Hermes - Major proposed development

[OLDMAN]

One of the blocks I think is 24 storeys in height. Would that make it higher than Thames Tower and The Blade?

Thames Tower - 14 floors @ 180ft
The Blade -14 floors (12 above ground) @ 282ft (to the point)

[OLDMAN]

Just been reading through all the links and noticed a couple of items - the Hermes link states -

The land does not include the Station Retail Park where TGI Friday, Mothercare, Aldi, Majestic Wine Warehouse and The Range are housed.

The planning stuff shows its the land where the PO place is now and shows TGI etc. as all still being there - however the artists impression shows all that as new buildings, but not part of this development?

And yes TGI is still open and very well used

[D6equj5]

Ash:

A library, art gallery, cultural centre, or bowling alley could be incorporated somewhere in these new developments, without really needing to reduce the number of residential units they plan to build.

Sadly RBC are running down the towns libraries as they don't see their benefit over the cost of providing them. They are currently seeking to reduce staff and space so the branch libraries will be single staffed. They have already installed automatic Issue and Return kiosks but they have completely and blindly missed the need for staff helping and advising library users and the immense resources they hold and provide. These resources are currently being sold off to reduce the space required. Our town history and heart are being rapidly erroded by the council finance department. Days every week there are notices at the main library telling us a floor is closed due to insufficient staff.
A sad endictment of society today.

[bobby1413]

One of the blocks I think is 24 storeys in height. Would that make it higher than Thames Tower and The Blade?

Thames Tower - 14 floors @ 180ft
The Blade -14 floors (12 above ground) @ 282ft (to the point)

But do you know how height the new proposed 24 storey is? I can't see that detailed on the plans

Actually page 6 of the plans shows about 6 other buildings which are labelled as being taller than the proposed plans. Quite surprised by that, not sure if that's even correct

[Pooneil]

My main takeaway from this discussion is there seems to be an unspecified minimum "length of service" for your opinion of Reading to be valid.

I've lived here 17 years, but I am predated by the Oracle so I expect I don't know what it was like in the good old days.

Opinions differ. I, too, have only lived in Reading for 17 years, but as a frequent visitor to the town since the mid-80s I found the area where the Oracle now is to be a bit of a dump in the pre-Oracle days. Others may feel differently, and some would certainly have it that the place was a veritable Shangri-La in the 1960s, an opinion that I'm in no position to gainsay. And whilst I appreciate that the town planners haven't always done a great job with their machinations (a state of affairs very definitely not unique to Reading), if we wanted to keep things the way they were we'd all be living in draughty stone keeps or smell wattle-and-daub huts, depending upon our social standing. I'm minded to think that if the town was so jolly wonderful before then all the long-term residents would have campaigned against change and in favour of preservation orders...

No objection to blocks of flats - Reading's main challenge is the narrow streets which make it hard to absorb the extra population. If Reading was being built today it wouldn't have it's current layout.

Personally I think provision for a school or additional school places elsewhere should be part of this project.

Yes, the luck of Reading in avoiding significant WWII bomb damage did rule out the opportunity for a significant re-planning of the town centre, although it's arguable that even a 1950s replanning wouldn't have been great for a 21st large conurbation.
And I think everyone agrees that any further town centre development entailing a significant number of new residences needs to be accompanied by appropriate infrastructure developments.

[OLDMAN]

One of the blocks I think is 24 storeys in height. Would that make it higher than Thames Tower and The Blade?

Thames Tower - 14 floors @ 180ft
The Blade -14 floors (12 above ground) @ 282ft (to the point)

But do you know how height the new proposed 24 storey is? I can't see that detailed on the plans

Actually page 6 of the plans shows about 6 other buildings which are labelled as being taller than the proposed plans. Quite surprised by that, not sure if that's even correct

Can't find it myself but using a building calculator it comes out about 340-350ft

[piwacket]

if we wanted to keep things the way they were we'd all be living in draughty stone keeps or smell wattle-and-daub huts, depending upon our social standing. I'm minded to think that if the town was so jolly wonderful before then all the long-term residents would have campaigned against change and in favour of preservation orders...

Ha - a rather extreme summary Poo
As a ''long term resident'' - I can assure you that a lot of campaigning did happen - but as with most campaigns opposed to a bureaucratic body - it's a case of ''you can't beat City hall''!

.....Yes, the luck of Reading in avoiding significant WWII bomb damage did rule out the opportunity for a significant re-planning of the town centre, although it's arguable that even a 1950s replanning wouldn't have been great for a 21st large conurbation.

