London skyscraper developments

Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by wjfox2007, Jan 21, 2007.

  1. Tom A

    Tom A Goat among sheep

    Hmm... they means when they move out, these building can be squatted en masse, provding a home and community network for many of London's underclass. The huge skyscraper project won't seem so benign if it means kicking people onto the streets now, would it? ;)

    E2A: Give me a bit of good old fashioned 60s brutalism over some of the shite stuff currently being built in the country anyday.
     
  2. exosculate

    exosculate a stagger with a beat


    Nice post Cid

    How about some Hundertwasser

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Tom A

    Tom A Goat among sheep

    Ooh that looks nice. Where is it?
     
  4. exosculate

    exosculate a stagger with a beat


    That ones in Vienna. Theres a bit of it on the continent, but nothing here as far as I am aware. It combines nature with art with architecture. Nice I think.
     
  5. Cid

    Cid 嗯嗯

    Bit too unashamedly post modern, but good in small doses where it's appreciated. Vienna has some nice little bits of architecture dotted around.
     
  6. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    That's interesting. I've never been and have little knowledge of the place. Recently someone was telling me it was even more of a museum piece than Paris but the building above is certainly interesting.

    I quite like a spot of Moneo...
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    But for colour schemes, Tirana is your place:[​IMG]
     
  7. Tom A

    Tom A Goat among sheep

    That looks a bit like some of the newbuild I have seen in Manchester, particuarly between Hulme and Oxford Road.
     
  8. guinnessdrinker

    guinnessdrinker political refugee R.I.P.

    [bombs the Prince AlBert].
     
  9. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    looks like a Mondrian with windows :)
     
  10. kyser_soze

    kyser_soze Hawking's Angry Eyebrow

    There are estates in Battersea that have been painted 'cheery' colours to break up the fact they are monsters...
     
  11. dash

    dash New Member

    I've seen them. The bright colours lend them a rather remedial look, presumably this was not the intention.
     
  12. The_Martian

    The_Martian New Member

    That building in Tirana looks 10X worse than any of the proposed skyscrapers for the city.

    Those others looks quite nice but as I already said, that kind of architecture belongs to the past (NOT MY OPINION) and the day London gets anything that is even close to Hundertwasser is the day they build 500m skyscrapers in Helsinki.
     
  13. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage


    If its not your opinion, why post it? :confused: :confused:
     
  14. PacificOcean

    PacificOcean Unhinged User

    Eww. Eww. Ewwwwwwww NO! to those multi-coloured buildings.

    They look awful. :eek:
     
  15. tim

    tim Well-Known Member



    Build parks?

    And anyway, "they" do still build things "like that" as is seen in all those neo-Georgian and neo-Victorian Barrat homes, or in Terry Quinlan's neo-neo-classical Rchmond Riverside office block from the late 80's. Or in that half and half Paternoster Square mish-mash. Big and with shiny glass and silly shapes, or big with dinky Georgian sash windows and Ionian pillars, it's all a matter of developer taste.


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
  16. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    Well, Tirana is... interesting - wouldn't necessarily recommend the same thing in London:D
     
  17. PacificOcean

    PacificOcean Unhinged User

    It looks like the aftermath from the Sony Bravia ad. :D
     
  18. The_Martian

    The_Martian New Member

    Because that´s what people generally think.

    And overall old school stone buildings aren´t built anymore, it´s shame really. Paternoster Square looks quite nice.

    Why London did not rebuild the East End after WW2 (like they did in Poland, Germany etc..) instead of tearing it down is beyond me. Also 1/3 of the City was destroyed and 80% damaged. There are plenty of ugly 60s blocks to replace. I think 4 new skyscrapers are very welcome, they will be replacing post-war crap not Victorian building plus they enhance the streets greatly (new squares, passages, trees etc).
     
  19. exosculate

    exosculate a stagger with a beat

    Wow I agree with the Martian.
     
  20. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    It's a bit more complicated than that.

