I couldnt find a thread for this. This is what it looks like from a far now:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/zapotek/DSC03556.jpg

We were just posting pictures in the Palestra thread.

getting quite an emerging midrise cluster around the tate. 44 hopton street will be visible between that and bankside lofts from that view.

Is it fair to call 40m buildings midrises in London? I mean us up north hav f'ort resort to calling 50m building midrises so..

its 58m i think.

View of Bankside 123, Palestra and the Tate Modern from my office

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/6059/img01305iv.jpg

Coming along nicely. The cladding is great. Which of Wren's Churches is that?

Coming along nicely. The cladding is great. Which of Wren's Churches is that?

That'll be St Vedast alias Foster on Foster Lane. Quite pleasant little spot, although nothing like as interesting as St Stephen's Walbrook (also a Wren church) across the road from Bucklesbury House which is where Chad Varah founded the Samaritans and which also has an unusual systems of concentric pews surrounding a circular stone altar designed by Sir Henry Moore.

Sounds like I'm a bit churchy, which I'm not, but a youth of being dragged round cathedrals and churches by my parents has left me with a healthy interest in the city's churches.

The City Churches are great. There is a book out now in the Pevsner series specifically on them which I'm thinking of purchasing.

Back to subject, where do you work for a view like that of the Southbank, 88 Wood Street? Alban Gate?

This is a great link: http://www.london-city-churches.org.uk/

Click on "Index of Churches" to get a complete list. :)

The City Churches are great. There is a book out now in the Pevsner series specifically on them which I'm thinking of purchasing.

Back to subject, where do you work for a view like that of the Southbank, 88 Wood Street? Alban Gate?

haha, Gresham Street, No.25 to be precise. fine view from our 7-9th floor. We also get a fairly cracking view of another of Wren's fine designs.
:happy:

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/2117/img00683ro.jpg

Won't St Pauls block the sight line to the Beetham tower from there? ;-)

Here's a render for bankside

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/2193/img04683ot.jpg

And here's a couple of how it looked last weekend
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/8661/img06352ju.jpg


http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4373/img06387wc.jpg

p.s. Does anyone know which building this u/c? The pic was taken from the back of the Tate Modern restuarant, so it's a bit South East of Bankside/Palestra.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8427/img06102ns.jpg

p.p.s Apologies for the huge pics. This is my first post. Any tips on how to fit them better?

Thanks

thats Tabard Square, about 90m tall

they are good pics!!! make them a little smaller 800*600 or so will be great. ;)

Bankside 123 = more mid rise mediocrity that does nothing to improve Londons skyline.

I would say all the talk about tall clusters around here including tall proposals along blackfriars such as beetham etc ruining the setting of the Tate Modern is uterly pointless as this building on its on has ruined its setting- Its an alright mid-rise but whoever allowed it to be taller than the main building of the Tate ruined the main view of the tate modern which is best seen straight on from the north bank of the thames looking across from the millenium bridge & bankside 123 totally blocks the view of it from the South.

they are good pics!!! make them a little smaller 800*600 or so will be great. ;)

Thanks Mikey. I am a techno dunce. How do I go about reducing the size of the pics? Do I need to do it before or after hosting it? Any help much appreciated. I know how annoying it is having to scroll across to view pics.

Peyre - Thanks a lot for the heads up on Tabard Square.

Mac - Bankside is no award winner, but I think it's better than 90% of the cack in that area, although admittedly I don't know the area that well. I think this together with Palestra and Tabard Square will improve the aesthetic appeal of the skyline no end.

Resize your photos Before you upload them, you can normally use your camera software or photoshop or paintshop pro... :)

I would say all the talk about tall clusters around here including tall proposals along blackfriars such as beetham etc ruining the setting of the Tate Modern is uterly pointless as this building on its on has ruined its setting- Its an alright mid-rise but whoever allowed it to be taller than the main building of the Tate ruined the main view of the tate modern which is best seen straight on from the north bank of the thames looking across from the millenium bridge & bankside 123 totally blocks the view of it from the South.

My thoughts too, I would much rather have a Beetham which tries to enrich the skyline rather than these hulks that just cynically exploit height restrictions by creating a long flat roof a few metres above everything else,

and I suppose this building also destroys the prospect of implementing the Richard Rogers Southwark boulevard mooted a while back... :bash:

and I suppose this building also destroys the prospect of implementing the Richard Rogers Southwark boulevard mooted a while back... :bash:

Yeah this got dropped ages ago.

Although Rogers is supposed to be designing the residentail Bankside 4 ( which is the site where all the warehouses are next door to the tate & bankside 123) which according to Land Secs website was supposed to have started in June but as far as im aware it hasn't even gone in for planning yet.

What will this building be used for? Office, apartments, leisure?

Bankside 123 are a collection of offices (this one being built now is bankside 1 I think). Some of them will have shops on the ground floor & I think because of the area they will be independent shops in keeping with the art & culture of the Tate ( so hopefully no starbucks & sainsburys local). Bankside 4 is supposed to be residential - im not sure what elemnet it will have on the ground floor as nobody has seen any designs but i'd expect it would have independent restaurants/bars etc.