True, large swathes of Reading Town weren't obliterated (and the residents killed or maimed) which was actually rather fortunate and not something to be regretted from a planning perspective surely. Nevertheless, what is consistently overlooked IMO is that Reading was a regarded as a large 'market'' town -; fairly well contained within the town centre - narrow winding streets by today's standards and requirements. And on those streets a huge load has been dumped and they don't cope, despite efforts with No Entries and One-Ways, it is still a Vortex, where a couple of RTAs and it all comes to a standstill! No Reading wasn't a Shangri-La, but it was a pleasant ''market''town. Hindsight and/or Foresight has been, and continues I feel, to be sadly absent from the Planning over decades. It's been a constant case of ''sticking plaster'' efforts to resolve it which hasn't worked! The lack of Foresight was shown in not building a by-pass around the town when the opportunity was there.

And I think everyone agrees that any further town centre development entailing a significant number of new residences needs to be accompanied by appropriate infrastructure developments.

We may see that - in fact it seems that we all see it - but do the Planners/RBC?
Already GPs surgeries are packed to capacity, NHS Dentists, if you can find one, are closed to newcomers. We have one main general hospital, with appointments weeks ahead, and no way of parking at it - and if the traffic continues to increase at the same rate, little hope of getting there in time for said appointment. As we all know, and Mayfield has highlighted, there's a chronic shortage of school places....

So maybe there should be qualifications for the new occupants of these new developments -
That they don't have any motorised vehicle - they must take out PMI and book with Private dentists and they send any children to Private fee-paying schools?

[windrush]

In the smallish town where we live there are upwards of 500 new homes either under construction now or proposed, a lot of it on land previously declared unsuitable but money talks I reckon. That means around 1000 people at least, only two Doctors surgeries which are already struggling but when asked about the possible new patients both declare "no problem, we will cope easily". The schools are struggling as well, there is no big employer apart from the county council offices but they are laying folk off! Most of these homes are bracketed in the £350000 - £4000000 bracket, certainly not starter homes for this area. Best of all there are a lot of old industrial sites and quarries laying derelict around the town but all these new buildings are going on what have been grazing meadows for as long as folk can remember?

Pete.

[Pooneil]

.....Yes, the luck of Reading in avoiding significant WWII bomb damage did rule out the opportunity for a significant re-planning of the town centre, although it's arguable that even a 1950s replanning wouldn't have been great for a 21st large conurbation.

True, large swathes of Reading Town weren't obliterated (and the residents killed or maimed) which was actually rather fortunate and not something to be regretted from a planning perspective surely. Nevertheless, what is consistently overlooked IMO is that Reading was a regarded as a large 'market'' town -; fairly well contained within the town centre - narrow winding streets by today's standards and requirements. And on those streets a huge load has been dumped and they don't cope, despite efforts with No Entries and One-Ways, it is still a Vortex, where a couple of RTAs and it all comes to a standstill! No Reading wasn't a Shangri-La, but it was a pleasant ''market''town. Hindsight and/or Foresight has been, and continues I feel, to be sadly absent from the Planning over decades. It's been a constant case of ''sticking plaster'' efforts to resolve it which hasn't worked! The lack of Foresight was shown in not building a by-pass around the town when the opportunity was there.

I think that the fact that large swathes of Reading Town weren't obliterated (and the residents killed or maimed) was indeed fortunate from many perspectives and something to be thankful for; it might be regrettable, purely from a planning perspective, because it didn't give a chance for a re-think.

And did Reading fit the mould of a "market town" exactly at that point? Between substantial industry like Huntley & Palmer, Simonds being rather larger than your average "market town" brewery, and Reading being something of a significant railway town, I'd have thought it ceased being solely a market town sometime in the Victorian era.

I would agree that there has been insufficient vision (or finance) to have come up with an overall development plan, and it certainly seems to have been done piecemeal and incrementally with apparently insufficient thought to the greater effects, but as I say, that's hardly a problem unique to Reading.

And I think everyone agrees that any further town centre development entailing a significant number of new residences needs to be accompanied by appropriate infrastructure developments.

We may see that - in fact it seems that we all see it - but do the Planners/RBC?
Already GPs surgeries are packed to capacity, NHS Dentists, if you can find one, are closed to newcomers. We have one main general hospital, with appointments weeks ahead, and no way of parking at it - and if the traffic continues to increase at the same rate, little hope of getting there in time for said appointment. As we all know, and Mayfield has highlighted, there's a chronic shortage of school places....

So maybe there should be qualifications for the new occupants of these new developments -
That they don't have any motorised vehicle - they must take out PMI and book with Private dentists and they send any children to Private fee-paying schools?

You might be able to enforce the motorised vehicle one (but what if I own or rent a garage elsewhere?) but I'm pretty sure we both know that the rest would be booted out of court very quickly. Provision of healthcare and education is enshrined in law; maybe people need to hold the feet of the bodies responsible for providing such to the flames...

[piwacket]

And did Reading fit the mould of a "market town" exactly at that point? Between substantial industry like Huntley & Palmer, Simonds being rather larger than your average "market town" brewery, and Reading being something of a significant railway town, I'd have thought it ceased being solely a market town sometime in the Victorian era.

I would agree that there has been insufficient vision (or finance) to have come up with an overall development plan, and it certainly seems to have been done piecemeal and incrementally with apparently insufficient thought to the greater effects, but as I say, that's hardly a problem unique to Reading.

No not the Victorian era Poo - but certainly in the 1950's early '60s. The town was pleasantly busy with those that worked at H & P, the Railway and the Brewery but it wasn't the manic sort of busy-ness there is now.... the roads coped, housing was largely affordable - at roughly 3x annual income.... and we're not talking any other town and how they cope, just Reading. Geographically, as we all know, Reading is (I could say unfortunately) placed to become almost a satellite of London - but we haven't allowed for it happening.

You might be able to enforce the motorised vehicle one (but what if I own or rent a garage elsewhere?) but I'm pretty sure we both know that the rest would be booted out of court very quickly. Provision of healthcare and education is enshrined in law; maybe people need to hold the feet of the bodies responsible for providing such to the flames...

That last paragraph should have had a 'smilie'' of tongue in cheek! as ever that's the problem with 'humour' in text

Nevertheless, it is of serious concern.

[ReadingT]

Don't see why it's too big - lots of cities have big buildings clustered together when space is at a premium. I kinda think half of the Reading residents and some on here are just stuck behind the times and living in the past.

Reading is not the place it was 30 years ago and it's moved on, it's bigger, it's developing and so is everywhere else.

These are the same people that moan about parking (on behalf of others), moan about empty office space and moan about more flats. Isn't it a good thing that Reading is being developed, people want to live here, investors are coming, companies want to have buildings here.

Thoughtful, well designed worthwhile development. Yes.

Thoughtless, ugly, "stack 'em high" development. No.

[ash]

Ash:

A library, art gallery, cultural centre, or bowling alley could be incorporated somewhere in these new developments, without really needing to reduce the number of residential units they plan to build.

Sadly RBC are running down the towns libraries as they don't see their benefit over the cost of providing them. They are currently seeking to reduce staff and space so the branch libraries will be single staffed. They have already installed automatic Issue and Return kiosks but they have completely and blindly missed the need for staff helping and advising library users and the immense resources they hold and provide. These resources are currently being sold off to reduce the space required. Our town history and heart are being rapidly erroded by the council finance department. Days every week there are notices at the main library telling us a floor is closed due to insufficient staff.
A sad endictment of society today.

I haven't visited Reading Central Library in a while due to living in London, but if this reduction in library service is true, it is indeed very sad for the people who use the library.

The occasions where I used the Central Library, I have always found the staff brilliant and very helpful. From finding relevant books, to helping me log in to the computers.

But if you look at the newer, modern libraries in Wembley (Brent) and Camden, there is investment in these public spaces. And it's not just in London. Take 'The Forum' in Norwich, as an example. There is a very modern library right in the city centre. The 'Curve' in Slough houses a multitude of public facilities.

[dave m]

Problem is that reading's boundaries are quite small. The IDR was a cock up from start to finish but we are stuck with it and should be glad that it got stuck through the 60's &70's or it would have run through the forbury. There isn't anywhere to build a road now without ploughing through hundreds of houses . Meanwhile people would moan about the council doing it and at the same time demand the ability to drive door to door through the middle of broad street

[Mayfield]

To me building these flats and similar developments is like pouring water into the centre of a puddle, it makes the edges spread and that's what must happen in the end....Reading, Caversham, Sonning Common, then Reading , Purley and Pangbourne will all become one despite their different councils....there is already little or no gap between Reading, Early and Woodley.....

[bobby1413]

Problem is that reading's boundaries are quite small. The IDR was a cock up from start to finish but we are stuck with it and should be glad that it got stuck through the 60's &70's or it would have run through the forbury. There isn't anywhere to build a road now without ploughing through hundreds of houses . Meanwhile people would moan about the council doing it and at the same time demand the ability to drive door to door through the middle of broad street

I sometimes think that maybe some parts of the IDR could be build over. For example, the bridge by Oxford Road. You could have extra space by effectively making part of the IDR a tunnel

[OLDMAN]

To me building these flats and similar developments is like pouring water into the centre of a puddle, it makes the edges spread and that's what must happen in the end....Reading, Caversham, Sonning Common, then Reading , Purley and Pangbourne will all become one despite their different councils....there is already little or no gap between Reading, Early and Woodley.....

