Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

London skyscraper developments

Tom A

Goat among sheep
Crispy said:
There is a delay with the Shard, because the current tennants of the buildings on site decided to see out their tennancies, rather than move out, so that's another few years I think.
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.
 

exosculate

a stagger with a beat
Cid said:
Hadid, Coop Himmelblau, Eisenman, Libeskind, Tado Ando, Toyo Ito maybe Tschumi. I'd like to see CJ Lim and/or Peter Cook doing something here, but that would be silly. Other than that there are plenty of good small practices that I'd like to see more of.

I'd like to see conversion, rennovation or demolition of empty office blocks plus conversion of warehouses and empty space in the south. It would be good if rampant financial growth in the city was curtailed and moved out to bring investment to our 2nd/3rd cities and the north in general. Development of new housing and cultural centres in Southwark/borough etc would be great, would also like more development of the east.

Nice post Cid

How about some Hundertwasser

 

exosculate

a stagger with a beat
Tom A said:
Ooh that looks nice. Where is it?

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.
 

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.
 

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...




But for colour schemes, Tirana is your place:
 

dash

New Member
kyser_soze said:
There are estates in Battersea that have been painted 'cheery' colours to break up the fact they are monsters...
I've seen them. The bright colours lend them a rather remedial look, presumably this was not the intention.
 

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.
 

Blagsta

Minimum cage, maximum cage
The_Martian said:
Those others looks quite nice but as I already said, that kind of architecture belongs to the past (NOT MY OPINION)

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

tim

EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
The_Martian said:
What utter nonsense. I love old architecture parks etc above all but they don´t build things like that anymore.


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.





 

The_Martian

New Member
Blagsta said:
If its not your opinion, why post it? :confused: :confused:
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).
 

exosculate

a stagger with a beat
The_Martian said:
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.
Wow I agree with the Martian.
 

Monkeynuts

Hello sailor
The_Martian said:
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.
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.
 

exosculate

a stagger with a beat
Monkeynuts said:
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.
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.
 

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??
 

guinnessdrinker

political refugee
R.I.P.
Crispy said:
There is a delay with the Shard, because the current tennants of the buildings on site decided to see out their tennancies, rather than move out, so that's another few years I think.
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.
 

guinnessdrinker

political refugee
R.I.P.
kyser_soze said:
Bring 'em on is what I say - while I can see why a body like UNESCO would be interested in preserving the heritage setting of the ToL (IIRC it's a WHS) but I think they are wrong here.
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).




they're the towers to the left of the image
 

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.
 

Crispy

The following psytrance is baṉned: All
The_Martian said:
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.
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.
 

kyser_soze

Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Also I don´t get it how Trellick Tower and Barbican are "Amazing" and the Shard is not?!?!?
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...
 

lighterthief

Well-Known Member
The_Martian said:
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.
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.
 

kyser_soze

Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
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.
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?
 

The_Martian

New Member
lighterthief said:
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.
Indeed, but today that all would have disappeared anyway.

kyser_soze said:
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...
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.


kyser_soze said:
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?
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.
 
Top