| Author |
 Topic  |
|
luckyduck
Moderator
United Kingdom
169 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Apr 2013 : 19:50:23
|
| Has anyone else thought what an eyesore the new Sainsbury's is going to be? Judging by the framework already built this is going to stand even higher above the road than expected, and all the artist's impressions of the new store, are a poor substitute for the real thing. Did the planners really want a white warehouse in the middle of a reasonably rural area, or is the target to build warehouses all the way along the A259, and thus having ruined the rural area, justify building even more new houses? |
|
|
Bluebell
Average Member
United Kingdom
99 Posts |
Posted - 24 Apr 2013 : 20:55:20
|
Yes, I was surprised by the height and position of the framework going up. I thought the store was going to be where the old one was and looking at the original view on the Arun planning page it looks like that was the case. A lot of artistic license used there I would guess! There was a subsequent application to extend the store by 289 sq.m. so maybe that's why the structure is so extensive. Couldn't find any plans to show what the new layout would look like so I guess we will have to wait and see and hope it's not too ugly.
|
 |
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2013 : 07:42:23
|
| Makes the Asda store look positively low key by comparison. It certainly dominates the site. Be interesting to see how it looks once the cladding is applied but can only get bigger. |
|
|
|
newbird
Average Member
37 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2013 : 14:13:24
|
| Have you seen the new Sainsbury's in Bognor ? (opposite Tesco)I assume this is their "new" model and ours will be the same. Its not actually too bad and much better inside than the old one - just my opinion though :0) |
|
|
|
Atomius
Junior Member
United Kingdom
25 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2013 : 17:02:52
|
| Well at least it's utilizing an existing developed site. Having said that I don't see that there was anything wrong with the old Sainsburys? I guess they are looking to expand floorspace. Wonder what will replace Sainsburys a the Focus site when they leave |
|
|
|
GreenFields
Average Member
United Kingdom
65 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2013 : 15:48:48
|
BMW ;o)
|
|
|
|
lindylou
Average Member
49 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2013 : 19:53:53
|
| Not big enough for them.The applicastion in Ferring was 6 acres |
|
|
|
angmeringpaul
Senior Member
United Kingdom
234 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2013 : 11:57:00
|
| Having looked at the new store it strikes me as being a bit like their ready meals....nothing like the picture! |
|
|
|
HanceR
Junior Member
United Kingdom
28 Posts |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 06:28:57
|
| It just goes to show we cannot trust Arun's planners. I agree it is an eysore. |
Richard Hance |
|
|
|
Atomius
Junior Member
United Kingdom
25 Posts |
Posted - 07 May 2013 : 16:25:00
|
It looks like it will be very sleek and flush in appearance, very light but the girders may well still project somewhat.
I don't personally care for any supermarket designs, as they all look utilitarian and like something from a brutalist science fiction reality.
Asda's facade is rather dishonest like those partial roofs over garage entrances...
The location of the Rustington retail park is convenient. The design imho should be more integrated into a collected zone and complex, with a flowing style and some green and recreation space between buildings. |
|
|
|
luckyduck
Moderator
United Kingdom
169 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2013 : 17:15:39
|
| Interesting comment from Sainsbury's project manager - The redeveloped supermarket will be raised on stilts above the car parking area - when the plans were for the car park to be underground - maybe that explains why the building is higher and more obtrusive than expected or any graphics show - marvellous what you can get past the planners if you want to. |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 08 May 2013 : 22:12:33
|
| Given that supermarkets do not require natural light why aren't they forced, as a condition of obtaining planning permission, to build them below ground level and create a park on the surface area? Same goes for any type of retail development. Less ugliness, more green spaces. |
|
|
|
Atomius
Junior Member
United Kingdom
25 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2013 : 07:09:28
|
Quote from another forum "The outside of an underground building needs to be completely waterproof, and resist pressures.
In addition of the weather resistance, sewage and storm treatment itself is an issue.
A normal building, all these wastes can flow down to a sewer.
In an underground building the wastes need to be pumped up. (unless the building is shallow enough, or on a high enough hill)"
Another quote "No joke; hydrostatic pressure is a pain in the neck even when the building is just abutting a hill. When I was searching for a house, there were at least a dozen that I really really liked until I saw the seepage problem in the basement (sometimes having to move conveniently located furniture to find it).