The previous building on this site was huge 50's/60's hulk that occupied the whole site. At least the new project breaks the bulk up and allows permeability. I'm not 100% sure but I think the previous building was a little bit higher than the current scheme. I think the new scheme is an improvement on the old.

http://tinypic.com/bgqwy8.jpg

This is my first picture post so I hope it works, taken from Southwark Street

These three from behind tate modern

http://tinypic.com/bgr29c.jpg

http://tinypic.com/bgr38n.jpg

Tate Moderns reflection.

http://tinypic.com/bgr41s.jpg

This building is coming along quite nicely, the cladding looks good, similar to the Kings Reach reclad maybe?

Ah didnt realise they would appear so big, well here is a bit of an arty one of Tate Modern, that i managed to resize

http://tinypic.com/bgr9eg.jpg

This building is coming along quite nicely, the cladding looks good, similar to the Kings Reach reclad maybe?

I fucking hope not.

This building (and I expect its brothers when they are built) looks like some cheap plastic crap dumped behind Tate Modern.

Fucking awful. It's a shame Zaha Hadid's wonderful Architecture Centre has to be juxtaposed with these hulks of commercialised crap.

This building really isnt that bad, I had a friend who lived an apartment on Southwark Street opposite the site a few years ago, and believe me it's a big improvement on what was there before, some nasty 60's office block called Christopher House I think. Anyway my point is it's not a great building but it's OK

but ok isnt good enough, we should be replacing all the disasterous bits of the 60s with something uplifting and fundamentally different rather than replacing concrete boxes with glass ones! These 60s hulks destroyed entire streets and scarred areas for decades. I walked around the site and this does nothing for the area, the facade neither soars nor excites nor fits in (partly because there is no Urban glue holding this area together in the first place). I cant see anyone wanting to walk around behind Tate Modern for the next 50 years which is a shame as there are a few hidden gems around here.

It is 2005 and we havent learnt from the past! This site should have been broken up into smaller lots or if you want to build big then you need a lot more detailing and a grand promenade to show it off!

Couldn't find the thread for this one, but since they're so close I'll post here.

I wasn't to impressed when I saw the renderings but now it's almost complete it looks OK, the cladding with the random yellow bits works, my only real criticism is it's a bit too bulky but then again it's better than most of the crap in Southwark, plus you have to feel sorry for the people who live in the flats across the road from it, as their view to the north has been completely blocked, all they see now is a wall of glass

http://tinypic.com/bgs11d.jpg

http://tinypic.com/bgs18x.jpg

http://tinypic.com/bgs2kn.jpg

http://tinypic.com/bgs46p.jpg

but ok isnt good enough, we should be replacing all the disasterous bits of the 60s with something uplifting and fundamentally different rather than replacing concrete boxes with glass ones! These 60s hulks destroyed entire streets and scarred areas for decades. I walked around the site and this does nothing for the area, the facade neither soars nor excites nor fits in (partly because there is no Urban glue holding this area together in the first place). I cant see anyone wanting to walk around behind Tate Modern for the next 50 years which is a shame as there are a few hidden gems around here.

It is 2005 and we havent learnt from the past! This site should have been broken up into smaller lots or if you want to build big then you need a lot more detailing and a grand promenade to show it off!

Fair enough, I agree with your sentiment, im not the biggest fan of groundscrapers anyway. Southwark does feel like an area with out a real identity, it's such a muddle.

but ok isnt good enough, we should be replacing all the disasterous bits of the 60s with something uplifting and fundamentally different rather than replacing concrete boxes with glass ones! These 60s hulks destroyed entire streets and scarred areas for decades.
Exactly! :applause:

On the positive side though, Palestra looks fabulous!

My point about Bankside 123 was that I liked the cladding rather than the building per se, the use of colour with those blue fins makes a change to the plain glass facades of More London for example. Anyway IMO these bulky groundscraper developments do more damage in the City where they block the old city churchs, and especially when they encroach on neighbourhoods like spitalfield, there isn't as much of a good urban fabric in Southwark to ruin.

Anyway back to Spitalfield I was there a few weeks ago, the new Foster designed building above the market is so bland. It will be a crime if in 20 years time spitalfield is full of stumpy glass boxes, thats the great thing about this area, the juxapositon of spitalfields Georgian streets and skyscrapers of the City nextdoor.

The yellow on Palestra doesn't seem to stand out as much as it does on the renders. I think it looks ok but it's not as colourful as i'd expect from an alsop designed building. I'm a little disappointed with it because even though it's a very high quality glass box it still seems to be just a glass box (or rather a glass box with another one on top).

Eric Parry have updated there website & theres clearer images of there proposed 15 Park st which includes a 20+ storey triangular residential block that will be next to Bankside 123 & Tate modern

click on projects- working & 185 park st

http://www.ericparryarchitects.co.uk/home.html

Cant say im too keen on Bankside 123 - claddings alright but the offices are too bulky & blocky- prefer Mor London to be honest.

^ Nice little tower, I like it.

http://tinypic.com/bh0k2f.jpg

hello friends

could someone tell me the completion date for every tower u/c and approved in the southbank area



I want to know when the area will be complete

thank you

Max

RE: 185 Park St.

The client for this project is Multiplex

Palestra is really looking superb, cant wait till its all done with no scaffolding and there is an uninterupted view of the cladding!

hello friends

could someone tell me the completion date for every tower u/c and approved in the southbank area



I want to know when the area will be complete

thank you

Max

Max- You will have to be more specific-

Southwark is a london borough & each development is driven by different forces & different developers & is in different locations so there is no end date for construction.

