Giant car park planned for Battersea
Battersea Power Station could become a multi-storey car park
Source: Philip CliffordPotential buyer plans to turn former power station into car park to support development
Battersea Power Station could be turned into a multi-storey car park under plans being drawn up by one of the site’s potential buyers.
Property developer Godfrey Bradman wants to use the iconic structure to house a 2,000-space car park to support 450,000sq m of residential development, according to the Daily Telegraph.
Bradman is one of several bidders vying to develop the site, which has proved too challenging for a series of previous owners.
Several architects have produced proposals for the site including Allies & Morrison, Terry Farrell and Rafael Viñoly.
Bradman’s plan would involve increasing the number of residential units on the site to almost 6,000 from 3,500 in earlier plans.
Related Articles
- Ian Simpson Architects 'ready to go' on Battersea
13 June 2012
- Malaysians chosen as preferred bidder for Battersea
7 June 2012
- Malaysians tipped to buy Battersea Power Station for £375m
31 May 2012
- Multiple design schemes could be the key for Battersea Power Station
20 April 2012
- Allies & Morrison unveils Battersea Power Station plans
18 April 2012
- Battersea Power Station put up for sale
24 February 2012
- Farrell to apply to demolish parts of Battersea Power Station
17 February 2012
Have your say
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign InDesktop Site | Mobile Site
Readers' comments (18)
Hahahaha... just tear it down for god's sake.
6000 units at about 400,000 per unit = £2.4 billion. Any bets on whether this was the highest bid?
450,000 sq m of residential development is too much for this site. Over-development has always been the problem here. The amount of development required to turn a profit on the cost of the land and the costs of construction doesn't match up with the real possibilities offered by the site and the presence of Gilbert Scott's power station, which should continue to dominate the riverfront and should not be dwarfed or engulfed by excessive new building.
Has anyone actually looked at the state of the thing recently? Holes punched through for support to keep parts from falling down, deterioration marching on. Prescence my backside, it is an ugly redundant hulk and needs removing along with the crud that surrounds it, in this area which it continues to blight years after it was of any use to anyone.
@ robert hodges: Robert - maybe you need to learn to look at architecture since at the moment you don't seem able to.
In this case, what you're looking at is one of the masterpieces of the twentieth century, designe by Giles Gilbert Scott, one of our most important architects.
Live and learn, my boy.
You mean to say its a real building, and there's me thinking it was an album cover. You'll be telling me next there's a pedestrian crossing in Abbey Road too.
Peter Czajkowskyj
Sceptical (sorry to personalise this but it is your initiatve albeit hiding behind a pen name), that is merely your opinion, both in regard of the building and its architect.
I believe that I am as much entitled to an opinion as you. To me it is an unfortunate leftover pile of bricks. Possibly the detailing is as good as Bankside but I cannot say never having been that close. The major point is it has blighted this area for an overly long period is badly damaged and deteriorating and needs to go.
oh well Robert - you missed your opportunity, as an obvious novice, to being learning a few basic notions about what contitutes great architecture. Too bad.
being = begin
We have got one converted power station/fire making building we do not need another. The shape is negative to mitigate against the constant furnace factor - it should not be put to any other use as a shell - the energetic is all wrong. A basic architect should be able to detect this if they are not of the political type. It is not for humans it is for whatever survives in hell type places.