Brings to mind the scene from National Treasure where they find this massive pit dug in the middle of Manhattan island… yeah right, it would have been a massive fishpond in reality."
Seems that is the main problem putting aside the cost of excavation (and the earth excavated could be sold and used so).
Another quote from that forum "The major problems I see are keeping the air in the building clean, entering and leaving the house, and lighting expenses.
Anything like a house built under ground is going to have a major problem with air circulation. That's going to be a very big expense. Although heating and cooling would be easier, you would still have all kinds of pipes sticking out of the ground. Not much of a selling point.
And how do you you leave your house when you have 2 feet of snow on top of your door? That would surely be a nusiance.
And you'd need to use artifical lighting alot more. Skylights, while an option, isn't too safe when people have the chance of walking over and falling through them, or when you have 5 feet of snow on top of them.
"
This would be an issue in winter. Also the lighting issue is one to consider. While some kind of eco friendly solar collector could be used that would be a big cost in itself.
"My, how quickly we forget! What centennial was observed last week? Hint #1: San Francisco. Hint #2: Earthquake. Would you like to be underground when the next big one hits?"
Well not such an issue here of course, but an explanation for overseas reasons against the idea.
It seems that these are the main issues that face underground developments. While the space saved and the benefit to the environment might at first seem to make it the obvious thing to do with big ugly supermarket developments near nice old villages, the hidden costs such as power, more advanced and costly sewage/water systems etc appear to make it less promising. |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2013 : 07:40:03
|
| Thanks for that. Now, as I was saying ..... |
|
|
|
BFA
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
410 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2013 : 09:50:37
|
| Sainsburied :-) |
|
|
|
roosterbri
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
553 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2013 : 12:19:49
|
| Perhaps the adverse comments should be left until the project is finished and lanscaped |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 09 May 2013 : 13:03:01
|
| Not half as much fun though! |
|
|
|
HanceR
Junior Member
United Kingdom
28 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2013 : 22:26:21
|
| The eysore just gets worse by the day |
Richard Hance |
|
|
|
angmeringpaul
Senior Member
United Kingdom
234 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2013 : 22:39:55
|
This thing looks nothing like the drawings I saw.
Can it not be contested before its a permanent eye soar?
I recall a development in East Preston being stopped in its tracks by someone who realised that it was closer to the road than the plans stated. |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 07:17:18
|
| It certainly soars! |
|
|
|
Paul
Advanced Member
319 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2013 : 20:25:03
|
I have managed to walk past it a couple of times this week and felt that it was not appreciably taller than the Pets at Home/Halfords building nor the houses on The Leas. It may give an appearance of being higher because it is closer to the road.
Although I have not looked at the plans for some time, I was always under the impression that it was on stilts with the carpark underneath. I never read the plans as the carpark being underground - surely that would be a flooding disaster waiting to happen. |
|
|
|
roosterbri
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
553 Posts |
|
|
n/a
deleted
31 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 17:50:21
|
| Creep up South Drive and see it from there, the building looms rather large,or better still use the Footpath in South Drive, either way the new building is big! |
|
|
|
Atomius
Junior Member
United Kingdom
25 Posts |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 18:08:24
|
| I don't think it's much taller than the old building. Possibly larger, and certainly more modern in design. I imagine as there was nothing wrong with the old Sainsburys that they have expanded it in some manner, but it doesn't seem to be anything near the level of eyesoreness people seem to make it out to be. Having said that they could have pushed it back from the road a bit, if not Asdalength |
|
|
|
Paul
Advanced Member
319 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2013 : 21:55:49
|
My understanding was that in order to expand, the only land they had was the car park, so the rebuild places the store over the cars. There isn't really any other land available to move it back into without demolishing houses. https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=50.817622,-0.495012&spn=0.002579,0.006679&t=h&z=18
I believe the application and Design document is under application R/59/12. |
Be careful what you ask for - you just might get it.
The views expressed in this posting are those of the author and must not be taken as representing any commercial, religious, political or other body. |
|
|
|
roosterbri
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
553 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2013 : 14:19:10
|
Time to bring this back to the forefront again.
