Estates Gazette -

Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust are examining ways of raising funds to pay for future new facilities for the hospital.

Options being considered include transforming the landmark eyesore tower in luxury flats.

A more likely scenario would see the hospital quit the site entirely for a new hospital campus in a cheaper location allowing for a full redevelopment of the the London Bridge site.

Estates Gazette -

Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust are examining ways of raising funds to pay for future new facilities for the hospital.

Options being considered include transforming the landmark eyesore tower in luxury flats.

A more likely scenario would see the hospital quit the site entirely for a new hospital campus in a cheaper location allowing for a full redevelopment of the the London Bridge site.

Hmm interesting. Its a massive site built up over one hundred years. If you take out the tower the rest of the campus is in a pretty good state with a good mix of old & new buildings so I would think it doubtful they would abandon the site lock stock. Besides where are they going to find a cheap site in central London big enough for a new hospital.

Still it will interesting to see what happens with this.

^^^ Seeing as its a large site already surrounded by towers and tower proposals, they could sell off much of the site and consolidate those services in a new hospital tower

This sounds too good to be true.

Options being considered include transforming the landmark eyesore tower in luxury flats.


Sounds good.Clean the tower sort the street level out build some cafes and squares.
:cheers:

Clad it too! No one likes bare concrete lol.

i hope they dont demolish it, could do what they did with cis in manchester and give it solar panels!

To be honest if they reclad it would only end up in the style of the Z-Tower in Deptford.

Which isn't particularly great either.

I still maintain that giving it a good wash and letting it stand next to The Shard will give it a new lease of life, and be a better contrast of architecture than cladding it in cheapo plastic panels.

KILL IT! TEAR THE HOSPITAL DOWN! :cheers:

I REALLY hope they rip this down. It is the ugliest and most brutal of the cluster of three 100m-ish buildings in the area, yet it is the only one that hasn't got redevelopment plans. Well, yet.

This sounds far too good to be true...

Im with DarJole.

a new hospital. That sounds like one whopper of a potential PFI contract to go out for bidding and end up costing the tax payer a plentiful sum of beans.

It's an interesting story though - there's plenty of land for residential development, having a hospital in such a central location is surely good for London. Not sure what they could do with the tower, would be good to see what a good clean would do.

If they demolish it then London will lose it's title of having the tallest hospital in the world. Maybe they can build a 200m hospital close by and build a couple of slim resi towers in Guy's place. :)

I'd rather it stay because it's the world's tallest hospital but a reclad would be most welcome.

Yes Medo, If they demolish it then London will lose it's title of having the ugliest hospital in the world. :yes:

Guys tower is great I'm sorry but I love it, it's SO brutal, like the old stock exchange tower squared, I agree it should be given a clean though, a reclad would be worse the demolition.

Guy's is one of my favourite buildings in london. It has that modern-medieval character that I love so much in our brutalist buildings. We have already lost the great barbican of the stock-exchange tower, next we are probably going to lose Milton Court, and potentialy now this too?? Just because at the moment the 'aesthetic' is not appreciated??? typical london short-sightedness; as bad as when we knocked down the masterpiece that was Soane's Bank of England, Nash's Regent Street, and endless swathes of irreplaceable Victoriana. Pisses me off no end. See beyond what is now 'accepted' and 'fashionable', please!!!!

Not sure why this has its own thread now- the article said possible blue sky thinking could potentially see the tower redevelopment amongst a number of options including moving to a new site.

I don't think many people realise how big the Guys campus is & includes older grand Victorian buildings & modern contemporary architecture as well as the usual assortment of 80's add ons & the actual tower. To find a site in central London to accommodate everything , not to mention the amount of money spend on various buildings on the site in the last ten years would run into the hundreds of millions. The cost of selling on the site or selling the tower as fancy flats wouldn't be anywhere near enough to justify the cost.

Guy's is one of my favourite buildings in london. It has that modern-medieval character that I love so much in our brutalist buildings. We have already lost the great barbican of the stock-exchange tower, next we are probably going to lose Milton Court, and potentialy now this too?? Just because at the moment the 'aesthetic' is not appreciated??? typical london short-sightedness; as bad as when we knocked down the masterpiece that was Soane's Bank of England, Nash's Regent Street, and endless swathes of irreplaceable Victoriana. Pisses me off no end. See beyond what is now 'accepted' and 'fashionable', please!!!!

I totally disagree that the hatred of brutalism extends only to the present. They were hated when they were built and they are hated now, by both professional and casual observers. I think what is particularly unflattering for these concrete monoliths is the overcast skys. They were never seen as part of an environment, they simply wished to create one. Personally I think it's a monumental failure.

i didnt say that they are only hated in the present, and not when they were built. I mean that we are getting rid of them before time lends them the aura of history which leads people to appreciate buildings that survive their times.
The 'endless walls' of Georgian terraces were hated in their times as symbols of the empty, tasteless capitalist rise of the merchant classes; and victorian terraces the same in their period. Now we love them. I just think that the best buildings from every period should be given a chance to survive to be judged once people have moved beyond judging them simply on temporal biases and aesthetic prejudices...

I'm with DarJole and Nukey. There's something so brutal, veering on industrial about the tower that it will only emphasise the beauty of The Shard.

I really like the old parts of Guy's. You can just stroll through when its open.

http://www.thegarret.org.uk/images/guyscorridor.JPG
Passageway through Old Guy's House, Guy's hospital

http://www.thegarret.org.uk/images/guyslondonbridge.jpg
Guy's Courtyard and part of old London Bridge (demolished 1830)

some nice pics from here:

http://www.thegarret.org.uk/guys.htm

They should just paint it white......

I really like the old parts of Guy's. You can just stroll through when its open.

http://www.thegarret.org.uk/images/guyscorridor.JPG
Passageway through Old Guy's House, Guy's hospital

http://www.thegarret.org.uk/images/guyslondonbridge.jpg
Guy's Courtyard and part of old London Bridge (demolished 1830)

some nice pics from here:

http://www.thegarret.org.uk/guys.htm

This is what I mean....should this investigation become a plan, I think it would be best to keep the tower (regardless of what it looks like, its modern and purpose built as a hospital....and it would look fantastic painted white) and build an additional tower (perhaps a new tallest, state of art hospital) to accomodate all the other departments in scattered buildings.. ^^^ these lovely buildings could then be sold as much needed housing.

How will they find a suitable site large enough in the same area? There does need to be a hospital in this part of Central London. I'd love to see Guys go though to be honest. It's brutal on the skyline and I don't think that making LBT stand out is a good enough excuse for it to stay.

^^^ Demolish the numerous 70's & 80's buildings on the same site.

paint it white, put a big red cross on it so then people who visit know its a hospital. leave it for about 20 years so that its all dirty and grubby again and we will have the same conversation in two decades time

I don't like the building but it's my local hospital, so I don't wan't them to go 'somewhere cheaper' which will undoubtedly be harder to get to (hence why it's cheaper!)

Not sure why this has its own thread now- the article said possible blue sky thinking could potentially see the tower redevelopment amongst a number of options including moving to a new site.

I don't think many people realise how big the Guys campus is & includes older grand Victorian buildings & modern contemporary architecture as well as the usual assortment of 80's add ons & the actual tower. To find a site in central London to accommodate everything , not to mention the amount of money spend on various buildings on the site in the last ten years would run into the hundreds of millions. The cost of selling on the site or selling the tower as fancy flats wouldn't be anywhere near enough to justify the cost.

Well, according to James Hatts of the SE1 forum - "Looking at various board and committee papers on the Guy's and St Thomas' website it's clear that we are likely to see commercial development proposals brought forward on both hospital sites."

I dunno, maybe you have to be a Londoner to really have a love for this building. I, I'm afraid, never can! I have already expressed my feelings about it numerous times on this forum so I won't do it again here. All I can say is I am glad they are at LEAST thinking about doing something about th way it looks...whether that be knocking it down (I wouldn't object to at all) or a reclad...which may or may not be a good thing, depending on exactly what they have in mind.

I dunno, maybe you have to be a Londoner to really have a love for this building. I, I'm afraid, never can! I have already expressed my feelings about it numerous times on this forum so I won't do it again here. All I can say is I am glad they are at LEAST thinking about doing something about th way it looks...whether that be knocking it down (I wouldn't object to at all) or a reclad...which may or may not be a good thing, depending on exactly what they have in mind.

Is it not the same as the Gateshead Carpark up here? All the brutalist-lovers and Get Carter fans LOVE it, and reckon it should NEVER be knocked down.

But those idiots don't have to live with it.

Is it the other way around in London? Alot of Londoners love it, but just us from the other cities find it an EXTREMELY ugly pile of... you know...

Sorry, but this thing ain't gonna make the Shard look any better...

I hate Guys its brutal and butt-ugly but still I think it should stay.Give it a clean and sort the street level out.

Who gives a crap if its the world's tallest hospital - it still looks like a piece of sh*t. TEAR IT DOWN. TEAR IT DOWN NOW!

I doubt anything will actually happen with it though.

^^^ well..I do.....and its a fantastic facility, modern and high tech....the outside actually becomes insignificant with those considerations.

London Bridge Hospital has better views from it's patients' rooms though ;)

I like it, I hope they don't demolish it. I wouldn't object to a reclad/paint or clean though.

. ^^^ these lovely buildings could then be sold as much needed housing.

IMO the NHS should keep historic hospital buildings like this.

I agree with the other things you say, as the tower is actually a mordern purpose built hospital in zone 1, something we need. Its in a great location and patients can get there easily. The inside is fine. It does need a clean though.

London Bridge Hospital has better views from it's patients' rooms though ;)

Unfortunately you have to pay to see them though

IMO the NHS should keep historic hospital buildings like this.

I agree with the other things you say, as the tower is actually a mordern purpose built hospital in zone 1, something we need. Its in a great location and patients can get there easily. The inside is fine. It does need a clean though.

definately needs a clean but the building is actually very interesting, I think though that pehaps the glazing could be updated and the area surrounding the hospital is quiet pedestrian unfreindly. I think cladding it will be a mistake and could end up looking even worse.

I come into London Bridge every day and I think it would be a tragedy to get rid of the Guys Tower. Sure it could do with a wash and a bit of a refurb but I think it is iconic. It is of it's time, as is the Hayward gallery, the National Theatre and those mad south bank high walks.
In twenty years Leadenhall, the Pinnacle and Heron may well be regarded as boring glass towers with failing cladding.
Let's not be too quick to condemn the past.

definately needs a clean but the building is actually very interesting, I think though that pehaps the glazing could be updated and the area surrounding the hospital is quiet pedestrian unfreindly. I think cladding it will be a mistake and could end up looking even worse.

I agree, ground level especially on Great Maze pond is not so great and could do with some work.

The footbridge from LB main entrance accross Saint Thomas Street that leads in to the low buildings surrounding the tower only serves a small entrance into the new buildings (which are quite nice with big glass atriums which are intergrated with the tower), but there are only steps to street level on Great Maze Pond then a walk past dumpsters and service entrances for the main entrance. It would be nice if the space on GMP was made into a public freindly space, not just some back street for rubish collecting, consdiering that it is the main street between the station and the main entrance.

Although being this is where LBT/Shard is to be built, I think the layout will change with that.

IMO the NHS should keep historic hospital buildings like this.

I agree with the other things you say, as the tower is actually a mordern purpose built hospital in zone 1, something we need. Its in a great location and patients can get there easily. The inside is fine. It does need a clean though.

Good point. I was thinking they would be desireable premises to convert into housing, but they could keep them (or some of them) and knock down the other dross thats on the site.

James seems to have come to the same conclusion as me

Quote:.....The most likely option for Guy's & St Thomas's Hospital Trust would be selling off some of the most easily developable buildings such as New Guy's House which could then be demolished and redeveloped. In turn the extra money raised would allow them to consolidate services in the buildings they had sold off in new taller buildings complete with space for extra beds and new departments. http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1073

yes, they could sell off easily demolishable buildings on the periphary of the site and increase the density elsewhere.

What hasn't been picked up from the article was the quote from Guys Trust that it does not involve selling part or all of the site. So that would seem to suggest they wont be doing much with it.

It also quoted a potential figure of £100m for any land sell off which is not a large figure when you consider how much a new hospital or even a new wing would cost.

^^^ that seems to be a contradiction...what do they mean?

is that 100 million for the whole site or certain parts? would have thought 100 million would be abit cheap

I wouldn't get to over excited, remember the NHS Plans for a super hospital campus replacing St Mary's at Paddington Basin, what a sad fiasco that was.

I will believe this when they finally start actual work on Guy's.

I've been studying the existing tower and the horrendous service tower with the chimneys, bare concrete and sticking out bits is barely even attached to the rest of the tower and could probably be removed. It probably also houses a lot of hospital stuff that wouldnt be necessary in a residential block. So if they were to demolish this bit as a budget option, it could be replaced with a lift shaft more appropriate to a resi tower and reduce the bulk of the tower.... Clearly Ive had too much spare time at work but I think this sort of thing would be pretty good if it wasnt possible or financially viable to rebuild the while tower

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/51/guystowerpr1.jpg

Awww, I like the robotic puppy tower...

so what... another glass box?
Unless someone says that Guy's tower is structurally a disaster as a working hospital, then why on earth consider re-cladding/destroying it?
Even if it was redeveloped, it could be rebranded the way Lubetkin's tower was in Bethnal Green... left aestheticaly unchanged: people can learn to love quirkiness.
Everyone is complaining about the redevelopment in the Stables Market...
why is everyone FOR the redevelopment and disfiguration of this tower?
Ok, granted its not a multi-faceted market, but it provides quirky ugliness to our skyline... thats something at least!

^^^ Nice work Steppenwolf. Personally, as I said previously, a lot of work went into designing this purpose built hospital. As you mentioned, that service tower is essential. Apart from the heating system, I suspect those chimneys deal with the disposal of clinical waste.

Ithink the tower should remain a hospital. Do you think it could be tidied up? Could it be increased in height, therefore allowing for the redevelopment of adjoining land?

Your design reminds me of one of the Bank Street towers :)

I think I agree with the last few posts.... it would be the biggest example of lipstick on the gorilla/guilding the terd. And also, oddly despite its revolting shape, fat profile I kind of like it.... the tallest hospital in the world with K2s head aaaw

I think I agree with the last few posts.... it would be the biggest example of lipstick on the gorilla/guilding the terd. And also, oddly despite its revolting shape, fat profile I kind of like it.... the tallest hospital in the world with K2s head aaaw

It does look like K9's head from Doctor who

I used to work for Guys and know the tower inside out (I was a maintanance electrician) It could be turned into apartments i suppose, however it is concrete through and through and would take years to demolish. I believe the site should stay as a hospital but the tower should be clad!

i believe it should be listed in its current form. it is apparently the tallest brutalist structure in the entire world, as such it is very architecturally significant.

What are the chances of getting it listed? Can't imagine they're too high. I never knew it was the tallest brutalist structure in the world.

ive been doing some research and cannot find anything taller. if anyone has any ideas of anything taller of this style then let me know :)

I kinda like Guy's, mainly because it looks like something from Mega City one. Someone mentioned it should be whitewashed and have a big red cross painted on it - I think that'd be excellent.

http://photos-077.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v132/34/64/755935077/n755935077_1090135_6346.jpg

As so...

lol

so what... another glass box?
Unless someone says that Guy's tower is structurally a disaster as a working hospital, then why on earth consider re-cladding/destroying it?


Umm, because it's one of the ugliest and most oppressive buildings in central London perhapse?

I really can't believe some people would want to blight London's future architecturally by keeping this. The motto of the London forumer seems to be 'It's not all about height' then why keep this giant turd just because it is 'the biggest' of something? It certainly isn't the best. Mind you the style is brutalist, and let's face it, buildings don't come much more brutal than Guy's, do they?

:sigh: But I suppose it all comes down to opinion. Some people obviously think it is a good building for London. I'm sure there are much better buildings from that era that we could keep instead though. But, that's just my lil' opinion.

Be sensible guys, we actually need this hospital I'm from Southwark and it's a lifeline ,quite literally...so it looks like a pile of shite, yeah, but losing a massive part of our infrastructure here in South London for architectural reasons is retarded.

^^^ Agreed! This is where our interest in architecture starts to get silly. Its not even about opinion. I wouldnt even want to consider temporarily closing the tower even for a facelift...its not important enough a project.

they would have to build a new hospital before guys would ever come down for reasons posted above.. so thats atleast 10 years till u even start to see anything happening. lets face it. its here to stay.

Be sensible guys, we actually need this hospital I'm from Southwark and it's a lifeline ,quite literally...so it looks like a pile of shite, yeah, but losing a massive part of our infrastructure here in South London for architectural reasons is retarded.

I think any plan would involve replacing the hospitals facilities.

The top floors of Guys are a dental school, whilst most of the Emergency/ Trauma/intensive care areas went to St Thomas's a few years back.

Guys is a specialised cancer centre, and I am sure most of what Guys does would be maintained via new facilities.

buildings don't come much more brutal than Guy's, do they?


And thats exactly why it shouldnt be destroyed.

I would like to see this building retained in all its 1960's brutality for the simple reason that i work there. How on earth can the tower be transformed into flats when half of the tower is in use? Where would the services (dental etc) be transferred to? Nothing has been said to the staff by management (but then we'd be the last to know of course). I'm going to make enquieries this week from my boss and find out how much truith there is in this.

Just give it a good old clean and replace the metal plant room on the roof. That'd dramatically improve it.
Just don't paint it like the St Georges Tower in Leicester that really does look awful.

Nice study Steppenwolf....

AJplus.co.uk
Published 24 September 2007 at 11:43, updated 11:45
NHS seeks architect for hospital’s Brutalist tower

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/2409-guys-MAIN.jpg

The NHS is on the hunt for an architect to transform the infamous Brutalist tower of Guy’s Hospital in London into an ‘architecturally iconic’ building.
Built in 1974, the 34-storey concrete landmark is thought to be the tallest hospital building in the world, at 143m high.

In an OJEU notice released last Friday, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust put out a call for a broad-based project management team which will be headed up by either an architect or project manager.

The notice says that the team will ‘review and advise all works associated with the refurbishment of the external structure and facia cladding and fenestration of Guy’s Tower at the Guy’s Hospital.’

The works, the notice continues, would ‘provide an architecturally iconic, structurally sound, sustainable and energy-efficient building compliant with current standards fit for the next 25-30 years’.

The contract, applications for which must be in by 19 October, is scheduled to start in December this year. Completion is pencilled in for November 2010.

For more information see ted.europa.eu

by Max Thompson

Give it to Urban Splash or dont touch it at all.

As long as they dont totally whitewash it i'll be happy (its been in need of a nice spruce up for donkey years!), though not a conventional beauty it has a quirky fugly aesthetic i find quite attractive.

Give it to Urban Splash or dont touch it at all.

They're residential and office developers, they wont be interested in revamping the building to remain as a hospital.

Oh...

It would take a miracle to turn Guy's Tower into an ‘architecturally iconic’ building.

I find its brutalistic appearance quiet interesting actually cladding it could be a big mistake, Obviously this depends what they come up with....

Brilliant! I hate the Guy's tower...

It`ll def have to relate to LBT, so hopefully LBT will be rising when the design team get down to the detail

Brilliant! I hate the Guy's tower...

I completely agree - any reclad or external refurb would be an improvement.

the guy's hospital site is a mess, not just the tower itself. it really damages the urbanity that surrounds it. wonder how much the NHS would get if they sold the site off.

they need to get rid of it. it ruins the appearance of LBT which is a tower that should stand alone

they need to get rid of what is the tallest brutalist tower on the planet? this building is architecturally outstanding, one of the best examples of brutalism in the country. it meets all the listing criteria.

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2560/2409guysmainii4.jpg

Pay me a few million and i'll give it a lick of paint!...

sorry Alsop beat you too it

they need to get rid of what is the tallest brutalist tower on the planet? this building is architecturally outstanding, one of the best examples of brutalism in the country. it meets all the listing criteria.

But it's fucking grotesque.

they need to get rid of what is the tallest brutalist tower on the planet? this building is architecturally outstanding, one of the best examples of brutalism in the country. it meets all the listing criteria.

Are you serious? "Brutalism" shouldn't be allowed to pass itself off as some high-concept architectural style. It's not - it's just the result of, and a post-hoc excuse for, the clumsy use of cheap concrete, usually almost entirely devoid of any aesthetic intention whatever. The fact (I assume you're correct in this) that Guy's Tower is the tallest example of it in the world is a very good argument for pulling it down, or at the very least recladding it. If the listing criteria mean that this of all buildings should be preserved as is, then the listing criteria are utterly stupid.

But it's fucking grotesque.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

We should keep an example of every trend of architecture in London, but brutalism is such a controversial form of building that is definitely challenging to the idea of beauty. Part of its beauty lies in its harshness and unapologetic dark nature.

That said, Guys isn't a particularly 'attractive' piece of brutalist architecture. I find the Hayward Gallery or Robin Hood Gardens far more interesting structurally than I ever would with Guys. Having it as a listed building simply because it is the tallest example of brutalism doesn't really cut it with me I'm afraid- I wouldn't want the concrete chimneys of power stations listed, even though they have a similar liking to the tall nature of Guys.

