Greenwich Peninsula Hotel

Greenwich

Development of a 21-storey hotel and a 23-storey building with serviced residential apartments. Designed by Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands.

We also reviewed this scheme on 16 April 2010.

Summary

The development of this constrained site presents many challenges, not least that of building in such proximity to the O2 Dome. In our view, this proposal resolves these in a more convincing fashion than the consented scheme for the site. We welcome the logical organisation of the site. We also support the orthogonal planning and deconstructed form of the hotel and ballroom building. However, there are three areas which we think would benefit from further consideration. These relate to the position and orientation of the serviced apartment building, the architectural expression of the buildings and how they will be read against the O2 Dome, and the approach to landscape. Subject to a re-evaluation of these aspects of the project, we think the proposal could develop into a fitting neighbour for the O2 Dome. We are confident that the architects will rise to this challenge to produce a scheme worthy of the aspirations of Greenwich. We would ask that the points raised in this letter are addressed before planning permission is granted.

Site strategy

We recognise the significant challenges associated with developing this constrained site on the Greenwich Peninsula adjacent to the O2 Dome. The explanation of the development options for the site in the planning application is helpful in understanding the logic for the plan presented. Whilst we acknowledge that the approved masterplan for the peninsula respected the curve of the dome, the design team make a good case for adopting a strong orthogonal arrangement for the hotel and ballroom. It also puts a convincing case forward for buildings of the height proposed, which we note are lower than the consented hotel for the site.

However, we are not convinced by the positioning of the serviced apartment block in relation to the hotel and ballroom. We understand the logic for physically linking the two buildings and we support the desire for the apartment block to have its own identity. Nevertheless, the inflected position of the apartment block still appears to be determined by the site boundary at the narrowest part of the site, rather than being a response to wider townscape considerations, including views of the O2 Dome. As a composition, the buildings sit uncomfortably alongside each other, particularly in distant views; the conflicting geometry of the apartment block sets it apart from its neighbour, giving a sense of a fractured family of buildings rather than a cohesive grouping. Whilst the deconstructed form of the hotel and ballroom block firmly roots it to its context, lending it something of the scale of the Docklands mills, the apartment building appears aloof and disconnected.

The residents’ garden seems squeezed and detached from the building. This condition is reinforced by the tower’s inactive ground floor which also fails to consider the potential neutralising effect on the adjoining swathe of landscape to the north. Therefore, we urge the design team to consider how a more orthogonal alignment to the building can be achieved.

Architectural expression

We welcome the design team’s efforts to ensure that the buildings reflect more of the spirit that the O2 Dome has brought to this end of the peninsula. However, whilst the detail presented in the façade strategy for each of the blocks proposed suggests a potentially elegant demeanour for the architecture, this will rely heavily on the material quality of the gold and silver aluminium panels and fins. Whilst their reflective quality could work well to mirror the river and the Dome, the exact tone and shine to the cladding will dictate whether the buildings have a more corporate or playful character. There could also be more nuance to the expression of the façades to distinguish between the hotel and ballroom as public buildings and the apartment block as a private residence. For example, one might expect the apartment tower to express the winter gardens at its corners and for the building to adopt a different metallic quality from its neighbours. This would help strengthen the buildings’ individual identities whilst preserving their familial relationship.

In our view, the elevations could also work harder to respond to orientation. For example, whilst we understand the desire to maintain an openness to the ballroom’s south and west-facing elevations we are concerned that this necessitates a fully sealed and air conditioned box to moderate the internal environment. Finally, the buildings have the potential to be just as striking at night as in the day so we would recommend that the design team produce night time views of the development to illustrate how they will be seen after dark.

Landscape and public realm strategy

We welcome the design team’s commitment to providing a high quality landscape for this scheme. One can observe a clear logic to the site organisation in the consolidation of the service zone alongside the Dome’s and in the provision of an efficient drop-off arrangement for the hotel. There is a considered approach to the relationship of the public buildings to the landscape and how these should shape the character and life of the public spaces across the site. For example, we support the proposal for a pavilion building fronting the programmable events space. We also welcome the transition from the formal landscape fronting the buildings to a softer, more riverine and ecology-focussed landscape closer to the water. However, we think there is scope to provide more opportunities for shelter in this exposed environment, perhaps tying in with informal and organised activities for visitors at the water’s edge. This would help give a sense of enjoyment and celebration to this riverside park at the end of the peninsula. We understand that responsibility for the management and maintenance of the public realm will lie with the hotel operator; at the appropriate time the local authority may wish to condition this.

We welcome the provision of a roof terrace to the ballroom but its diminutive size will limit the number of guests able to enjoy epic views across the river; we would encourage more of the roof space to be opened up to create more generous terraces.

Ultimately the success of this development will be dependent on the quality of materials and detailing in the architecture and landscape. These need to be of the highest quality to realise the aspirations of the scheme design. We suggest the local planning authority condition materials and details to ensure design quality is maintained

Sustainability

In our view, this development has the potential to achieve higher environmental targets than those proposed if the façade strategy were to be developed further, as described above. However, we support the proposal to link the CHP system to that of the O2 Dome and the provision to connect to the wider energy network for the Greenwich Peninsula when the masterplan is more fully built out.