Apple's Plans for London Financial District Store Caught in Dispute Over Sunlight

[MacRumors]

Reuters reports that Apple's potential plans for its first retail store in London's financial district have been thrown into question as existing buildings surrounding the site may see their protected access to sunlight impinged upon by the development. Apple is said to be looking to build its store on the ground floor of a 10-story building planned for construction at 100 Cheapside in London.

The proposed 10-storey development at 100 Cheapside has planning permission for 87,000 square feet of offices and 13,000 square feet of retail.

U.S. developer Hines is in talks to buy the site for under 25 million pounds and Apple is interested in taking space there, a source close to the process told Reuters.

The property's current owner has asked the city to use its power to waive the ability for owners of neighboring properties to seek injunctions against the project. Thirteen properties are said to be affected by the development, with impact to eight of them substantial enough that their owners are likely to seek injunctions against the project.

Given that construction has yet to begin on the proposed building and the potential legal difficulties facing the project, it is unclear at this time whether Apple will seek other options for a retail store in the area.

Apple has two flagship stores within a few miles of the proposed site, with its Covent Garden store lying approximately 1.5 miles to the west and its Regent Street store about a mile further to the west.

Article Link: Apple's Plans for London Financial District Store Caught in Dispute Over Sunlight

 

[soco]

Wow. I'm always in awe over the architecture of Apple stores.

Too bad vampire-haters had to mess this one up.

Edit: That was a horrible sunlight joke. Move on.

 

[MultiMediaWill]

Is it just me or does this building look like the famous apartment building in new york that looks like a triangle?

 

[RetepNamenots]

Why should Apple be exempt from access to light regulations?

 

[iphonesarecool]

Yeah this looks really good. It's different from the new built stores in shopping centres but this looks really nice. It's totally different but still has the Apple style. I think it will be great to have a store in London's financial district.

 

[whooleytoo]

That building is freaky. I'm assuming that's an accurate representation, and not someone who got their perspective all wrong! It looks like a relatively low-profile building, and in keeping with the building heights of the surrounding buildings... but the perspective of that shot could be deliberately misleading.

 

[Boomchukalaka]

That is quite a concentration of Apple stores!

----------

Why should Apple be exempt from access to light regulations?

It's not Apple seeking this injunction, it is the developer of the building.

 

[ddarko]

Why should Apple be exempt from access to light regulations?

Oh stop it before the Apple bashing starts. This has nothing to do with Apple. Apple is not the building or site developer or owner; it is a possible tenant in the ground floor of the proposed building. This fight is between the neighbors and the site owner, which happens to be the City of London! Complain about how London is seeking to use its sovereign power to exempt itself from access to right rules. Apple is a bystander, it is not involved in this fight.

And if the City loses, all the better for it. This is a ugly and dull building. If you're going to use this sovereign power, use it to erect an interesting building, not beige boxes like this proposal.

 

[0815]

looking at the rendering, it seems more like some other building on the other side is stealing the sunlight from the new store - there is a big shadow on the building

anyway: the building looks great and I hope that get that issue resolved. Reading multiple articles about this issue it seems someone is in need of some millions and this looks like a good opportunity for them (and this 'right of sunlight' is often abused for that since constructions often continues after exchange of millions)

 

[sam2428]

Anyone else think its funny that this was on 100 CHEAPside drive?


haha, made me chuckle

 

[ddarko]

looking at the rendering, it seems more like some other building on the other side is stealing the sunlight from the new store - there is a big shadow on the building

You can't block or steal light from a building that doesn't exist. The law doesn't grant access to light rights to proposed or future buildings; it's for occupants of buildings that currently exist.

Reading multiple articles about this issue it seems someone is in need of some millions and this looks like a good opportunity for them (and this 'right of sunlight' is often abused for that since constructions often continues after exchange of millions)

The other side of the coin is that the neighbors are losing longstanding access to something valuable because of a new building. Indeed, their own property values may decline due to the loss of sunlight since all things being equal, a structure with natural light is generally worth more than one without (and the new building will presumably have sunlight, effectively usurping the light and the increased property value from the neighbors). Far from being an abuse, the payments to neighbors could be seen as fair and just compensation for loss of sun and diminished property value.

It's not unreasonable; if your new construction is going to negatively impact your neighbors, maybe you should pay something to them.

 

[Dr McKay]

Cheapside......

 

[1239689]

-

 

[rmwebs]

They need to get more stores up all over the UK in the big towns before they focus on more in London that aren't needed. At the moment my closest stores aren't too far, but some people have to travel a long, long way!

For me I have a choice of London stores (a short 15-20 min train ride away) or Brent Cross (should take 20 minutes by car, but due to the entire UK highways agency being incompetent, it takes around 1 hour).

 

[Steve's Barber]

London has sunlight?

 

[Manderby]

I'm sorry for outing myself as a nerd, but this looks like one of my buildings in minecraft.

No seriously, it's not really that pleasing to the eye, now is it?

 

[baryon]

Sunlight? In London? Don't make me laugh! There is no such thing.

 

[Stig McNasty]

SNIP This has nothing to do with Apple. Apple is not the building or site developer or owner; it is a possible tenant in the ground floor of the proposed building. SNIP

And if the City loses, all the better for it. This is a ugly and dull building. If you're going to use this sovereign power, use it to erect an interesting building, not beige boxes like this proposal.

Absolutely with you on this ddarko. It's not an 'Iconic' (Urggh!) building, but a pile of glass and stone boxes on top of a generic shop frontage. Dull as dishwater.

 

[1239689]

-

 

[Piggie]

They need to get more stores up all over the UK in the big towns before they focus on more in London that aren't needed. At the moment my closest stores aren't too far, but some people have to travel a long, long way!

For me I have a choice of London stores (a short 15-20 min train ride away) or Brent Cross (should take 20 minutes by car, but due to the entire UK highways agency being incompetent, it takes around 1 hour).

Agree.

For me it's a 40 minute car journey and hell to park, then hope they have the item in stock trip to Brighton on the south coast.
Or a 40 minute train journey north to London, then underground train to get near a store and also hope they have something in stock.

Just 1 store half way between London and Brighton please.

 

[The Great Boony]

Sunlight? In London? Don't make me laugh! There is no such thing.

It may surprise you ignorant yanks, but it's never grey and foggy here....

Maybe get off your couch and visit place that doesn't sell fast food once in a while.

 

[tirerim]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

Apple should wait for the cancelations. Buy the empty plot and just build the ground floor where it would cause much less disruption.

Or they could just build the entire building out of glass. ;-)

Seems like a weird law. How does anything get built?

Well, it only applies to windows over 20 years old. It's called the "Ancient Lights" law -- if you have a window that's been there for over 20 years that gets daylight, someone can't come along and cut it off. Probably pretty good for saving money on electiricity, these days, though the law dates from before there was electricity to save, and people really needed the natural light. In areas that are experiencing rapid growth, it's not a concern, since the new construction is probably getting built fast enough that the old stuff hasn't gotten that old yet. In places that are already built up, yes, it has the effect of making it difficult to put up anything taller than was there before.

 

[Hattig]

Cheapside......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheapside

"Cheapside is the former site of one of the principal produce markets in London, cheap broadly meaning "market" in medieval English"

 

[reden]

Simple. They'll just build giant mirrors that reflect the sunlight where it used to shine on.

 

[weckart]

Hope the developer loses. That is one fugly mass of steel and glass totally out of keeping with the buildings in the area. It belongs in an industrial estate.

Apple should choose more wisely. Central London is served well enough, already, as it is.