LBT is supposed to be finished by 2010ish, Beetham has just gone in for planning so no idea, Wikinson Eyres hsn't even gone in for planning yet. The resi tower next ot hte Tate has pp but no idea when its starting & any other ones that are being worked up & in the future... who knows.

So in answer to your question ..they isn't one, as with other parts of London new develpoments/proposals come out all the time , some get built , some dont.

I snapped some pics today

first Bankside 123

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/5585/cladding3gf.jpg

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/9896/south0ub.jpg

Palestra

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5240/pal4is.jpg

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8230/pal28cw.jpg

Looking good !

Love the cladding :yes:

Land Secs has sold the Rogers designed Bankside4 resi scheme. No idea what this looked like & no idea what the new owners plan or if it'l be tall or not.

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view.php?ArtID=1773

As DarJoLe pointed out to me earlier today, there are webcams of Bankside 2 and 3, so time to resurrect this thread, I think.

First, this is what we're going to get:

http://tinypic.com/jkys7n.jpg

The gap between 2&3
http://tinypic.com/jkyscn.jpg

Bankside 1 is externally complete.
Bankside 2 looks like:
http://tinypic.com/jkyut3.jpg

Bankside 3 looks like:
http://tinypic.com/jkx509.jpg

Would I be hounded off this site if I said these buildings have completely ruined the area around Tate Modern?

Another example of monolithic groundscrapers over-developing an area that could have seen the same amount of office space in a couple of towers and a massive green area surrounding them.

It's the same with Palestra, the tiny roads and pavements of Southwark can't take these hunking great beasts plonked in them.

Would I be hounded off this site if I said these buildings have completely ruined the area around Tate Modern?

Another example of monolithic groundscrapers over-developing an area that could have seen the same amount of office space in a couple of towers and a massive green area surrounding them.

It's the same with Palestra, the tiny roads and pavements of Southwark can't take these hunking great beasts plonked in them.

Agree with you on this Dar; Bankside one is okay, but 2 and 3 are bloody awful, seem rather strange plonked in there behind Tate Modern.

I would think thou, these were much easier to get approval than a tower, although the latter would have been much better.

All that wasted groundspace :(

DarJole, you are too right... this could have been one of the best and most visited public spaces in London: a showcase. Now its just a sad canyon. Oh well, so much for the supposed vision of Southwark...

I sort of agree, but on the other hand if I visit Tate Modern I am not going to walk around the back to look for groundscrapers. I would certainly notice a 30 storey effort (even though I am prejdudiced toward 30 storey efforts) I guess that is the idea...they are out of sight.

I do agree it is a waste of land and opportunity...London would do better with taller structures and more trees (despite its record breaking greenness) There is still room for more greenery. I grow trees for pleasure, plant them and give them to the council and I cannot get enough of them, but people cannot understand my desire for both trees and tall buildings!

I really don't understand why a tall building is a better option??? surely that will distract you away from the tate modern? and I disagree with most of you, about bankside 123. I think it WILL be a great addition to the area , did any of you realize what a monstrosity it replaced??? The architects have a great record in producing high quality innovative buildings and I'm sure it will enliven the area Bringing much needed life to the backstreets which are a no mans land at present.

This is shit and is so far from the proposed visions for this area I dont know why Southwark even bothered asking Rogers for his thoughts, or even why they bother thinking about urban design.

They should have been far braver and insisted that the site be split up into smaller plots. Tate Modern on its own by the river works as a monolithic structure; not only do these 3 structures detract from that they will also make for a very unattractive experience around the back (bankside doesnt work in my experience of walking around the area) and they dont even attempt to integrate into the area, just look at the first picture!

However, the crowning turd of this development is the fact that the flat rooftop of bankside rises above Tate Modern when viewed across the river, not a soaring elegent structure or an interesting harmonic profile but a niggling single floor poking up like a bad piece of carpentery. I cant believe architects get paid for this sort of thing and that planners sit there and let it happen. We had might as well give developers free reign to urinate all over our landscapes.

bottom line the bloody thing looks aweful. :mad:

Awful indeed.

I really don't understand why a tall building is a better option??? surely that will distract you away from the tate modern?

The thing to remember is that Tate Modern will eventually be surrounded by taller buildings in ten to fifteen years. We already have Beetham and Hopton Street proposed, and the Rogers Bankside 4 is in the works. If this project had looked at those, it would have seen that maybe a better option is to condense the amount of office space in these three buildings into two towers, which would have had smaller foorprints, and left the rest of the space as an open urban landscaped green, similar to what exists out the front of Tate Modern. If the towers had been placed at the eastern edge of the site, it would have opened up the western portion of the site, creating a better entrance to the back of Tate Modern from the designated route from Southwark Tube station.

Now all we have is a great hulk of a building that hides any indication of being near the art gallery.

and I disagree with most of you, about bankside 123. I think it WILL be a great addition to the area , did any of you realize what a monstrosity it replaced???

Yes. But instead of something actually masterplanned and a bit more 'human', we're just getting another monstrosity with funky blue cladding

The architects have a great record in producing high quality innovative buildings and I'm sure it will enliven the area Bringing much needed life to the backstreets which are a no mans land at present.

