do you have any other comments?

Please reduce the height of the tallest buildings and increase the height of the lowest to enable a mid-rise approach across the site. This will lead to the best life outcomes for all.