Yes, that is a problem but in an opposite way - Reading can’t move out any further than the RBC border when allowing planning for houses – and:

There has never been a real ‘gap’ between Earley and Reading – in fact back in time it reached down to Cemetery Junction, and was only incorporated into Reading in 1888 so it could all be linked into the main drainage system

The only real gap then was between Earley and Wokingham – partly filled in by Lower Earley (1977) - which comes under WBC, as does the rest of Earley Town (made a town in 1974)

Woodley is the same – Reading has had houses along the RBC / WBC border since the 1800’s. some up to the 1900’s – however there was a gap between tem after that……….BUT

Its WBC who are slowly advancing towards Reading as they are the ones allowing / pushing for lots of house developments to happen in that ‘gap’

Similarly, towards the South, and that WBC

And it’s the same out to the West – the only real gap is between the Eastern part of WeBC and Newbury – but that all still comes under them

And there is a gap to the North as Oxford is so far away – or are they as the recently turned down plans have shown, to try and build houses right on the edge at Emmer Green just outside RBC border

[OLDMAN]

Problem is that reading's boundaries are quite small. The IDR was a cock up from start to finish but we are stuck with it and should be glad that it got stuck through the 60's &70's or it would have run through the forbury. There isn't anywhere to build a road now without ploughing through hundreds of houses . Meanwhile people would moan about the council doing it and at the same time demand the ability to drive door to door through the middle of broad street

I sometimes think that maybe some parts of the IDR could be build over. For example, the bridge by Oxford Road. You could have extra space by effectively making part of the IDR a tunnel

Oh, no please – not this again

Sorry bobby not getting at you but try looking up the stories / history of – Chatham Place, IDR Decking, One-Way-IDR

LSS -There where plans to deck over by that bridge – only way was to make the IDR 1-way as the slip roads had to go (it’s not tall enough to have them

It didn’t happen as such a stupid scheme and would have involved a huge infrastructure of road change – just imagine the A33 relief rd junction for one!

[dave m]

Actually, decking the IDR isn't a daft idea- although the Chatham street plans were. There is loads of space over certain sections of the IDR to allow decking without completely roofing it in . A simple example is the Oxford road bridge area where either a plain deck could be used or buildings on stilts could frame the bridge, removing the mental barrier of the bridge . How you'd achieve this would be another matter. Cost and road closures would make it pretty hard. But as seen in London, once land values rise, almost anything is tecnically possible .

[bobby1413]

In regards to boundaries, have RBC tried to increase them or change them at all?

E.g. moving the boundary up above Caversham, properly over Earley/Woodley and out past Calcot?

I guess this is a government and local council issue....

[Bob deBilda]

Actually, decking the IDR isn't a daft idea...

In the event of unrest in the west, it's quite easy to blow the bridges and flood the moat to keep the marauding Tilehurst hordes at bay, at least for a while. Decking would make that much more difficult.

Regards
Bob

[MickEdge]

In regards to boundaries, have RBC tried to increase them or change them at all?

E.g. moving the boundary up above Caversham, properly over Earley/Woodley and out past Calcot?

I guess this is a government and local council issue....

Cynically, I'm not sure RBC are keen, as it would dilute the political balance to the right, even if their empire would grow and that city status could become a reality. There's not much chance of borders moving, even though it would make sense to extend them to the edge of the urban region, as local and national politics will always get in the way, well at least for the foreseeable future.

[Ollycat]

One of the blocks I think is 24 storeys in height. Would that make it higher than Thames Tower and The Blade?

Yes...As I dropped off OH yesterday at the station, I counted. Thames Tower is a mere 10 floors above the ground level (which is double height)...and I think Reading Bridge house is maybe 8 or 9?

Which reminded me of the abseiling fund raising opportunities Reading Bridge House are going to lose...

[ReadingBiker]

This is RBC's tall buildings study which identifies Vastern rd as a good location for tall buildings and the constraints re shadowing etc -
it would be this framework anything planned has to meet (it actually looks like a pretty robust bit of guidance to me) http://www.reading.gov.uk/media/2870/Re ... y-0308.pdf

PS I did notice it lists 23 stories as the limit before civil aviation authority clearance is needed for a building so I would guess that is max likely height unless you go really high as no point incurring extra consultation cost for just 1 floor

[ReadingBiker]

No not the Victorian era Poo - but certainly in the 1950's early '60s. The town was pleasantly busy with those that worked at H & P, the Railway and the Brewery but it wasn't the manic sort of busy-ness there is now.... the roads coped, housing was largely affordable - at roughly 3x annual income.... and we're not talking any other town and how they cope, just Reading. Geographically, as we all know, Reading is (I could say unfortunately) placed to become almost a satellite of London - but we haven't allowed for it happening.

I believe this is a bit of rose tinted spectacles talking - I think Windrush is probably best able to comment on what I say next given his past employment but I am led to understand that pre M4 (opened locally in 71 I think) the entire of the A4 from Suttons to Prospect park would quite regularly become totally choked and near stationary especially during the summer when all holiday traffic towards the West had to use it.

[bobby1413]

This is RBC's tall buildings study which identifies Vastern rd as a good location for tall buildings and the constraints re shadowing etc -
it would be this framework anything planned has to meet (it actually looks like a pretty robust bit of guidance to me) http://www.reading.gov.uk/media/2870/Re ... y-0308.pdf

PS I did notice it lists 23 stories as the limit before civil aviation authority clearance is needed for a building so I would guess that is max likely height unless you go really high as no point incurring extra consultation cost for just 1 floor

Good post and an interesting read there. It's refreshing to read that they do seem to want tall buildings to act as landmarks for Reading. I'd love to see 1-2 taller buildings which are architecturally very unique and eye catching. Not saying any current ones are not, but just something different.

I also see (as you mentioned) that the area of this proposed build is in their zone marked as "for tall buildings". So maybe that makes it more likely that RBC will be more inclined to give the green light to the developers.

I still think the planned buildings down by Iceland should be taller, especially the ones that border the IDR/main road

[ReadingBiker]

Iceland site is just out the north of the Western cluster bit in that policy paper - have a look at page 53 and consider what the shadow from tall buildings on the Iceland site would be and how many residential properties it would affect - in various places they mention about graduating the height of buildings within a zone so those on the outside are not as tall as those in the centre, i can not see them allowing a building on the Iceland site to be even as tall as the new ones on Chatham St, let alone taller

for instance -
Tall buildings along the westernmost edge of this cluster could overshadow property in zones A and B throughout the morning hours. This mainly includes property along Chatham Street, Euton Place and Howard Street.

and

In addition, consideration should be given to how proposed tall buildings within this area would be viewed from elevated
positions within the surrounding landscape e.g. Balmore Park and Caversham Park. Tall buildings as viewed from these
locations must meet the following requirements:
Proposed built form must not appear blocky or overpowering.
Spaces must be visible between the buildings;
A visible step down in height must be perceived from the tallest buildings down to the roofline of existing built form

[Bob deBilda]

Who here would like to live in these?

Regards
Bob

[bobby1413]

Who here would like to live in these?

Regards
Bob

Probably very few of us but what does that have to do with it?

Would you like to live in a high rise in central London? It may not fit in with your lifestyle, your family, your own needs, your work. It's probably aimed at younger people or those with no car, but commute into London or work in central Reading.

[ReadingBiker]

Having spoken to some of your "younger people who work in London" they would much prefer a nice little family house so they don't need to move in a few years, but those are outside their price bracket. I doubt many people would out of choice pick a small box on the 10th floor with no garden and parking over a 2 bed house with a small garden and parking space

[OLDMAN]

Most of the people in the blocks were we stayed where al 'short term' renters

Talking to other people it does seem that's more what these high rise places get used for these days - and its all just for profit!

[Fed-up]

As is the aim for any business - to try and maximise profit.

[ReadingBiker]

Yes but we are talking about housing and really the aim of housing should be "to provide long term shelter and accommodation to allow people to fully engage in society" - not "to make developers and speculators a profit"

[OLDMAN]

My point is, this is just money making - rather than for the good of residents / the town, which is the view others seem to have

Edit to add - posted the same time as RB and shows we have the same thoughts on this

[Voiceoftreason?]

And it's not social housing either......

[ReadingBiker]

And it's not social housing either......

It is not anything yet - hence there is every opportunity rather than allowing developers to build their affordable element in some other unspecified place to make sure the housing built here contains an element off social housing and also to ensure it has a mix of housing types to include apartments. flats, work/live units, 2 bedroom flats and even some town houses.

This area is along with the civic centre area one of the biggest plots that is going to become available in the next 20 years and as such will set a major tone for how the centre of the town grows over the next 30-40 years. I want to see it lead to a strong vibrant town centre with a sense of community and pride in their surroundings, not a set of dormitory towers with transitory residents who treat as pretty much a long term hotel