IMHO it looks fine from the water side. It's tall and narrow, so doesn't present like a large blank wall. Faux anything looks... well... faux - so probably best to stick with the plan and play off the surrounding windowed buildings as a contrast point. Besides, the lot on Lower Water will probably be developed at some point, which would cover a good portion -or all- of the blankness.
I'm curious about why the lot is shaped in this way. If you look at it on
Google Maps 3D view, it almost looks like the lot being developed shares a common rooftop with some of the buildings adjacent to it, though the zig-zag pattern depicted on the proposal is shown as a division on the top of the existing buildings.
- It seems odd that a lot would be divided up that way. I had always thought that the Bedford Row and Lower Water buildings were all one, and have memories of entering on Bedford Row and accessing the Lower Water section via an internal staircase.
- More on a technical level, I'm wondering how difficult it will be to demolish existing, and then build new in conjunction with existing surrounding buildings. On the surface it appears like it will be a challenging build and potentially intrusive to its neighbours.
- Looking at it on Google Maps, it really becomes apparent how small of a footprint it actually has.
Interesting project.