The Proposals

There are two main elements to the plan so far, and several different scenarios to each.

RE-ALIGNMENT OF THE ROAD SYSTEM

In its Spring 2005 consultation, the Council presented three options for the gyratory system at the Archway:

1. Leaving the gyratory system as it is at present.
   
   
2. Running both north and southbound traffic on the A1 to the East side of the the current gyratory and shutting off the road between the Island and the Tower to create a bus stopping area and make access easier and safer to the Island.
   
   
3. Running a new road across the Archway Mall site to take the Junction Road traffic and creating a two way system at the gyratory, allowing the creation of a a fully pedestrian space between the island and the main site.

The Council appears to favour Option 3, and claim majority support for this in their consultation survey. However BAF believes that the issues were not explained fully enough in the survey, and that the questions were biased. We have found from the focus groups that once presented with the full implications of the options, most people preferred Option 2. This was seen as the simplest, cheapest, most effective and least disruptive solution to the problem.

REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE SITE

The second element involves the redevelopment of the entire site bounded by Junction Rd, Vorley Rd, Mackenzie Road and the north and east legs of the gyratory beyond the Island.

The proposed redevelopment area is shown in red

Initially the Council suggested only two options ; doing nothing and the full scale redevelopment of the site by a commercial developer. These were the only possibilities given in the consultation, and unsurprisingly the majority opted for redevelopment.

However BAF believes that a third option is preferable ie. that of a partial and gradual redevelopment, involving the preservation of some elements of the current site. Our recent focus groups showed that when given the choice, this was also the preferred option of the majority of participants. As a result, the Council have now expanded their thinking to include the possibility of a partial redevelopment of the site.

1. Do Nothing

Previous attempts to redevelop the Archway Mall have collapsed because the cost of demolition, particularly of the tall, reinforced concrete buildings, is very high. Even if rebuilding just as tall, it will be difficult to extract enough value from the site to make the project stack up financially unless the building is particularly dense and includes plenty of high return numbers – notably a big supermarket. If the community makes it clear that such dense development is not wanted - and the council listens - interested developers may decide that there is not enough profit in the project and moves on to alternative projects.

2. Full-scale Development by a Commercial Developer

The focus here will be on extracting maximum profit from the site, while offering sufficient benefit for the local community to feel that any disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages:

Exact details of the Council's ideas are not yet clear, but the brief for an earlier attempt at redevelopment of the Archway probably gives a good indication of what they see as appropriate:

• 4,500 sq m supermarket (this is in contravention of the council overall plan for Angel and Nag’s Head as the main shopping areas and would be larger than a standard definition of a ‘large’ supermarket, which is around 3,250 sq m or above)
• 150 bed hotel (no size given but at a rough guess if a budget hotel with very small rooms, at least 1,200sq m, but probably more)
• 1,400 sq m cinema
• 1,400 sq m health club
• 1,500 sq m medical centre
• 650 to 700 residential units (No size provided for these but as a rough calculation one bedroom units with just shower would require at least 23 sq metres. That would total 14,900 square metres. The actual projected figures is more likely to be at least double that or more given that government and market pressures is for two and three-bedroomed units. The figure does not include stair ways and access space. Under the London Plan Islington is required to provide 900 new residential units a year so this would be very useful for the Council.)
• community facilities among which will be counted the swimming pool and library (both of the current ones being demolished in the rebuilding)

Not mentioned but also likely to be included:

• A stopping place for the buses.
• The tube station.
• Parking provision of up to 700 spaces. (The council suggests this may be a car free development but under the London Plan the supermarket would be entitled to around 180 spaces, and the more expensive housing would almost certainly require a parking place as well.)

It is not clear what would happen to the buildings at the edge of the site, such as the one-time London Friendly Society and neighbouring older buildings.

The total dimension of the site under review, including the island, is 28,900m². Because as much as a quarter (most of the island for example) is not up for rebuilding, to fit all this in, the most likely case scenario is for some accommodation (two towers or even three) of a height similar to the current Archway Tower.

3. Rework the Current Site

This option would avoid the costs of demolition but would aim to improve the use of the site and its look and feel. Options might include:

• Recladding the office blocks, and potentially converting them to residential use (the recladding would help reduce wind blight - as would cutting a few storeys off the top of the Archway Tower)
• Blocking off the open spaces under the tall buildings, which create wind blight.
• Adding retail units down Highgate Hill below the Lloyds Bank (doing away with the odd two-level open area currently by the bus stops)
• Knocking a passage through the middle of the site and possibly moving the entrance of the swimming pool so it faces the Junction Road.
• Create a space for a weekly or twice weekly farmers’ market, and possibly more regular street market.
• In the centre adding small to mid-sized retail outlets, possibly around some kind of square, facilitating a better neighbourhood feel.
• If it is possible to move the bus stand to somewhere more logical, such as at the hospital, using the site to build the proposed hotel, forming a useful transition between the commercial area of the Junction Road and the residential one of the Girdlestone Estate.

This would require much less money than the total redevelopment option, would be much less disruptive to the local area, but would still deliver some significant benefits.It is not clear whether the council or the developer would countenance this kind of option. So far the options presented are to leave the area to decay, or redevelop totally.