That said, a reclad could make this building look worse, and if The Shard goes up next to it might even detract from the beauty of the Shard. Imagine it clad in a style similar to the plastic cladding that seems to be appearing on our new builds such as Travelodge's up and down the country. It will look like the Lidl trying to be a Tescos next to the Harrods Food Hall - out of place and bringing it all down. At least leaving it in brutal fashion leaves it for what it is and doesn't make an apology for itself (although I wholeheartedly support a total scrub down of the exterior).

i dont care whether its grotesque or not, who the fuck made you the decider of good taste? we should be preserving one of the most significant examples of one of the leading post war styles of architecture because of its sheer historical importance. all it needs is a clean.

most of all though, people are too fucking stupid to realise that when a style reaches about 50 years old we start to knock it down because it looks dated. then when it reaches 100 years old we fight to preserve it because we recognise its historical worth over and over and over.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=521143

^^^ as I say, it should be kept as an example of its era. Imagine a world where we can only....well imagine.

Architectural fascism should be a crime. London has more than enough room to show everything...time is not a representation of ones personal likes and dislikes.

i dont care whether its grotesque or not, who the fuck made you the decider of good taste? we should be preserving one of the most significant examples of one of the leading post war styles of architecture because of its sheer historical importance. all it needs is a clean.

I'm not sure if your question is directed to me, but certainly no one made me the arbiter of good taste; and I wouldn't deny for a moment that taste is subjective. You could make the case that "brutalism" of this sort is historically important because it sheds light on the lack of money for public buildings in the post-war decades and the recourse therefore to poorly designed and cheaply built concrete towers. But architecturally important? I really don't think so. Lumping "brutalism" together with actual architectural styles such as neoclassicism, art deco, or whatever you'd call the big-glass-shapes style we're seeing now, is elevating it way beyond anything honest practitioners of it themselves would ever have claimed.

I'd go a bit further even. As human beings occupying this planet we are to a very large extent in control of our environment. We can choose what to preserve of the past, and what to destroy, replace or improve. Even if so-called "brutalism" were an important architectural style, which I don't accept for a moment, we could still decide nonetheless to get rid of all the buildings so described because they suck so much. It's our choice whether that's a massive improvement to our built environment or a terrible loss to history, and if you believe it's the latter then I have no doubt you're in a very tiny minority. Take all the pictures and video footage you want, build models... then get rid of it.

most of all though, people are too fucking stupid to realise that when a style reaches about 50 years old we start to knock it down because it looks dated. then when it reaches 100 years old we fight to preserve it because we recognise its historical worth over and over and over.

Yes, people clearly do make that mistake, but by that argument we should be preserving pretty much everything ever built just in case it seems historically important at some point in the future. Somewhere we always have to draw the line, as some buildings always have to be replaced for cities to develop. A reasonable place to draw that line, it seems to me, is at buildings that anyone in their right mind can see are without any architectural interest or merit whatever (and I come back to whether there was any aesthetic intent to speak of in the first place) and that are clearly ruining the skyline for everything else around them.

Knock down Guy's Tower tomorrow (if that were possible without killing a load of patients, nurses, etc) and I'd be quite willing to bet that in 50 years' time no one would be regretting it.

Im not convinced. I think that there is a very clear division between say pre war and post war. It is the division of hand craft & human scale versus mass production & infinity. We have always hated the past because things become outdated and we constantly seek ways to improve our lives. It seems that until post war britain there was only minor concern for cherishing buildings as opposed to improving them.

However in the age of mass production and engineering technology that allows for unlimited structures the things that were previously handcrafted and limited to certain forms suddenly became 'endangered', their crafted appearance suddenly felt (and practically were) irreplaceable in the current climate of the machine and the financial constraints that this implies.

This hand crafted frission also extrapolates to the global scale of building technology and form, the UK devoid of a national style did not compete at all on this now global level. So the case for preserving the best or first example of a style is also defunct.

I feel that there is probably an intellectual arguement for protecting certain post war buildings, say the Barbican for example, it may never be loved by a majority and requires a specialist understanding of architectural trends. It is a bit like the change from art as a form of craftsmanship to art as concept (modern art). It is this that makes it very difficult to be so sure about saving buildings, certainly trends and fashions will change ever more regularly as building methods and technologies improve, do we start to list a building just because it was built in a certain year?!

The fact that the majority find Guys tower aesthetically ugly rather than neutral, the fact we could build an exact replica in half the time and cost, the fact that it has offerered nothing and has had no interaction to the culture of who we are gives a damning indicment on the building. I would much rather look to the myriad of other contraverial structures that exist but at least have interacted with us culturally.

Having said that Im quite open to the arguements for listing a structue just that I do not agree with the case that because we found old buildings worthy of saving before automatically means we need to do the same now... as I said at the beggining, the world has changed fundamentally .

Architectural fascism should be a crime. London has more than enough room to show everything...time is not a representation of ones personal likes and dislikes.

I don't think "architectural facsism" is a meaningful phrase. Fascism is a crime; getting rid of buildings (of whatever style or quality) may sometimes be a terrible mistake, but it's not a crime in that sense, and even if it were I don't see that it would be fair to compare it to fascism!

I agree that personal (i.e. one person's, or an elite's) taste should not on the whole dictate which buildings are and are not preserved. That could easily lead to architectural homogeneity, which has indeed happened where you've had for example strong monarchs or political leaders appointing their own architect to rebuild an entire city. Sometimes the results are great, of course, e.g. Haussman's Paris, but it's not how London has developed, and I'm not advocating it now. I expect and hope to keep living in a city where I like some buildings and dislike others.

