Zaha Hadid in Hoxton Square

Back in 2008 permission was granted for a new 5 storey building by Zaha Hadid at 33-35 Hoxton Square (2008/1321). Then nothing happened. But a planning application has just been submitted for an extension to the permitted time of consent. So we may yet see Hadid in Hoxton. Personally I wish we could enjoy more architectural contrasts such as this across the borough and not just in Shoreditch/Hoxton.Hadid in Hoxton Sq


  1. The current building (which is dire) is up for rent, so it looks like a speculative thing to get the permission extended, unfortunately.

  2. The current building is indeed rather dire, but the new design by Ms Hadid is surely a bit of a joke? Isn’t it???

  3. Avant garde perhaps, but no joke. Personally, I’d find it a refreshing note of contrast in this conservative borough. What sort of thing would you like to see here @BillE8 ?

  4. It’s grey. It will weather incredibly badly. It’s too tall. It merely shouts \Look at me! I’m tall and grey and weird-looking!” It is hemmed in. It detracts from the already fine buildings around it and opposite it. It is a clever idea but in the wrong place. It’s the wrong style of design for the square one of the area’s most calm places – calm because of its buildings and layout. Avant garde perhaps but Ms Hadid’s best designs work best when they are either echoing their immediate buildings or you come across them surprisingly in the middle of nowhere – then they soar and amaze.”

  5. Why \too tall”? Too tall for what? I’d guess that it’s about the same height as the buildings opposite (not that that should be a limitation). I get that you don’t like it but I was wondering about what sort of new building you’d like to see there in its place?”

  6. Too tall for the square – too tall to fit in. It looms above the other buildings and has quite an imposing mood to it. All that blank grey aluminium is not welcoming, which I think goes against what a building in the square should be.I’d like to see a building that fits and inspires and welcomes and states its purpose and is respected for being part of where it is, not a building that is clever for its own sake. I’m not an architect, so I have no idea what would suit the space, but I believe that this is not the right one –  it will become a clever idea that was clever for a few years then will be regretted by residents there and we will wonder how the building ever got planning permission. I agree that Hackney suffers from a conservative attitude to its buildings, but this design is badly placed and would suit a better one where its undoubted merits can be appreciated properly.

  7. if buildings never stood out from their peers, weren’t taller, weren’t innovative, then we’d still all be living in wattle and daub huts. I’m sure there are better options for the site, but to limit its ambition based on the limited ambition of the surrounding buildings is not a caveat i’d like to see.

  8. \Too tall for the square – too tall to fit in.”But we’ve always broken building heights. Since when is it the function of modern architecture to “fit in”? From mud huts to timber framed houses to Georgian 5-storey terraces to Victorian mansion blocks to ten-storey Art Deco apartment blocks to mid-20th century high-rise. All progress by definition doesn’t “fit in”. Surely all our contrasting styles and building heights is part of what makes London such an interesting place to live as opposed to some more homogeneous cities.Perhaps ironically this obsession with maintaining building heights is a rather recent mindset.”

  9. I like the glass on this project and how it will  be reflecting the trees and the square. I believe that the Gurkin or the Shard are adding to the London skyline , why not doing it at lower levels too?

  10. This application was up before the planning committee last night.Hackney Planning has just informed me that;\Members resolved to extend the planning permission subject to the completion of a deed of variation to the s106 agreement.””

Comments are now closed for this post.