Yes but life to who? From what I gathered, the point of Tate Modern was to turn Southwark and Bankside into an urban creative quarter of London, a centre of culture and an area that was given over to creative, small, lighter artistic industries. I seem to remember the Bankside group responsible wanted to try and slow the 'gentrification' of the area without preventing its regeneration. Yes, the influx of residential apartments and Starbucks and Eats has dragged the area up, but is it now the case that whopping great office blocks are needed to continue this regeneration? If this is the case, it's a shame the developers didn't think a bit further of implementing in these such a way that the ambience of the area isn't lost.

Maybe I have an emotional attachment to the area, having worked at Tate Modern and was part of the team that worked on the Rogers project to create the Bankside boulevard, which was snubbed by residents because it contained a couple of towers and would create too much pedestrian traffic, yet this development which architecturally is worse is waved through without a thought.

Totally off topic, but who is the architectural study on the other side of bankside 123 again? they have a few high rises models in their front window?

yep they're nasty nasty nasty......nasty. I think a residential lead in this area would have been much better giving a shad thames feel to the area. A few offices, live work units, cinema etc. etc would have given so much more depth to the long thin south bank.

Totally off topic, but who is the architectural study on the other side of bankside 123 again? they have a few high rises models in their front window?

Allies & Morrison, the irony of which designed Bankside 123.

Thanks - I had no idea who designed the monstruosity. And yes,you know that when Starbucks moves in, the area's up and coming, but not always for the right reasons.

...the Bankside boulevard, which was snubbed by residents because it contained a couple of towers and would create too much pedestrian traffic, yet this development which architecturally is worse is waved through without a thought.

Fucking depressing, too much pedestrian traffic?! Jesus it seems democratic planning is getting us no-where fast, dont know what the solution is.

It's 1 that looks awful, more than 2 and 3

At very least we will have Hadid's Arhitecture Foundation building. Where is the site for Rogers' tower?

These buildings work. No1 steps up elegantly from the Tate without interfering with its clean lines. I especially like the way no3 is offset at an angle from the others to break the strong symmetry along the road – subtle yet playful. The cladding on no1 brightens up my Thameslink journeys. Yes, this is bound to be a huge mass to take in from ground level, but it’s an articulate and clear peace of urbanism that relates well to its context. Uplifting.

oh, not to worry guys, its subtle and playful, how ever did we doubt this development?

;) nice to see it makes someone happy at least, they will feel they have done their job :(

but ok isnt good enough, we should be replacing all the disasterous bits of the 60s with something uplifting and fundamentally different rather than replacing concrete boxes with glass ones! These 60s hulks destroyed entire streets and scarred areas for decades. I walked around the site and this does nothing for the area, the facade neither soars nor excites nor fits in (partly because there is no Urban glue holding this area together in the first place). I cant see anyone wanting to walk around behind Tate Modern for the next 50 years which is a shame as there are a few hidden gems around here.

It is 2005 and we havent learnt from the past! This site should have been broken up into smaller lots or if you want to build big then you need a lot more detailing and a grand promenade to show it off!I agree. Palestra is OK but Bankside 123 is just an another glass hulk. Groudscrapers are London's enemies. They contribute nothing at street level yet provide huge volumes of office space and therefore soak up demand that could have gone into skyscrapers.

I agree. Palestra is OK but Bankside 123 is just an another glass hulk. Groudscrapers are London's enemies. They contribute nothing at street level yet provide huge volumes of office space and therefore soak up demand that could have gone into skyscrapers.

I actually really like the cladding of Bankside 1, but in urban terms I agree with both Monkey and Darjole. This area had, and still has, the opportunity to offer a different urban experience than the often sterile groundscaper environments offered across the river. These bulky buildings don't really help that. I would contend though that beyond it's cladding and slipped volume massing, Palestra fares little better. It's a shame as I really like Allies and Morrison projects generally.

@ Darjole

Did you used to work at RRP then? You mentioned you were involved in the earlier masterplan study.

I think the best option would be for planners, Financiers, Architects and the council to come and attach themselves to one of these threads when they propose something.

The feelings on this matter are so stong and informed and all completely valid (just about every comment on here makes me at least look at things from a slightly different angle...I am preaching to the converted!). In the case of Tate, I do think they would have gone for tall instead of hidden, because alot of people come here from abroad and have a pre-concieved idea of london....How could they put that behind this wondeful monument) They would see the gallery as that (and not a disused condemed power station) and be agast that it is overlooked! so directly by something new. This is not my view, but I can see it would have been an overriding consideration

Cheers!

I've said it before- the height of bankside one is taller than the tate & ruins its effect- why they had to have it one storey taller & why southwark allowed this is terrible. They are pretty blocky & not very imaginative but at least we get a new architecture foundation zahid building as some way of compensation- shouldn't this be under construction btw as it was originally intended to be complete by end of 2006 or early 2007.

Apparently all the retail at ground level on bankside123 is supposed to be let to independent shops & businesses (think i read that on the bankside website or Land Sec website) so hopefully we wont see any starbucks & GAP's.

With reagrd Bankside 4- Land Secs sold this site some months back so im not sure if the Rogers designed scheme is going to go ahead.

Also -does anyone know whats goin on with the tate tower resi that was supposed to be under construction last year next to the tate modern???

If anything no1 enhances the Tate. From the river it has the effect of deferring to the Tate because of it’s much lighter appearance and smaller visible area compared to Tate’s austere mass. Another benefit is that these three buildings make the area more vibrant and dynamic without dwarfing the Tate.

The Tate largely depends on its chimney for its iconic appearance; a tower directly behind it would detract from that, it would be like having a dome directly behind St Paul’s! A prejudice against ‘groundscrappers’ is no healthier than a prejudice against skyscrapers. Both can enhance the urban fabric in the right context.

but these don't do much for it do they ?

I think they will, when finished for the reasons I've explained. But we'll just to have to wait and see. I certainly wouldn't be happy with buildings of this mass and height everywhere though. It's the contrasts that make London so successful.

..oops

pmun: "A prejudice against ‘groundscrapers’ is no healthier than a prejudice against skyscrapers. Both can enhance the urban fabric in the right context."

Absolutely! here here!

If anything no1 enhances the Tate. From the river it has the effect of deferring to the Tate because of it’s much lighter appearance


I'm sorry, but that's complete crap.

This building is just too bulky (and will be made worse when the other two are complete) and stupidly designed to grab as much attention away from Tate Modern and the surrounding area as possible.

http://static.flickr.com/36/83950798_5d6aeea8d9_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/41/83950189_9ab0b57c02_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/40/83950185_23abc69d9c_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/41/83950177_1caeaad03f_o.jpg

I don't see that at all. I hate there being just a facade of ten-story buildings along the riverbank with nothing behind them. It makes Sarf London look ten metres thick, a potemkin city. This bulks it up a bit. Now the Tate Modern looks like a museum in the centre of a city, not perched on the outskirts.

What South London needs to give it a city feel is a bit of presence, an identity, historically it was never given that due to London evolving mainly North of the River. THe Boulevard idea was perfect then if you include a park say between Southwark and Elephant and let the buildings complete the dots you have an instant shift South as well as the shift Eastwards that London is experiencing. This oppurtunity, so rare in old cities has been wasted with these buildings, they are filling in the same old tired spaces and the South of the river will always be a thin presence along the Thames due to buildings such as this

Dreadful in all views. Bankside looks terrible especially from the Thames.

The monomaniac protective views of St Paul should be extended to other landmark. It's very damaging to see the tallest of the Bankside buildings emerging above the power station IMO.

It's like building a dwarf residential tower to the west of Tate Modern, what a dumb idea.

It's like building a dwarf residential tower to the west of Tate Modern, what a dumb idea.

As you can see, the site for that has been cleared, so look's like that ones going up soon.

The Tate Modern experience is let down by the walk to the entrance on the West.

Does this hoarding surround the site of the controversial new tower (122 Hopton Street?)
http://static.flickr.com/41/83950189_9ab0b57c02_o.jpg

The brick building on the left of this picture really diminshes the area. Shame it can't be demolished and moved further back. Is it council housing?

If Gilbert Scott's building were surrounded by modern glass ones then it would stand out in all its glory. I usually favour brick over glass, but this calls for an exception in my opinion.

There does seem to be a lot more space available on the South Bank and therefore there may be less of a percieved need for tall? I recall playing there when I bunked off school around 1980 and even today, there is an...American city feel about this area (think of parts of downtown LA)....The South Bank has vast areas cleared by Luftwaffe bombing runs, therefore lots of parking lots, Long low buildings (but not so low as to not be city status) and views from ground level in all directions; things that are not so easy to find on the much denser North side. The centre of this city is lopsided in other ways to compliment this statement. Think of the Underground and overground rail systems.

I like to think I had a personal stake in Tate modern,s development. When it was condemed we used to assist in the demise of the windows (shame!) by throwing stones from the beach. I was only 22 though..not really I was about 14

The brick building on the left of this picture really diminshes the area. Shame it can't be demolished and moved further back. Is it council housing?

Yep this building is pretty bad, not ugly just dross. If it is council housing, then its the best located in the whole of London, wouldn't bother me at all renting from the council if I had a Thames view.

I think this picture sums it up for me:

http://static.flickr.com/41/83950177_1caeaad03f_o.jpg

Increasing the 'depth' of this area, which I agree is needed, will happen through increased connections and knitted in urban fabric. A large wall like this does completely the opposite.

I don't think it's a disaster, and like I said before, I quite like the cladding. Certainly there are many thousands of worse buildings than this, but this area was a blank slate more or less, with a good architect and a powerful existing cultural draw with the Tate modern... and this is an incredibly unimaginitve response to all that.

In my opinion this building either needed to be tall and thin (to enhance the view of the tate) or lower than the tate, at the height it is it just makes the view look...messy. In a location away from the river I think it wouldn't have mattered so much.

but this area was a blank slate more or less, with a good architect and a powerful existing cultural draw with the Tate modern... and this is an incredibly unimaginitve response to all that.

I think that sums it up well, a blank slate in a resurgent part of London, young, brimming with potential... and this is what we produce in 2005! We manage to cut an oppressive 60s office block in half.

This isnt sum bit-on-the-side part of London, Wembley industrial estate or the North Circular this is as close to the centre as you can get. If you you view London from above and draw a circle around the centre you will see that large part of the South of the RIver belongs to the central arena of London often called the Westend, the South of the River should be aiming for schemes that cement that status.

People say that there are nice interesting bits to explore down South but so there are North of the river too, instead the South should be building something grand, a promenade, a park, a real expansive piece of Urban deisgn. I fear that the Elephant and Castle redevelopment will end up severely under-achieving due to pathetic schemes like this!

any new pics of the building? whats happening to 2 and 3?
Also Zaha Hadids building is infront of 2 and 3, odd setting don't you think?

