Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

RSHP submits hotel plans replacing canned Dexter Moren scheme in Hammersmith

  • 2 Comments

Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners (RSHP) has put forward plans to create a hotel with 800-plus beds on a troubled site in west London

Last month the double RIBA Stirling Prize-winning practice handed in proposals to Hammersmith and Fulham Council for two new buildings over four blocks at 181 Talgarth Road.

In October last year developer Dominvs withdrew an earlier application drawn up by Dexter Moren Associates for the same plot. Two months later Richard Rogers’ practice was appointed ‘to take a fresh look at the site’.

Sandwiched between the A4 dual carriageway and London Underground’s Piccadilly and District Lines, the plot is currently occupied by the vacant former Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court Building.

The latest scheme features four blocks arranged around an internal courtyard, with a North Hotel providing 442 beds and stepping from seven to 23 storeys while a South Hotel holds another 400 beds and ranges from five to 10 storeys.

Dexter Moren’s proposals for 858 rooms across two hotels on the site – also reaching 23 storeys – was withdrawn before it could be heard by the council’s Planning and Development Control Committee in October.

Officers had recommended councillors approve the scheme, which they said would ‘deliver good-quality architecture, which optimises the capacity of the site’. However, more than 100 objections were received, many focusing on the height of the proposals.

Partner Dexter Moren said: ‘While our scheme was recommended by council offices for approval, criticism resulted in its withdrawal at committee and, in the interests of securing an approval for Dominvs, we supported advice given to them to appoint RSHP.’

The council has not set a date for councillors to decide on the latest application.

The latest planning documents state: ‘Since the RSHP appointment, we have attended meetings with the local authority, statutory consultees, specialist consultants and planning consultant DP9. Engaging with the community has been an important part of the design development process.’

Dexter moren ma hmc garden square visual

Dexter Moren’s previous proposal for the site featuring a new south facing public square, lined by existing listed trees

Dexter Moren’s previous proposal for the site featuring a new south facing public square, lined by existing listed trees

  • 2 Comments

Readers' comments (2)

  • It looks as if the listed trees are due for the chop, but could the central atrium draped in greenery be inspired by the form of Erskine's 'ark' next door?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • From the illustrations here it is difficult to find a single good thing to say about these proposals. Four rectangular blocks, which have almost nothing to do with each other, are jammed along the site edges. The corners of the site look unconsidered in plan and really crude in massing, form, elevations, scale and relationship to context. No doubt Rogers will claim that the proposal is designed to act as a quiet contrast to the flamboyance of the Ark. What it looks more likely to do
    is to demonstrate the vast gap between the Ark's creative response to the tough problems of urban edge architecture and the lumpen and insensitive current proposals.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.