Plans for towering new buildings in the Barbican have been significantly scaled back, but is it enough to quell the storm of public outcry?
While a reduction in height is a step forward, a prominent campaign group, the Barbican Quarter Action (BQA), has voiced that these changes offer "no relief".
Let's break down what this means. The original proposal featured two imposing towers. Under the revised plans, the western tower will now stand at 17 storeys, which is still three storeys taller than the existing block it aims to replace. The eastern tower, meanwhile, will remain at its considerable height of 20 storeys above ground level.
The developers claim these adjustments will make a substantial difference in preserving daylight for nearby residents. Homes in Speed House and Cromwell Tower, which are particularly close to the proposed development, are expected to experience significantly less loss of natural light. However, these modifications come at a cost, with the new design offering 5% less office floorspace than initially envisioned.
But here's where it gets controversial... Despite these concessions, the BQA remains unconvinced. A spokesperson for the group stated unequivocally to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): "No, the developer has not listened. Consultation fell on deaf ears, as these revisions demonstrate."
They further elaborated that the trimming of the western tower is merely a "token gesture that brings no relief", asserting that the building will still negatively impact the area by "steal[ing] light and privacy".
And this is the part most people miss... The BQA points to other successful developments in the vicinity of the Barbican, such as London Wall Place by MAKE and 88 Wood Street by the renowned Richard Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners. These projects, they argue, serve as powerful examples that "profitability and respectful, proud and civic architecture can go hand in hand."
The group's sentiment is clear: "Here at 1 Silk Street, it is obvious that developer and architect have lost that last bit of ambition and appreciation they had for the building, site, and context from the outset." The BQA expressed their hope that the design team would be "sent back to the drawing board" entirely.
This situation raises a crucial question for the community: When development plans face significant public opposition, how much compromise is truly enough? Do you believe these revised plans adequately address the concerns of local residents, or is the BQA right to feel their voices haven't been heard? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
