Fun Park Planning Application

[cuth]

[BeachBum]

[PortyConvert]

[BeachBum]

[cuth]

There are some aspects of the development that I quite like. For instance, I think that it's a good that thing that they are seeking to keep the amusement arcade and a cafe. I like the sedum roof, too.

All the other buildings between there and King's Road are about four storeys high, but I'm struggling to grasp what the impact of the seaward elevation will be. It would have been helpful to have an elevation from Pipe Lane to King's Road.

Although the height might not be significantly greater than the flats at Westbank Street, the new flats are much closer to the beach. so the impact is likely to be greater. A 16 metre structure is going to cast a significant shadow, if nothing else.

Given the threat of rising sea levels due to global warming, an underground car park is a bold (or maybe foolish) idea.

As a minor aside, the shadows on the elevation drawings appear to show the sun high up in the North sky where it is rarely, if ever, going to be.

[BeachBum]

[wangi]

[Maria]

[Grunk]

I think it's 5m and they do seem to be incorporating that in the plans.

[Porty]

I'm largely in favour of the design and the developers must have had a laugh when picking their name!. It does seem like the designers did in part listen to the PNS and have modified the design to an extent. although its still 5 floors and a basement. The developers must be confident of approval if shadowing and some vehicles having to turn right against the flow of traffic are the only objections.

[bearcub]

From today's EN



Personally, I think the plans look not bad and a big improvement on what's there at the moment. The kilns will be accessible, and I like the cafe with outdoor seats plan for along that end of the Prom (it's needed).

There was a pile of letters at the bottom of our tenament earlier this week, basically pointing out the plans were available to view and asking for opinions to be sent to the interested parties...but they heavily hinted that it was "objections" they wanted sent - was PMAG behind the letters?

[Porty]

More I study the proposal the better I like it.

Wonder if the developers have checked that they haven't breached the city's Skyline policy for Jet Skiers who may wish to admire Arthurs Seat?

[BeachBum]

Some jolly fun comments below the online article clearly getting a dig in at porty for all its campaign groups.

[wangi]

[Maria]

[Grunk]

[Maria]

[Maria]

If anyone wishes to object (or support!) the application, today is the last day. It is dead easy to submit your view online by accessing the planning portal on

and searching for application 09/00248/FUL. You can then select an online comment form to fill in.

[BeachBum]

[seanie]

[Maria]

I realise with your background in architecture Seanie you can prob visulise the height and mass of the building better than most, but I find it difficult.

For anyone else, who has a similar problem, here's a reminder of the size of the building at the bottom of Bath Street. To get an idea of the size of the proposed development imagine something 2 metres higher and 5 times as long and see whether you agree that the height is OK or not.

[Puerto bella]

Having viewed the proposals I would like to express my support for this well thought out scheme. This part of the Prom would benefit hugely from the positive/ active frontages presented in this proposal. At present the site is detrimental to the appearance of the Prom. The scale of the development is in keeping with the tenemental scale at this end of the Prom and the architects have minimised its impact by splitting the building - allowing views through the the kilns; changes in materials, staging the building, incorporating features such as balconies, raised platforms and set backs in the building line. The incorporation of the amusement arcade and cafe is a positive benefit to the community. The public space around the kilns is of a suitable size and creates the opportunity for a well designed public space - on the sunny side of the building. Harbour St at present is a mess and this scheme will bring life back into that area. All too often in Portobello its the 'anti' voice that shouts the loudest. I would encourage you to support this proposal as I think it is a key milestone in the regeneration of the Prom.

[Maria]

[BeachBum]

[Puerto bella]

[Porty]

[bearcub]

[Bob Jefferson]

I think that any Community Councillor reading this thread will be quite surprised to find people who are in favour of this development. I say this because I feel that being against development in Portobello seems to have become the default position in certain circles and there is an assumption that 'the community' supports such objections. Clearly, this is not always necessarily the case.

I'm no great admirer of this type of architecture. I think a lot of what is being built right now is going to look very dated in just a few years. I look at what has been built in Leith in recent years and to me it doesn't look much different from some of the 1960s high-rise buildings we have been pulling down, apart from the stick-on aluminium balconies. Some of the finest buildings in Portobello were built in the 1820s. So why is it that we seem to be incapable of producing buildings that will still be used and admired 200 years from now?

With those reservations, and living in the real world where developers understandably want to maximise their profit per square metre, and looking at the current state of the site, and taking everything into account, I can't feel particularly enthusiastic about the proposals but neither do I feel moved to object to them.

And if you don't like the finished results, don't worry because they will probably be pulling it down again in 40 years time.

[seanie]

Most buildings built 200 years ago were shoddy death traps that fell apart long ago. The ones that have survived till now aren't representative of the general quality of building back then.

And the quality of the buildings that have survived was affordable, in large measure, to the grotesque exploitation of the working classes.

[Pal of Porty]

I am in favour of the development as this has been a bad bit of the Prom for years, even away back in its hayday. At one of the presentations some time ago, the developer showed and elevation/skyline of the entire Prom with his new building in it and to me it seemd pretty consistent.

This shadow casting arguement holds little water for for me. If you want the sun on the Prom then demolish everthing 30 metres back from the sand or widen the Prom.

[seanie]

There are already a number of four storey Victorian tenements on the promenade and they equate to a five storey modern building, so five storeys can be justified contextually. Taking the roof into consideration six storeys would probably be accomodated within a similar ridgeline.

I think the architects drawing up the development framework recommended up to five storeys on the prom, although the Council went instead with three storey frontage with four storey set back. With these proposals the building's set back metres from the plot edge so four storey plus is probably reasonable.

[Maria]

[Maria]

[seanie]

[Maria]