But as I wrote in response to gothicform's slightly intemperate post, I think it's dangerous for us to be so paranoid about losing anything of historical value that we feel obliged to keep almost anything. There are difficult cases - was it right to let the Baltic Exchange go (to the Baltic, as it turned out) and get the Gherkin in exchange? The Gherkin's wonderful, but most would agree that the Baltic E was a beautiful and historically important building. But then there are easy cases - and I believe Guy's Tower is one such.

the UK devoid of a national style did not compete at all on this now global level.

come on now, this simply isnt true. gothic revivalism not only dominated the agenda in the uk for years, and indeed was used in parliament specifically because it was considered a national style, but then spread across the world whether it was buildings the british built themselves or early skyscrapers in america, grand national european projects like cologne cathedral. by the outbreak of world was one gothic revivalism was considered THE leading style in the world.
we have hawksmoor and wyatt starting it and then britten, pugin, ruskin, scott and so on all leading this charge and you can see the effects of it right up to the woolworths building and even early empire state building designs which were gothic revival. of course art deco overtook them as the 20th century matured it was, and probably still is our national style. its exactly what people think of when they picture england, dreaming spires...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Tribune_Tower-Chicago.jpg

Guy's is at least uncompromising - unlike a lot of more recent architecture in this country. It's a good example of when architects dared. I'd support conserving it - unless some other building was proposed that was outstanding - then by all means tear it down.

potto I don't know if you're "I'm not convinced" was in response to my post, but for what it's worth I agreed entirely with yours!

Guy's is at least uncompromising - unlike a lot of more recent architecture in this country. It's a good example of when architects dared. I'd support conserving it - unless some other building was proposed that was outstanding - then by all means tear it down.

Compromise isn't always a bad thing. I don't think the architect was daring, I think he was just allowed to come up with any old rubbish as long as it had lots of floor space for the new hospital and didn't cost much. If someone had made him compromise by insisting that the building also improve rather than ruin the street layout, and be reasonable to look at, it would have been a better building for it, and could have been far more daring - because he might then have bothered to design something interesting.

was it right to let the Baltic Exchange go (to the Baltic, as it turned out) and get the Gherkin in exchange?

To be honest The Baltic Exchange was nothing special - there are much better examples of Victorian Italianate architecture in London but of course its shame that its been sold...
EH or someone else shouldve bought it and rebuilt somewhere (in one of London parks for example).

To be honest The Baltic Exchange was nothing special - there are much better examples of Victorian Italianate architecture in London but of course its shame that its been sold...
EH or someone else shouldve bought it and rebuilt somewhere (in one of London parks for example).

Yes, it wasn't a masterpiece, and ultimately it was probably the right decision to let it go. Which makes it all the more astonishing that people think we shouldn't let Guy's Tower go (or get reclad) if we get the chance.

http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/baltic/baltic-img/baltic_interior.jpg

vs

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/629IsLondonsUgliestBuildingReallyTheGherkin_pic2.jpg

^^ Yes, but there is another point...Guys Tower is a point in history...not just history, but more locally..our history...I recall Guys being built. Now..it was not just another building in the style of..'lets see what we can build as quickly as possible and as cheaply'...it was so much more than that! It is modern, it wis public, it was the GREAT NHS (and still is) If it was some businessmans Phallus, I might agree, but it is part of the great British social system and was percieved, designed and built for that purpose, that makes this tower an important part of our society, a bit like a pyramid...a time when we had vision, hope, money and weight. It is a valuable piece of our history and a record of our evolution The great future...what the fuck is up with the 't's on this keyboard...bas ards!!!

Poll added...

we should be preserving one of the most significant examples of one of the leading post war styles of architecture because of its sheer historical importance. all it needs is a clean.

I agree 100%. I live just around the corner from Guys and overlooked it from my living room for 15 months, I'm really rather attached to the beast!

Putting aside the aesthetic and historical arguments, the money for a reclad would ultimately come from NHS funds whether directly or indirectly and I for one would far rather see it spent on patient care!

^^ Yes, but there is another point...Guys Tower is a point in history...not just history, but more locally..our history...I recall Guys being built. Now..it was not just another building in the style of..'lets see what we can build as quickly as possible and as cheaply'...it was so much more than that! It is modern, it wis public, it was the GREAT NHS (and still is) If it was some businessmans Phallus, I might agree, but it is part of the great British social system and was percieved, designed and built for that purpose, that makes this tower an important part of our society, a bit like a pyramid...a time when we had vision, hope, money and weight. It is a valuable piece of our history and a record of our evolution The great future...what the fuck is up with the 't's on this keyboard...bas ards!!!

I don't think anyone was making a case against the NHS. Personally I've recently been a patient at Guy's myself, and have nothing but admiration for the staff there. The building undeniably has a worthy purpose. And if you believe that a "businessman's phallus" is less worthy, you may well be right. Of course, no building in London better fits that description than the Gherkin. The thing is, we weren't talking about the purpose of the building, the value of what is done within it. We were talking about the building itself, the architecture. And the Gherkin is a great building, and Guy's Tower is a terrible one.

I have no thoughts as to what's going on with your keyboard.

Poll added...

Good idea, thanks.

I agree 100%. I live just around the corner from Guys and overlooked it from my living room for 15 months, I'm really rather attached to the beast!

Putting aside the aesthetic and historical arguments, the money for a reclad would ultimately come from NHS funds whether directly or indirectly and I for one would far rather see it spent on patient care!

People do get used to, and attached to, bad buildings, just as other people can get attached to abusive relationships or to self-destructive habits... it doesn't mean they wouldn't be better off if things changed.