Any comments about the nice shiny tank on the main road?? Could this not have been placed at the rear of the site??
The footprint the site covers is surely greater than anybody locally envisaged and the whole site is the height of the highest point on the building that was demolished.(I think).
What next?? Knock down Halfords/Petsmart/Temporary Sains and build a big fat M & S?? It could then all be linked to the new stores being planned opposite the golf course...........whoa there boy!!!!!!!!!!That could never happen...could it??? |
Edited by - roosterbri on 29 Jul 2013 14:22:10 |
|
|
|
luckyduck
Moderator
United Kingdom
169 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2013 : 14:50:37
|
| Roosterbri - you must be well in with Arun planners to have such knowledge of their plans for the whole of this area - or am I just being cynical, and as we all know the planners will do whatever they like with this area, as long as it keeps them in employment? |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2013 : 16:02:35
|
| Can anyone locate the original plans so that a comparison can be made? |
|
|
|
AngmeringAl
Junior Member
United Kingdom
26 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jul 2013 : 20:59:46
|
| I can only agree , the whole thing looks monstrous and that shiney tank thing has put the icing on the cake , surely it could have been put out of sight . |
|
|
|
roosterbri
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
553 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2013 : 06:28:43
|
| Believe me luckyduck you could not be further from the truth....however as far as Planners go short of exterminating them all one assumes they do what they are paid to do...Plan....and the route to Planning success they know better than any member of the public. |
|
|
|
Questor
Average Member
United Kingdom
53 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2013 : 19:04:42
|
| I see the beast is being unveiled, The 259 will be bedlam on October 30th. |
|
|
|
luckyduck
Moderator
United Kingdom
169 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2013 : 19:25:12
|
| And the Halfords car park - judging by the number of people who have told me they are not going to park under that building, either due to claustrophobia, or because they do not believe a building built that quickly is safe enough to park underneath |
|
|
|
hairspray
Senior Member
United Kingdom
104 Posts |
Posted - 17 Oct 2013 : 21:06:28
|
| Lucky duck , I assume you are joking ! Your comment sounds like you are talking to people from the dark ages ! Of course the building will be safe And I find your comment hilarious . |
|
|
|
luckyduck
Moderator
United Kingdom
169 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2013 : 08:21:03
|
| Sorry Hairspray - it is not a joke - there are people out there with serious fears - almost all related to claustrophobia, for which a quickly built building may be an excuse, but it does not diminish their real fears. |
|
|
|
hairspray
Senior Member
United Kingdom
104 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2013 : 08:29:20
|
| Sorry was not meaning to upset anyone with claustrophobia , but having passed the building yesterday and seeing the underground car park it does look open rather than very enclosed . Underground car parking seems to be the way forward in lots of builds these days, obviously much more in cities and towns . I am guessing this happens due to the cost of Land . |
|
|
|
lindylou
Average Member
49 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2013 : 10:47:25
|
| Or getting the biggest possible building on an existing plot of land? |
|
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2013 : 13:15:29
|
Looks good to me. We're looking forward to a wander round a few days after it re-opens on the 30th October.
I doubt many people are concerned about the car park being under the building. A good use of space. If a lot of people were concerned about "underground" parking, then all the multi story car parks would be empty, and they're not, they're full. Each to their own, of course. |
|
|
|
Nigel
Senior Member
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2013 : 14:00:27
|
Maybe the alternative would be to wander around the shop knowing that there were a hundred or so cars parked on top of you!!!!
At least the way it is should mean you can load your car in the rain without getting wet. Now that is a bonus. |
Edited by - Nigel on 18 Oct 2013 14:02:33 |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2013 : 16:16:29
|
So, instead of anger at the construction of an oversized supermarket, quite at odds with the original plans for the building, discussion has turned to the potentially claustrophobic impact of underground parking.
Actually, it's not underground, it's pretty much at ground level. Because of that the overall appearance of the structure is so dominant. |
|
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2013 : 16:51:09
|
| ..."anger"....what anger? |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 18 Oct 2013 : 20:12:17
|
| If you're not angry that this has been allowed by the 'Planners',then you should be. Unless, of course, you're one of the apathetic brigade that inhabits Angmering. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
