Your Argus
TEXT your pictures, videos and messages to 80360. Start your message with SUPIC or email your tip-offs »
Differing views about merits of King Alfred
From the The Argus, first published Thursday 22nd Mar 2007.
Every day we see letters of support on these pages for the King Alfred development. Most of them just say what excellent architecture is being brought to our city and how wonderful the development will be for Brighton and Hove.
Have the people who have written these letters ever looked at the plans, or considered the effect this massive development will have on its surroundings, or thought about how the development will be maintained and managed once it is up?
Nick Lomax, who knows a thing or two about architecture, design and planning - if not, why is the city so proud of his Jubilee Library?
- questions the size and density of the project and the cost of the sports centre.
We should also be asking the same questions and not just accepting that Brighton and Hove City Council intends to approve this development come what may.
The decision taken tomorrow on behalf of the city by our councillors will be with us for generations.
The effect of the proposed development: overcrowding, overshadowing of adjacent blocks, wind tunnels on either side and through the tall buildings, traffic congestion, waste management problems, lack of doctors' and dentists' surgeries, and lack of schools are all things which everybody should be considering.
Do not be blinded by the pretty towers. Consider the gigantic perimeter housing blocks which will surround them and cast shadows over the common areas and lower floors of the towers and flats.
Reflect that the plan for 751 flats shreds the council's Local Plan Policy for a maximum 400 flats on the site.
There are alternatives. One of them was proposed by Mike Holland, and supported by Nick Lomax.
It comprises lower buildings, in keeping with a seafront location and its neighbouring architecture, a conference centre, a sports centre (with an Olympic-size pool, which the current plans do not have), a hotel and residential blocks.
That is what the council should be supporting, not a massive housing development on a seafront location.
Upgrading is good. Overcrowding, congesting and stretching our resources is not.
Heather Van den Broucque King's Esplanade, Hove WITH the King Alfred proposals appearing at the planning committee, I urge Brighton and Hove city councillors to be brave and bold and support this scheme.
Yes, there has been opposition, one would expect that with a big development, but this is a very exciting design by a world-class architect and it will be a real legacy to the city.
As an architect working on other projects in the city, I am looking forward to the changes which will happen over the next decade, both in the city centre and at the Marina.
I live in Hove and I am passionate about the place. Show some passion yourselves and support this proposal.
I am writing in support of the King Alfred development. This is one of the most progressive developments in England and will be of tremendous benefit to the city.
As a Hove resident, I fully welcome the latest Gehry design and will be bitterly disappointed if Brighton and Hove City Council does not allow it to go ahead.
I write regarding the comments of P James (Letters, March 14), entitled "Give Hove a towering new future".
Why the huge headlines for those in favour of the Frank Gehry housing and tower development?
And why do those in favour rarely, if ever, live in Hove?
The illustration of the proposed new King Alfred sports centre (The Argus, March 15) was even more disappointing than looking at the plans.
Each pool is separated by a wall, making each area feel even smaller. What the city really needs is a pool it can be proud of, taking Burgess Hill's Triangle centre as a starting point.
Instead, we get pools which are of a minimum size, to meet a very basic specification, with little in the way of leisure features which make swimming fun. It could even be worse than the present swimming pool.
With regards to transport, why has Brighton and Hove City Council commissioned GEHL architects to produce the Kingsway "improvement scheme"?
Is it planning to spend, at a guess, £2 million introducing it, when it refuses to consider arguably more important transport improvements?
The myth that the council is spending large sums of its capital transport programme on helping bus services should be dispelled.
Under the current five-year plan, expenditure to help bus services is less than 15 per cent of budget, which is shameful. The majority of the money will be spent on pedestrian and cycling schemes.
Local Services
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