The argument that the money would better be spent on operational work such as patient care rather than on the building is a perfectly fair one. But I suspect that a building like this will always have to have money spent on it at some point - whether it's replaced, reclad, done up, or simply restored to its original "brutalist" glory. Patient care won't be improved if the ceiling's falling in, after all.

So if the time has come where it needs substantial money spent on it then surely it's a good time to consider what best to do with it. I haven't seen the numbers, but I can believe it's conceivable that if the NHS trust builds a shiny new hospital somewhere else in London and sells the tower to be redeveloped into flats, it might have no less money to spend on patient care - and maybe more.

The best ldea is to build clusters of skyscrapers near transportation nodes. The Shard may not have the most prestigious adress but will have a ton of rail and tube connections. People commuting form SE areas will not even have to go outside. In the long run this cluster could support five or six high rises. The land under Guys would be quite valuable under this scenario, and might provide the NHS with the money for a nice new hospital in the area. The land might come from a demolished sink estate. What matters is ambulance access- these emergency victims aren't getting to Guys by LB station.

the site itself has become so unwieldly and messy that something certainly needs to be done, there's some awful low-rise extensions onto the tower itself, while the hospital complex is spread out over many different buildings even some of the ones that looks like council flats but have NHS badges stuck on them. not only does this mesh of ambulance lanes, loading bays, service areas and so on harm the overall urban setting but i can't imagine it does wonders for the efficiency of the work done in the hospital. so the Guy's Tower itself, while an exceptionally ugly building, is the least of the problems on the site.

personally i think there is a strong argument to preserve the tower, but i'd also be happy if it were knocked down too. what i would not want to happen is a reclad which would obfuscate the raw concrete brutalism which makes the structure important, but still leave us with a hideous building of absolutely no merit. either it gets a sympathetic refurb or it is demolished, a compromise in this situation would be awful.

ideally the NHS would develop the site, clear away the low rise dross, keep the tower and the low-rise historic structures, tarted up and looking as they were originally intended. not sure how they would manage this whilst still providing the same amount of hospital space, perhaps they should exploit the prime real estate and move to a less salubrious but nearby site, to maintain the link with King's College. if they co-developed the land themselves, built a few LBTs, they make more than enough money to build a state of the art hospital on the council estate trash to the immediate south.

Compromise isn't always a bad thing. I don't think the architect was daring, I think he was just allowed to come up with any old rubbish as long as it had lots of floor space for the new hospital and didn't cost much. If someone had made him compromise by insisting that the building also improve rather than ruin the street layout, and be reasonable to look at, it would have been a better building for it, and could have been far more daring - because he might then have bothered to design something interesting.
Regarding possible conservation - I did say if something noteworthy comes along knock it down - the building does have some historical relevance. I used the word 'daring' in the context of the time it was built - Brutalism was in some ways a reaction to the effete take on architecture that had preceded it. Re compromise not always being a bad thing - that of course is a truism, however, regarding modern architecture, compromise, at any rate in the case of British architecture - has tended to produce indifferent work.
Re reclads, I'm tired of them, if economics are a factor - perhaps (wasn't that an argument used to attack brutalism? - on aesthetic grounds - either conserve or demolish.

I don't think anyone was making a case against the NHS. Personally I've recently been a patient at Guy's myself, and have nothing but admiration for the staff there. The building undeniably has a worthy purpose. And if you believe that a "businessman's phallus" is less worthy, you may well be right. Of course, no building in London better fits that description than the Gherkin. The thing is, we weren't talking about the purpose of the building, the value of what is done within it. We were talking about the building itself, the architecture. And the Gherkin is a great building, and Guy's Tower is a terrible one.

I have no thoughts as to what's going on with your keyboard.



Good idea, thanks.



People do get used to, and attached to, bad buildings, just as other people can get attached to abusive relationships or to self-destructive habits... it doesn't mean they wouldn't be better off if things changed.

The argument that the money would better be spent on operational work such as patient care rather than on the building is a perfectly fair one. But I suspect that a building like this will always have to have money spent on it at some point - whether it's replaced, reclad, done up, or simply restored to its original "brutalist" glory. Patient care won't be improved if the ceiling's falling in, after all.

So if the time has come where it needs substantial money spent on it then surely it's a good time to consider what best to do with it. I haven't seen the numbers, but I can believe it's conceivable that if the NHS trust builds a shiny new hospital somewhere else in London and sells the tower to be redeveloped into flats, it might have no less money to spend on patient care - and maybe more.

I agree to many of these points and am am aware, of course, that we are talking about a building and not its uses. I for one tend to be more holistic in all my considerations. I maintain that part of a buildings value is its use, especially if i is still being used for the same purpuse as it was designed for.

It is easy to admire the grandeur and glory of the great cathedrals and castles. For me this is tainted when I consider how many hundreds of undervalued souls died building them and the attrocities that were perpetrated within. To ignore this and just consider the aestheics is like (to me) looking a life hrough rose ined glasses.

This building is designed for its purpose (its bulbous top, its balconies and chimneys) and it happens to be in an experimental style. The fact that is was built with public money has a huge impact on what can be done. I was not at all suggesting that anyone was knocking the NHS..I have not been aware of anyone doing that. Someone menioned that they are tired of reclads. I guess a lot of recladding is happening because the building owners want to make their towers more attractive to gain higher rents. This is why the history of this building has the luxury of being able to remain, as those issues are less pressing.