    You have the relative merits of Lend Lease vs the Marshall Plan, population growth, the standard of existing housing stock and the political imperative to provide decent housing, contemporary attitudes...

    I agree with the sentiment though, it is always a bit disconcerting to be in Stepney or wherever and come across a jewel of a Georgian or early Victorian terrace in the midst of decaying 1960s shit.
     
  21. exosculate

    exosculate a stagger with a beat

    Indeed they could have saved much more.

    I have a book somewhere that makes clear that more old buildings were lost post war than during WW2. Just after the war a house with only 3 roof tiles missing could be classed as bomb damaged and could be demolished on that basis. Its a horrible history. They could have saved much more.
     
  22. HackneyE9

    HackneyE9 Active Member

    I'd just like to point out that 'skyscrapers' are not necessarily synonymous with 'office blocks' and being against those boring and unsustainable new City developments does not make one a luddite.

    The Barbican, Trellick Tower and Balfron Tower are amazing skyscrapers builts as social or quasi social housing.

    The new Paternoster Square, meanwhile, is a low-rise mixed-metaphor Barret developer naff-hole.

    So why the obsession with plugging commercial office blocks??
     
  23. guinnessdrinker

    guinnessdrinker political refugee R.I.P.

    what I keep reading in the Southwark News is that they swear it is "about to start", "problems to iron out", etc. so it is definitely a few years, if at all.
     
  24. guinnessdrinker

    guinnessdrinker political refugee R.I.P.

    what is being planned next to Tower Bridge is not a massive skyscraper but 8 residential towers, the highest being 18 storey, 386 privately owned flats, some being officially "affordable", and 11000 Sq meter of "public and cultural space", whatever that means. or at least that was the original plans. there is a big battle betwee the council and the local MP on one side and ken livingstone and john prescott who approved of the plans on the other side. but berkeley homes only one some of the land so they can't build it all as it stands. the full story is in today's Southwark news (8 january).


    [​IMG]

    they're the towers to the left of the image
     
  25. The_Martian

    The_Martian New Member

    I Hate the Potters Fields towers. I hope they don´t get built.

    Also I don´t get it how Trellick Tower and Barbican are "Amazing" and the Shard is not?!?!? You guys only look at what they represent.
     
  26. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Careful with the 'you guys' there. There's a wider range of opinion on here than you think.

    Besides, what things represent is important, no? In some cases more important than the thing itself.
     
  27. kyser_soze

    kyser_soze Hawking's Angry Eyebrow

    You will find that opinion on both those buildings is extremely divided, and both have only really become popular in recent years - Trellick with affluent West Londoners who bought the council places for the views (an almost identical tower in Bow that's still inhabited by council tenants is despised), and opinion on the Barbican by people who haven't been in and seen the inside of the flats (externally it's awful, and a complete warren to walk around and get lost in) is generally negative as well.

    And if you'd bothered reading people's posts, quite a few here like the Shard - just not in your credulously uncritical fashion that because it's tall and new it's therefore great.

    But then coming from a country that spends half it's time in the dark and from a capital city that's smaller than Manchester and Birmingham it's not surpising really...
     
  28. lighterthief

    lighterthief Well-Known Member

    A lot of the housing in the east end of London was pretty shocking though - small, overcrowded, outdoor toilets etc. I think that's the main reason given for tearing it down.
     
  29. kyser_soze

    kyser_soze Hawking's Angry Eyebrow

    Well there are PLENTY of history books on post-war planning and re-building in London, so maybe you should start there so that the thinking wouldn't be so 'beyond' you?
     
  30. The_Martian

    The_Martian New Member

    Indeed, but today that all would have disappeared anyway.

    Way to go! You really have some issues man.

    And stop comparing Finland with Britain. Your country spends half it´s time under showers of rain and the other half in overcast so I think we´re pretty even.


    Ok. What was rebuilt after the war?


    And btw. I don´t like the Shard because it´s modern and tall. I like it because it´s beatiful.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice