The Gehry Towers, Let's make it happen!

[Rangdo]

Sorry, is that supposed to be encouraging us to be for or against?

 

[house your seagull]

typical hove attitude towards progress!

hove is a tumour on brighton, always has been.

i overheard some prick the other day who lived in hove and said it was really much nicer than brighton, plus the guardian did a feature on how rough brighton was compared to hove.

absolute b*llocks.

the only nice buildings in hove are the ones that spill out from western road down to the seafront. hove is as much a dump as brighton...more so infact.

i went to school and college in hove and it's a shit hole full of tory voting middleclass stereotypes.

what was the last decent regeneration in the city? the library which took 10 years to build, the seafront work in the mid-90's.

essentially, if the towers get built it will put hove on the map again 'cos let's face it, people only went there for the goldstone ground.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I find the anti- Gehry posters rather hypocritical. At lot of their arguments have a striking similarity to the Falmer nimbies.

Anyway why's everyone getting so worked up, the speed decisions get made in this city global warming will have flooded Hove by then.

 

[chip]

I find the anti- Gehry posters rather hypocritical. At lot of their arguments have a striking similarity to the Falmer nimbies.

Anyway why's everyone getting so worked up, the speed decisions get made in this city global warming will have flooded Hove by then.

In what way?

This is an entirely different proposition. The environmental impact and usage are completely different, the building substrate, construction, materials bear no resembalence to Falmer. The provision for traffic and pedestrian movements are in no way similar. Location and impact during construction don't come close. The section 106 would cover many other things like library, public spaces, schools etc. that are not an issue for Falmer. In short, the only thing in common is that they are both buildings.

It would also have an impact along miles of the Sussex coast - I might even be able to see it from the Trundle and that would be ridiculous.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No, but the basis of the arguements against are the same i.e. unfounded and ill-informed. Folk tend to use emotive language in lieu of a logical arguement.

I've chatted to the 'No Towers' brigade on George Street. Some of the arguements against are utterly bizarre. If I didn't know better I'd say they have been on LSD. One guy who obviously held a lofty position within the group criticised the towers and claimed no sufficient wind testing had been undertaken. He then went on to say that he was worried because the style of the towers could create a vortex which would cause them tumble down. I then asked where this information came from, as he himself had said there was no wind test data, and he simply pointed to a drawing and said "you can tell by the shape of the towers, look." and then twirled his finger about.

 

[ManOnTheRun]

i've made this point on here before, it's one which doesn't seem to have been picked up by either camp, the arguments being either that the towers "look crap" or that they are "fantastic", but what about parking?

I live about 500 metres from the proposed location and think they look wonderful. a true addition to our city.

BUT building something like 1200 flats with only enoughparking for 600 cars is not acceptable. the developers should be obliged to put adequate parking into their plans and only then will i support them.

I'm with you Afters ...

In theory I think it would be amazing to have iconic buildings of this nature in Hove and at The Marina. I just don't understand how they can build them without providing at least one parking space per house/apartment. I'm all for encouraging people to use Public Transport but thinking that most of the perspective buyers won't have a car is just naive ...

 

[Man of Harveys]

I'm with you Afters ...

In theory I think it would be amazing to have iconic buildings of this nature in Hove and at The Marina. I just don't understand how they can build them without providing at least one parking space per house/apartment. I'm all for encouraging people to use Public Transport but thinking that most of the perspective buyers won't have a car is just naive ...

But won't potential inhabitants be aware of that when they buy them? I can't imagine planning permission for something which practically guaranteed putting an extra 1-2000 cars on the seafront in rush hour would have a chance of getting through.

I'm in central Brighton and on the waiting list for a parking permit at the moment and I'm lucky: a new development near me has been designated "car free" (as I think these towers would be) - which means you can't apply for a residents parking permit. But people know that when they buy them and, given how rigorously parking is enforced in Brighton and Hove, they'd have no chance parking in banned areas nearby.

If I didn't like a long waiting list or the prospect of no parking at all, I wouldn't choose a place with restricted parking. I guess they're confident enough that they'll sell them anyway.

 

[ManOnTheRun]

But won't potential inhabitants be aware of that when they buy them? I can't imagine planning permission for something which practically guaranteed putting an extra 1-2000 cars on the seafront in rush hour would have a chance of getting through.

I'm in central Brighton and on the waiting list for a parking permit at the moment and I'm lucky: a new development near me has been designated "car free" (as I think these towers would be) - which means you can't apply for a residents parking permit. But people know that when they buy them and, given how rigorously parking is enforced in Brighton and Hove, they'd have no chance parking in banned areas nearby.

If I didn't like a long waiting list or the prospect of no parking at all, I wouldn't choose a place with restricted parking. I guess they're confident enough that they'll sell them anyway.

Wasn't aware of the 'Car Free' thing, sounds like a good way to control overspill into the surrounding 'Resident Permit Only' areas. I guess they will have to look at improving Public Transport links as well (if it's built).

 

[aftershavedave]

But won't potential inhabitants be aware of that when they buy them? I can't imagine planning permission for something which practically guaranteed putting an extra 1-2000 cars on the seafront in rush hour would have a chance of getting through.

I'm in central Brighton and on the waiting list for a parking permit at the moment and I'm lucky: a new development near me has been designated "car free" (as I think these towers would be) - which means you can't apply for a residents parking permit. But people know that when they buy them and, given how rigorously parking is enforced in Brighton and Hove, they'd have no chance parking in banned areas nearby.

If I didn't like a long waiting list or the prospect of no parking at all, I wouldn't choose a place with restricted parking. I guess they're confident enough that they'll sell them anyway.

doesn't stop people parking all around the neighbouring streets does it?

regarding the numbers i checked these out on the application . sure they'll be able to convince the council that the flats don't have parking FOR NOW but what about in a couple of years time?

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

..........He then went on to say that he was worried because the style of the towers could create a vortex which would cause them tumble down. I then asked where this information came from, as he himself had said there was no wind test data, and he simply pointed to a drawing and said \\\"you can tell by the shape of the towers, look.\\\" and then twirled his finger about.

That\\\'s a LDC argument if ever I heard one

 

[perseus]

Looks like a Crystal Palace by the sea. Is the designer on LSD? Who do you think will be living in them, south Londoners, or people from all over London.

Where are they going to work?

Where are they going to park their cars? (That's why Londoners move down here, so they have somewhere to park their cars.)

What football team will they support?

Do they know about the standard of flying at Shoreham Airport?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

No, but the basis of the arguements against are the same i.e. unfounded and ill-informed. Folk tend to use emotive language in lieu of a logical arguement.

I've chatted to the 'No Towers' brigade on George Street. Some of the arguements against are utterly bizarre. If I didn't know better I'd say they have been on LSD. One guy who obviously held a lofty position within the group criticised the towers and claimed no sufficient wind testing had been undertaken. He then went on to say that he was worried because the style of the towers could create a vortex which would cause them tumble down. I then asked where this information came from, as he himself had said there was no wind test data, and he simply pointed to a drawing and said "you can tell by the shape of the towers, look." and then twirled his finger about.

Err no Mr No Towers, we engineers don't base our design decisions by 'looking' at the shape, we run sophisticated computer models and then follow up the results with extensive wind tunnel testing.

However I would be worried that they might make a prime target for an 9/11 style attack.