There has been a much-enlarged involvement of outsiders in recent years and this will surely increase when the move to Stockwell Street takes place. The school has been moving around for the past 30 years but has mostly been in the suburbs. Greenwich has pretty well become part of Central London since the Isle of Dogs developed and this is a good location for a design school. There are reasons to be optimistic but, as always, reasons to be pessimistic!

I am hoping the design students, as well as having the sterling environment you describe, also get some personal attention from Richard Rogers and Caesar Pelli. (Not wanting to make them blush – but it may be that they are figures from what will one day be remembered as a golden era of design). Any wisdom they can pass to the next generation will be an unequaled investment in London’s future.

Connections could certainly be improved but they are already excellent. The site is a hub for cycle routes, pedestrian routes, buses, ferries and two railways. The A12 and A102 provide far betters road egress than most Londoners enjoy. Even better, the site is surrounded by pubs, restaurants, coffee shops, galleries, buildings by Wren and Hawksmoor and a park to which Le Notre and John Evelyn contributed. Buildings by Richard Rogers and Caesar Pelli can be seen across the Thames. What more could a design student want? But, yes, they should certainly cover the railway and one day I guess it will happen (ie when land prices are sufficiently high). There has been some development of air rights above stations and tracks in London (eg above Charing Cross Station, Canon Street Station and Liverpool Street Station – and immense works are underway above and around London Bridge Station) but there is scope for lots more and we need to leave some opportunities for generations to come!

And perhaps by extending the cover of railway cutting up to Greenwich Station and creating a piazza as you say, so much could be gained in commercial opportunities and linked public spaces (both green and paved). The paved spaces would add to the amenity of Greenwich Park as well as giving another way of moving from rail on foot or by cycle through the piazza to the Park and through to the riverfront – connecting the campus buildings at the same time. Perhaps Brit Rail could contribute funds also?

With more consideration I am sure that there could be enhanced retail and food and drink opportunities from the Greenwich buildings fronting the piazza which could also provide potential income. Enhanced property values (and rates to the Council) would offset the contributions from the community and other organizations.

Greenwich Station has been ‘modernised’ in the past 20 years and they nearly got it right by accident. The charm of the station lies in its resemblance to a country house. There were no models for stations so, just as the horseless carriage became a car so the squireless manor became a railway station. The recent (c2000) landsape design is too-blocky and too-bollardy http://imvisitinglondon.com/Images/Greenwich%20station%20ws.jpg but it is near enough to that of a town square to create the image of an Italianate house on a Piazza della Signoria http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Piazza_della_Signoria.jpg. I would congratulate them on a context-sensitive design – except for the fact that they roll it out whenever they have the opportunity.
Yes to all those possible sources of money but I do not think they would yield enough gold to do the job.

Could there be a community contribution levy to extend the cover? Or a tourism levy? Perhaps the Council could contribute too?

The Australian system sounds better – and I hope I am not doing an injustice to Greenwich planners. They have a lot of flexibility in operating the system but design review panels, which sound a great idea, are uncommon.
The original plan was to extend London’s first railway line, which ran to Greenwich, through the Park at ground level. This led to one of the first amenity protests in London and to it being put in a cut-and-cover-tunnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_and_Greenwich_Railway#Greenwich. Definitely, the cover should be extended. But what budget would the money come from? The only one I can think of is a commercial developer who wanted to use the air rights but I can see the University objecting to the loss of daylight.
Given my fondness for bananas I would not be surprised if I am even more closely related than the average human and this could explain why I am a little bananas.

This would have enabled the any comment to be given or issues to be flagged on perceived difficulties with the project or direction of the design. It would also have enabled people within the planning organization to have an understanding of the potential risk profile of the project and hence the appropriate pathway for community consultation (ie how extensive the consultation might be and how much time might be needed for the process). It might also have flagged whether any additional expert resources might assist in the consultation and potentially the assessment process.

The consultation and assessment process may then have run similar to what you have described.

Wow! The railway cutting does provide some physical separation between the site and the rear properties. This is good. But even better would be to cover this section of the railway and create the laneway giving access to Greenwich Park! Great for residents and Greenwich university.

I am in favour of an alternative energy source so that Greenwich University can stand alone on its own powersource (at least to a minimal operational level) if needed.

It is good to think we are so closely related to bananas on the evolutionary pathway.

I was not involved with the planners on this project but normal UK procedures depending on the size and importance of the project. For this project I guess it would have been (1) consultation with residents, inviting them to send in comments (2) meetings between officials and the design team (3) meetings of the elected members to hear presentations from the officials and the design team with opportunities for members of the public to address the meeting (4) this type of meeting would be repeated if permission was not given on the first occasion (5) there would have been two meetings, first for the initial permission and then for approval of details.
Does this differ from the system you are familiar with?
The space to the north of the building is a railway in a cutting. There was talk of bridging it to make a pedestrian space but this is not being done. You can see the building site, marked by a white cross, here http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=51.480113&lon=-0.008224&z=18&m=b
We need to remember that (1) plant cuttings root best when the roots are warm and the leaves are cold (2) human DNA sequences are over 95% identical to chimpanzee sequences and around 50% identical to banana sequences (3) humans can work well with ‘bottom heat’ and ‘top cool’ – and Japanese know how to do this with a kotatsu Note the electrical counterparts of hot stones. The studios are going to be open plan so using kotatsu instead of radiators would stop people gathering in groups to chat. They would just sit still and work, work, work. Then, if they get cold, they can go and do some digging on the roof! That’s my idea of sustainable urban design.

Yes I am sure you are right that creation of a laneway was never considered. For that matter circulation wasn’t the issue that the laneway would have addressed. So it was very likely never thought of.

Creative solutions usually begin (and possibly end) with the briefing of the architect/landscape architect. Clearly there are contextual issues outside of sites which also need creative solutions. Was an urban designer involved?

Looking again at the photograph a number of other questions occur. What is the pedestrianized space that looks like a mall beside the Greenwich University building? Is it university or council land?

Perhaps it would have been better (if the size of the site is a constraint) to have reconsidered the arrangement of public and private space with this area in mind. The Greenwich University buildings front it, but it seems a little ambiguous how it is connected with the block of buildings which back onto it?

I am sure you are right about the alternative uses for the roof garden and the potential to save energy by other methods. Although from memory you get a little tired of heavy clothing through the long winter and peeling off indoors is a relief.