Hi peoples, first post on the forums but an avid browser for many a year....

Although i'm not completey wrapped in this scheme, its a vast improvement on what existed on the site previously.....The gargantuan St Christopher House was reputably the largest office building in Europe on completeion in the late 50's. I worked in it during the very last few years of its life and it was nothing short of soul destroying. All long corridors with rooms to each side and civil servants tinkering away behind often closed doors.

Although the new Bankside 1 does remind me slightly of 'St Chris' with its sheer facade, the best thing about the whole scheme is the pedestrianised areas surrounding the building allowing much improved access between Southwark St and Tate Modern. The planned ground floor retail etc is much needed is the area also.

It's good to hear a real practical p.o.v. concerning the area, especially from someone who uses the area...

Proves the point that groundscrapers improve the area, just doesnt do much at all to enhance views from across the river :(

yes but any new pics?

Blue Fin Building for IPC Media

Magazine publisher IPC Media has announced that its new Southwark Street HQ - until now known as Bankside 1 - is to be named The Blue Fin Building.

The name - selected following a staff competition which attracted more than 300 entries - refers to the 2,000 blue aluminium fins that cover the building's facade.

The fins, manufactured in Poland, have a metallic finish that changes the building's appearance when viewed from different angles. Specifically placed to reflect the sun at different parts of the day, the fins will provide constant shade inside the building.

Designed by award-winning architects Allies and Morrison, whose offices are opposite the development, IPC claims that The Blue Fin Building will provide an "architectural statement" to match Tate Modern.

The building will be occupied by IPC - and parent company Time Warner's other UK businesses, Time Life International and Time Warner Book Group - from April 2007. A topping out ceremony was held last September.

"I believe we've chosen a name that not only describes the building's unique appearance, but one that will also be memorable to everyone, from visitors to taxi drivers," says chief executive Sylvia Auton. "The building has many amazing and distinctive design features - the blue fins are without doubt the most eye-catching, and make it instantly recognisable."

Allies and Morrison architect Tim Makower adds: "The shadows and reflections created by the fins change shape and direction as the sun moves around the building, marking the time of day in a dynamic way, like a sundial."

The building has a central atrium so spacious that IPC's current headquarters, King's Reach Tower on Stamford Street, could fit inside it. Time Warner businesses will occupy ten of the 12 floors with around 65,000 square feet being leased through Savills on behalf of IPC.

The Blue Fin Building is part of Land Securities' Bankside 123 development. IPC agreed to buy Bankside 1 in May 2004 and in May 2005 the developer announced that it was pressing on with Bankside 2 and Bankside 3 on a speculative basis.

The south-eastern corner of the Bankside 123 site - formerly occupied by St Christopher House - is due to feature a new home for the Architecture Foundation designed by Zaha Hadid (http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/images/050113_zahahadid.jpg).

Theres a webcam for bankside 2 & 3 & as you can see works well underway- I hope they also start on Zahids Architecture foundation HQ soon

http://www.bankside2and3.co.uk/index.html

theres a new look to the website to bankside123 and it shows the new architecture foundation building too, which looks pretty good. http://www.bankside123.com/

Is it me or is the Architecture Foundation building incredibly tiny?

http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/camputer31.jpg

http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/camputer17.jpg

http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/camputer32.jpg

http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/camputer18.jpg

4 very good webcam locations!

its coming on nicely.. yes the architecture foundation looks like a small coffee shop...

Is it me or is the Architecture Foundation building incredibly tiny?

it is. i'm not a fan of it. at all. it just seems so pointless. from the images i've seen it looks like the sort of "contemporary" design a bland, commercial practice creates when they're trying to be edgy and hip. i'm glad the site is so small though, we know how much Zaha Hadid loves her fucking hideous groundsnaking groundscrapers.

I think this picture sums it up for me:

http://static.flickr.com/41/83950177_1caeaad03f_o.jpg



why can't today's architects design buildings like the one on the left? the one with the 28 on the door.

why would they want to?

cos it's the nicest building in the picture by a mile (at least of the ones we can see clearly). adaptable, good quality materials (you can see the texture of the bricks, it's like warm oak, though it could possibly do with a scrub) simple but elegant design, some fine detailing and intricate craftwork, human scale, nice windows allowing for lots of light while still retaining that sense of tangible solidity. and it meets the street rather than trying to create its own "exclusive luxury destination i24hourpow! space".

well yes...it looks like any other victorian building in london, could be anywhere to be honest. I'm not saying bankside 123 is good or bad..but what it replaced was shocking.

I agree with with johnnypd, I myself would like to see more buildings built in older styles eg Neo-Gothic, Neo-Classical, Beaux-Arts. Im not anti-modernist or anything, its just that some modernism can get quite monotonous after a while

I agree with with johnnypd, I myself would like to see more buildings built in older styles eg Neo-Gothic, Neo-Classical, Beaux-Arts. Im not anti-modernist or anything, its just that some modernism can get quite monotonous after a while

Alot of that architecture can be limited by it's design (size wise), perhaps something like 20 cabbot place/30 south colonnade would be good as new build-classic designs:

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8594/30southcolonnade8ah.jpg

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/7934/20cbtsq2go.jpg

Alot of that architecture can be limited by it's design (size wise), perhaps something like 20 cabbot place/30 south colonnade would be good as new build-classic designs:

Yes, these really suit Canary Wharf because they look very business like, probably because of the vertical lines mainly. But they look extrememly good and I like the base of them alot as well. When were they built?

