Discussion in 'Brixton' started by ricbake, Mar 25, 2017.
No one did.
I beg to differ. In fact I'm rather astonished by your post because some people here staunchly defended any criticism of the firm.
This is the CGI of the proposal on the planning document:
Looks like a clone of Lexadon/Brewdog on the squint.
Meanwhile look what they got rid of at 45 Bellfield Road in 2006.
(Pictures are on Urban75 here: The Queen, 45 Bellefields Road SW9 - lost pubs of Brixton
Personally I'm sick of rotating developers gain wrecking my environment and annihilating local history.
The Squires proposal does nothing to reinstate the Victorian pleasure of the original pub at the opposite end of the terrace, and will no doubt irritate neighbouring residents enormously with wealthy vomiting patrons particularly on Sunday mornings.
Who wants to step over pools of vomit on the way to mass?
A lot of this thread has been about those who think Squires coming here is a good thing and those who are sceptical.
Even last couple of pages shows this. I had to stick up for a new poster who said something critical of Squires new plans.
So unless I'm going to have to have to get into argument based on analysing/ interpretating meanings of previous posts I would say that some thought Squires was a good thing. They refurbished an empty building, involved themselves in community. They have been criticised unfairly.
Just had a look at Cllr Ben Kind Twitter. On the right of the party. Not happy about all member meetings of Labour party in Streatham for example. Despite this giving ordinary members increased voice in local party. They are the wrong kind of new members.
The New Labour Cllrs like Kind see Squires as example of the kind of entrepreneurial capitalism with added social value they so admire. Its as my old Cllr Rachel said to me the future they see for Brixton.
There’s a difference between thinking that (on balance) something is a good thing and thinking that it will be of benefit to the wider community.
So you want to get into an argument about meanings of what posters mean.
I'm not prepared to get out my grammer/dictionary books for close textual analysis.
When I say I support Squires coming here is a good thing one is jumping to conclusions if that is interpreted as meaning that its beneficial for the community.
Sometimes I want to give up on Brixton forum.
Surely an upstanding citizen would consider benefits to the wider community first when deciding if something is a good or bad thing (on balance).
I find it distasteful to draw comparisons with Isis on this thread.
Does anyone know why it's called Canova Hall? Anything to do with the guy who created this?
Surely an even more kitsch Canova is this "neo-clasical" statue of George Washington in the Senate of North Carolina.
Surely nothing could be more apt for an up and coming district of hipsters and serfs?
I emailed Squire & Partners about the frequent flows of dirty water across Stockwell Avenue from blocked drains at the side of Canova Hall. To their credit they replied straight away & said it's driving them mad because Thames Water won't fix it or let them do it. They've also invited me to lunch Upstairs... cunning co-option? You decide, but obviously I'm going!
I also did this spot of guerilla gardening around a sapling at Canova Hall's back door - it was sitting in a puddle of grey sludge, being used as a substitute drain/ashtray. Had to cart a load of homemade compost down the road & felt a bit daft doing it but got lots of positive comments from passers by.
Nobody seem to have spotted this article in Tuesday's Standard.
In a long-running saga going back to 2007 when HRH Prince Charles intervened, the property tycoons "The Candy Brothers" in conjunction with the Emir of Quatar were forced to tone down their proposed carbuncle (designed by Lord Richard Rogers of Pompidou Centre, Gherkin & wobbly bridge fame).
M'lud Rogers got the boot and guess who - Squire and Partners - were brought in to sort out the mess. Apparently the gardens are now open for public viewing.
No doubt cynics on here will say - not for long!
Renowned architect firm is renowned.
Gherkin and wobbly bridge were Norman Foster projects - not Richard Rogers.
Dunno why you call the Rogers design a carbuncle - it was more interesting than the conservative and po-faced Prince Charles-appeasing Squire scheme that has been built.
Squires were brought in after Prince Charles personally intervened to stop the previous design. Why I think he should never be King.
Squires are establishment architects. A safe pair of hands. A bit of progressive middle of the ground modernism with enough nods to tradition that make their work sit easily with the centre ground political project.
That was because Prince Charles was involved. And he was noted for describing modern architecture as such - and intervening with his fellow royal in Qatar to squash the Chelsea carbuncle.
On 13th May 2009 the Daily Telegraph claimed that the Richard Rogers scheme was number 10 on the Prince's hit list of carbuncles. Obviously things have moved on now, courtesy of Prince Charles' intervention and a more traditional approach from Squires and Partners.
10. £1bn housing scheme at former Chelsea Barracks, London.
WHAT THE PRINCE SAID: Earlier this year the Prince wrote to Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, the emir of Qatar whose family are the main backers of a the scheme, calling for the proposed design by Richard Rogers to be scrapped in favour of a more traditional scheme devised by classicist Quinlan Terry.
WHAT HAPPENED: Returning fire, supporters of Rogers, now Lord Rogers of Riverside, signed a round-robin letter calling on the Prince to keep out. "It is essential in a The Prince of Wales will address the Royal Institute of British Architects this week, exactly 25 years after he created turmoil in the industry with his 'monstrous carbuncle' speech to the same audience. modern democracy," they said, "that private comments and behind-the-scenes lobbying by the prince should not be used to skew the course of an open and democratic planning process that is under way ... If the prince wants to comment on the design of this, or any other project, we urge him to do so through the established planning consultation process.
Rather than use his privileged position to intervene in one of the most significant residential projects likely to be built in London in the next five years, he should engage in an open and transparent debate."
The letters was signed by the likes of Lord Foster, Frank Gehry, Renzo Piano, Jean Nouvel, Sir Nicholas Serota. The final design has not yet been chosen. Amanda Baillieu, editor of Building Design and a Stirling prize judge said: "Of course the Prince's intervention is unfortunate, but as a piece of urbanism Chelsea Barracks is not a particularly good scheme, and so far nobody has listened. It's not simply that it'll be a Gucci ghetto, it's that its overall form gives very little back to the city. Anything or anyone that starts the debate over this important London site is to be welcomed – royal or otherwise."
She added: "He has certainly been a significant influence, the question is whether it has been negative or positive. The positive impact has been on the profession that thought it was beyond criticism, was on a pedestal and beyond reproach. The problem was that his first remarks were such a big blow that some architects never really recovered and for a long time we had designs that were safe, particularly in London. My criticism of him is that he often sees buildings and skylines as he would in a painting rather than as someone who uses them. He hates the National Theatre on the South Bank but then he can't exactly pop along and see a play or spend an afternoon enjoying its spaces as a member of the crowd so he doesn't see it as ordinary people might, he only addresses its outside appearance."
teuchter this blog might be of interest if you enjoy debating planning and carbuncles The Pock Mark Award : The Carbuncle Awards 2015 : Carbuncles : Architecture in profile the building environment in Scotland - Urban Realm
Sorry about that -- you are quite correct. I had the pleasure of hearing Richard Rogers present his proposal for a glass canopy over the Southbank Centre - which Lambeth Planning loved, though I guess it never got funding.
Around the same time Rogers proposed getting rid of the aerial walkway on the National Theatre side. Sir Denys Lasdun was outraged - and even got a petition up from such worthies as Sir John Betjeman. I never thought a hunk of crumbling concrete was that important to the NT.
I guess architects are a bit like Prima Donnas.
Prince Charles's role in Chelsea barrack planning row 'unwelcome'
Squires know how to keep the right people happy.
Rich folks like to stick together.
Better suited to Haringey?
Separate names with a comma.