Greenwich pub demolition: Replacement block nearly complete
A block of flats containing six homes built on the site of a former pub in Greenwich is now nearly completion.
The structure replaced The Thames Inn, which was one of the last vestiges of the area’s Victorian past and offered a nice contrast to neighbouring buildings, but that wasn’t enough to save it.
The major New Capital Quay developments sits alongside, and I always liked the juxtaposition between that development and the pub when walking along Thames Street.
The Planning Inspector described the pub building as being “of a traditional London stock brick construction and there is no doubt that given its location in an area that is largely devoid of its historic built environment it is an example of one of few remaining Victorian buildings in this part of the borough and is included on historic mapping going back over a century.
It contains brick quoining, chamfered corner profiles, incised stonework and diaper strong courses along with what appear to be a full set of original windows. In architectural terms the building is reflective of a style of architecture that is not prevalent in the locality and does have some cultural and social significance as a former dock workers public house.”
In its place comes a block with some apparent “value engineering” since approval.
Gone are the bands of brick (no bad thing perhaps) and glass balconies are absent. Textured details on the exterior are gone too.
It’s not unusual for a developer to gain approval then cut back on the design to save money, and this issue is being looked into across London.
Much of the time initial plans gain much publicity and debate, then a development is approved and attention moves elsewhere, while amendments are submitted to use cheaper materials, which slips under the radar.
At street level a plain brick wall now exists:
Renders showed windows and what appeared to be green tiles here. Now gone, although it was such a clumsy implementation it’s likely no worse.
Still, compare the street level frontage to what the pub offered:
Three other former pubs have recently been lost in the area. One being the Lord Hood on Creek Road:
Another was the Old Loyal Britons on Thames Street. A block was built on site:
And there was a former pub which was operated as a book shop and gallery for many years on Creek Road:
This block now sits on the site:
Correction: the number of flats is actually six.
Oh John so sad to see our historical heritage disappear to be replaced by characterless concrete slabs, demolition and reconstruction in themselves an environmental catastrophe. I hope the developers in question are proud of their accomplishments, may they enjoy their accumulated wealth at our expense, and spend it on a luxury yacht, thee’s plenty up for a quick sale, by equally unscrupulous individuals and at knockdown prices. One can only hope that one day when town planning works ‘for the local people’ that they too will have their yachts repossessed under sanctions. ***tards!
It’s not the prettiest outcome. Too bad they couldn’t renovate the old pub. But I do prefer an anonymous building actually contributing to alleviate the housing crisis over the dilapidated building that was there.
Most disappointing is the current state of the old loyal briton; it was demolished to make way for newbuilds. However, whilst a newbuild nextdoor has been built, the place itself is a dump.
That anonymous slab of blandness makes no contribution towards mitigating the housing crisis since it is a private development. In any event, 20 units is a decimal point when compared with the numbers on Greenwich council’s waiting list.
I’m surprised at the poor quality of journalism here. I usually really enjoy these articles, but this is just non-fact checked clickbait.
20 homes? The journalist had time to quote the inspectors report, but failed to read the description saying the development contains only 6 new homes and an office. Clearly an agenda to prohibit new affordable homes being built in the borough, by producing this rubbish.
Shocking.
Well, that is 20 more than 0, what it was before.
20 households not applying for the council waiting list, stimulating the local economy, and paying council tax.
It’s not social housing. The pub could have been converted and extended and reached not far off that level.
@Gwest: that building is not fulfilling a need. The occupiers of those ticky-tacky boxes can afford to live elsewhere.
@John Smith: of course, it could but developers are little more than licensed vandals. Anything that is pleasing to the eye is to be razed to the ground in favour of beige blandness.
wasn’t that incorporated in an earlier version of the planning application, which was rejected?
The proposal to refurbish the pub and extend the footprint was rejected by the developer on the grounds of costs. It’s so much easier to tear down a beautiful building and replace it with stacked matchboxes with clip on features. That is what passes for architecture in dull minds.
Well, ‘the community’ could’ve come together and save this majestic building, but they didn’t. Since 1990. No one wanted to either rent or buy it until the surrounding new-builds came along. Now, clearly it is even less desirable position for a pub. So, unless we live in some magical fantasy land where companies come and do-up abandoned ruins for fun, throw in free housing for anyone on the waiting list and leave it at that, there was no alternative for this crime-inviting hole.
Anyway, since ‘there is no need in Greenwich for private housing’, we don’t really need to spell out the underlying thoughts behind the argumentation regarding the aesthetics of said building.
Your arguments are full of illogicality because you don’t know how to frame a proper response when people challenge you. However, I have better things to do than school you in debating, so will focus on two points: no-one on the waiting list is expecting free housing; and developers don’t up anything for fun. We are done here.