Same time as one canada square i thought, 1989-1991, by KPF

Im a big fan of some the early Canary Wharf buildings such as 20 cabbot place and 30 south colonnade, there's that little extra attention to detail, unlike the more recent glass clad boxes

The use of mixed materials is so much more striking than just a canvas of glass

Most of the Architecture profession looks down on the earliest phase of Canary Wharf ( with the exception of the main tower). The don't like its mock historcism.

[QUOTE=eddied]I think this picture sums it up for me:

http://static.flickr.com/41/83950177_1caeaad03f_o.jpg

This picture sums up most of central London - a dynamic juxtaposition of the old and new. If you want uniformity, go to Paris. As beautiful as that city is, I like turning corners in London and constantly being surprised and challenged by scenes such as this. London has hapazardly reinvented itself since the Romans, and it shows. That's its charm.

That street looks pretty deserted.

Funny thing today. Was walking through London Bridge Tube Station and two blokes in front of me were talking about this project and the height etc and also started mentioning other skyscraper projects. I wondered if it may have been anyone from this site, was tempted to ask!

^^ Wasn't me. :)

Although I was at London Bridge station earlier - I've just got back from yet another night out clubbing! :cheers2: :dance2:

:dance:

Most of the Architecture profession looks down on the earliest phase of Canary Wharf ( with the exception of the main tower). The don't like its mock historcism.

It is down to clients, councils and the public to take a stand. Those architects should be rendered unemployed.

Oh Philip, you do say some silly things.

I had to look deep into the archives to find this thread, an indication of how much is under construction now, these 'smaller' projects get forgotten, and also no one really seems to like it.

These photos were taken this saturday.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P8260026.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P8260028.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P8260030.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P8260031.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P8260033.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P8260034.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P8260035.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P8260037.jpg

Apart from the way they have impinged on the view of Tate Moden, I don't think these buildings are as bad as everyone says they are, as far as groundscrapers go they are quite good IMO, and I must say I love the cladding on 'the Blue Fin Building' (terrible name though).

Thanks for the update GazKinz. I always like to see progress on the less headline grabbing schemes.

Bankside 1 really is quite a good building despite its bulk. The cladding is very cool.

These pics don't really show anything to recommend Bankside 2 and 3 though.

Bankside 1 is an average scheme. As Londoners we have been treated to some top notch projects since 2000, and these type of schemes are no longer accepted as good buildings, which could be part of the reason for its bad reception. Personally I find the cladding off putting, but the shape not too bad

..

Oh Philip, you do say some silly things.

And you make smug, arrogant, patronising comments that exemplify the meretricious superciliousness of the architectural establishment. I was being entirely serious. As most architects make a negative contribution to society we would be better off if they were unemployed as their contribution would then be neutral. If they then took jobs as toilet cleaners that would be a further improvement as they would then make a small positive contribution.

I am trying to stop caring about the appearance of London as doing so can only lead to despair while the present crop of architects are in control.

Wow, not only do you quote me from over three months ago but you manage to offend me in one sweeping statement. I applaud you I really do.

It's a shame however, that unlike myself who has quite an active role in debating the likes and dislikes of London architecture on this forum, you can't seem to get past the notion that a glass building automatically means it's crap. Amazing. I mean, who needs the Stirling or other architectural prizes when we could just have one sentence comments from yourself here every three weeks that revolve around the negative. In fact, I've never seen you make a positive comment from yourself on anything in this forum.

Bankside 123 is looking ok. The architecture isn't anything to write home about, but in terms of masterplan it could have been a lot worse. It's not perfect, but I guess if it is what was needed for the area and it means the Architectural Foundation get a lovely new HQ from an award winning architect next to it, then so be it.

What hideous projects! Not seen them in the flesh but they look incredibly depressing, at least put one pinch of thought into the designs. You can still maximize floor space without sacrificing originality and character.

I think they're okay. They're better than More London, and their location is far more suitable for this type of building.

I think the earliest parts of canary wharf bring the most character to the estate... i am disappointed to hear that the architecture community dont' see it that way. Perhaps more attention should be paid to the individuals experience (As opposed to the overly learned experience of the architect).

I think they're okay. They're better than More London, and their location is far more suitable for this type of building.

I think they are nice buildings that will age well. The only mistake is that they should never have stuck out from above the Tate. I can't really believe that in this day and age planners would make such mistakes.

I disagree with the tate problem... the tate is dominant enough, it's right on the river... it doesn't need bright blue sky to give it drama.... in fact i feel the background emptiness can detract from the tate.

Remember that this:

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P8260026.jpg

will eventually end up looking like this:

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1153436801_62.49.27.213.jpg

I disagree with the tate problem... the tate is dominant enough, it's right on the river... it doesn't need bright blue sky to give it drama.... in fact i feel the background emptiness can detract from the tate.

Im not convinced. I dont think it is like the proposed Tate extension, or even one of the proposed towers, eg the abandoned flats, which are exciting, challenging but harmonious relationships, something that the Victorians always conjured up with apparant ease; instead bankside appears as a niggling mistake, a computer miscalculation or an unfortunate mis-match of profit-maximising desperation and planning heavy-handedness.

Having said all that, perhaps they knew all along about the Tate extension and knew that the appearance of their building would always be subservent to the cascading sugar blocks... a rare case of strategic master-planning?!?!

I think the earliest parts of canary wharf bring the most character to the estate... i am disappointed to hear that the architecture community dont' see it that way. Perhaps more attention should be paid to the individuals experience (As opposed to the overly learned experience of the architect).

I agree with you in attacking some of this architectural arrogance. Indeed, just like the early parts of Canary Wharf, the Tower Bridge and pretty much all of the Houses of Parliament are pure pastiche. And you can also throw in St Pauls. If an architect has no inspiration, I rather have him go for some tried and tested neo-classical or neo-anything approach than saying "here I am - please look at my daring eyesore". I think good architecture has nothing to do with modern or retro but you always need to respect the environment of the building - the Victorians understood that and this is why the Tower Bridge is in neo-gothical style (to blend in with the Tower). There is a lot of very good modern architecture in London but where it often fails is that as soon as it goes out of fashion people suddenly notice that it does not blend in at all. Great example is the typewriter. I actually like that building but it does not relate at all to its environment. At the same time I do find in London some of the greatest mixtures of modern and historical - some of these projects have been very successful (for instance Liverpool Street Station and I am even starting to like the new Spitafields) but you also find some of the worst (MoreLondon). IMO, it all depends whether it respects, relates to and communicates with its environment.

Remember that this:



will eventually end up looking like this:

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1153436801_62.49.27.213.jpg

Where is this mirror polyform going to go? Will they pull down 76 -80? It looks quite new to me.

IMO I think these buildings are to big for the site. If you look at the webcams you can see the LSE building behind loosing a lot of natural light because of them. Bankside 1 is ok but 2& 3 are instantly forgettable.

They needed to be a floor or 2 shorter & take less of a footprint on the site.

I can t believe how small the site is for the AF HQ is- its tiny

Where is this mirror polyform going to go? Will they pull down 76 -80? It looks quite new to me.

Nope, it goes where that congestion charge advertising board is. Trick of the rendering, in reality it is going to be much smaller to fit on that space.

not mine ;)

Atrium

http://static.flickr.com/76/202677180_e10d84997e.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/69/202677371_42bfdd7aff.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/67/202676121_c6461b8341.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/69/202677086_c68fd11c46.jpg

View from Roof

http://static.flickr.com/74/202676491_c3143dc7a9.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/70/202676409_b9f767869d.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/71/202676946_022325c752.jpg

Hard corporate lines, heat reflecting concrete, service doors with all manner of safety notices.

You'd think someone would have been able to reinvent the office by now.

Hideous monstrous groundscraper - as vile as any concrete lump from the 50s, 60s, or 70s. One of London's ugliest contemporary buildings.

Definitely agree with you monkey.

The "blue fin" building is shite. same goes for palestra. they have absolutely zero integration with their surroundings! And they don't even look very nice. Palestra looks shit if you are anywhere above it because of the massive concrete box they've put on the top

Definitely agree with you monkey.

The "blue fin" building is shite. same goes for palestra. they have absolutely zero integration with their surroundings! And they don't even look very nice. Palestra looks shit if you are anywhere above it because of the massive concrete box they've put on the top

Bankside one is crap agreed, but Palestra I think is cool. I like the colour it brinks to the street. We are always bitching on this site about not getting interesting buildings devoid of colour or life. What modern building would look good from above? I can only think of the gherkin and most buidings are viewed from street level where the plant is barely visable if at all.

Well I can clearly see it from my office window but yes it may have been a slightly drunken overeaction. I still don't like it much though and I completely stand by my comments on the blue fin one.

Not a lot changed since GazKinz's update but here you go...

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h126/wildheart99/100_0986.jpg

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h126/wildheart99/100_0987.jpg

...and one of everyone's favourite ;)

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h126/wildheart99/100_0988.jpg

While I don't mind Bankside 1 or Palestra, Bankside 2 and 3 really do look foul.

found these 2 webcams for bankside: http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/camputer17.jpg
http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/camputer18.jpg

And http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/camputer31.jpg

Just been going through the numbers....1.jpg....2.jpg etc etc, very interesting, can't see a list of the locations from the main siteye website but there's some very recognisable one's in there.

Okay, this might sound like a stupid question, but is this entire development 100% complete now?

Last time I walked past, which was some months ago, Bankside 2 and 3 looked to be fully clad and it was simply finishing touches.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Architecture Foundation next door. Does anyone know what the schedule is for it or if it even has funding in place?

Walked past here the other day. Looks externally complete now.

all three towers are complete, bankside 1 is occupied by the company i work for. bankside 2 and 3 are being internally fitted out and finishing touches on the outside, zoar street running between bankside 1+2 is being pedestrianised.

Royal bank of scotland have sign the lease for bankside 2 and 3

I think this development sums up everything that's wrong with architecture, planning and the quest for turning London into one big monotonous office city in the capital today.

I think this development sums up everything that's wrong with architecture, planning and the quest for turning London into one big monotonous office city in the capital today.

Moan, moan, moan ;)

The road that this development is on is terrible - an unrelenting canyon of traffic, with no life and some truly hideous buildings. This development has broken up the pattern, setting the buildings at odd angles to the road, to bring some relief for pedestrians and create some new public space along that road. It is also helping to link the road to Tate Modern. While I agree that I wouldn't want to see a whole city of these, I think this is a decent development.

Only weeks away now from the builders moving out.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3176/2856187547_5edeb01947_b.jpg