Having said that...if the ceilings are about to fall in then that is condusive to a good recovery...especially on the head injuries ward ;)

They should knock that top bit off and reclad it, into a different shape which compliments LBT. like they did with that AXA tower in Paris?

No – but I’d support a renovation, or some kind of reclad/reworking of the structure...its owned by a hospital, NHS, they will never demolisg it totaly, so i think it should be re clad like the exchnage tower, its 140m ish so it should look good after it is done!

They should knock that top bit off and reclad it, into a different shape which compliments LBT. like they did with that AXA tower in Paris?

that seems like a pretty good idea on paper, but it would be crazy to acually do... As its a hospital i think if they were to do any redevelopment it would be a sensible reclad that doesnt disrupt any part of the hospitals structure. This would be so it can continue to operate whilst work is done. kind of like the way the new cladding on the building near T42 (cant remember its name, 99 or 100 bishopsgateor somthing, it was affected by bomb damage) seems to just sit around the edge of the building.

just a thought :)

No – but I’d support a renovation, or some kind of reclad/reworking of the structure...its owned by a hospital, NHS, they will never demolisg it totaly, so i think it should be re clad like the exchnage tower, its 140m ish so it should look good after it is done!

It could be demolished if the NHS trust decided to relocate the hospital to new buildings elsewhere, to be paid for thereafter by the sale of the very valuable Guy's site.

^^^ true, but why would they do that...its a relatively new hospital and ideally placed.

Honestly I think we've got more than enough examples of brutalist architecture in London to last us a flippin' lifetime. So I don't think we need to worry too much about that "oh, but this building is such a great example of brutalism!" stuff.

The Barbican and the Hayward Gallery are both much more interesting and merited Brutalist structures. Compared to those, Guy's Hospital just looks like another commieblock with a weird pointy bit sticking out at the top.

I say knock it down. You can give it all the romantic back story you want, but at the end of the day it's just another ugly building.

---

Honestly I think we've got more than enough examples of brutalist architecture in London to last us a flippin' lifetime. So I don't think we need to worry too much about that "oh, but this building is such a great example of brutalism!" stuff.

The Barbican and the Hayward Gallery are both much more interesting and merited Brutalist structures. Compared to those, Guy's Hospital just looks like another commieblock with a weird pointy bit sticking out at the top.

I say knock it down. You can give it all the romantic back story you want, but at the end of the day it's just another ugly building.

---

Reprise:

^^ true, but why would they do that...its a relatively new hospital and ideally placed.

^^^ true, but why would they do that...its a relatively new hospital and ideally placed.

It's not a relatively new hospital, it was founded in 1721, and most of the current buildings are from the 19th century. The tower is from 1974, which isn't even relatively new now that UCLH tower is up and other London hospitals have plenty of new buildings. And it was cheaply built and is an ugly pile of crap.

Is it ideally placed? It's central, but that means the roads around it are incredibly congested - not great if you're in the back of an ambulance. A new hospital campus a couple of miles further out might be a better option.

To be honest if they reclad it would only end up in the style of the Z-Tower in Deptford.

Which isn't particularly great either.

I still maintain that giving it a good wash and letting it stand next to The Shard will give it a new lease of life, and be a better contrast of architecture than cladding it in cheapo plastic panels.

I know the reclad would look to terrible when comparing other resi reclads. Demolish or clean are about the only 2 postive options

come on now, this simply isnt true. gothic revivalism not only dominated the agenda in the uk for years, and indeed was used in parliament specifically because it was considered a national style, but then spread across the world whether it was buildings the british built http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Tribune_Tower-Chicago.jpg

sorry I wasnt very clear in that I was meaning British architecture in the 20th and particularly post war. I think gothic revivalism was still heavily entwined in the concept of hand craft and nationalism and would now be very expensive to replicate.

^^ Yes, but there is another point...Guys Tower is a point in history...not just history, but more locally..our history...I recall Guys being built. Now..it was not just another building in the style of..'lets see what we can build as quickly as possible and as cheaply'...it was so much more than that! It is modern, it wis public, it was the GREAT NHS (and still is) If it was some businessmans Phallus, I might agree, but it is part of the great British social system and was percieved, designed and built for that purpose, that makes this tower an important part of our society, a bit like a pyramid...a time when we had vision, hope, money and weight....

but that is still an ongoing process, we still live in the era of the NHS and we should be seeking to constantly improving within this bubble which we live. It isnt quite an age gone by! You say it is important locally but it is like comparing an amateur dramatics society's interpretation of a famous play; it is all very nice but it is just not worth embalming just because it existed once!

It's not a relatively new hospital, it was founded in 1721, and most of the current buildings are from the 19th century. The tower is from 1974, which isn't even relatively new now that UCLH tower is up and other London hospitals have plenty of new buildings. And it was cheaply built and is an ugly pile of crap.

Is it ideally placed? It's central, but that means the roads around it are incredibly congested - not great if you're in the back of an ambulance. A new hospital campus a couple of miles further out might be a better option.

I disagree.It is ideally placed,being right next to a major transport hub.

Ambulances approach Guys from Snowfields,the road at the back of the building.These roads aren't congested in the slightest...I live around there.Besides,ambulances never need to rush to Guys Hospital as there isn't an A and E department there.

Personally,I like Guys Tower.Admittedly,it is looking very shabby.A really good scrub and new windows would make a lot of difference.

but that is still an ongoing process, we still live in the era of the NHS and we should be seeking to constantly improving within this bubble which we live. It isnt quite an age gone by! You say it is important locally but it is like comparing an amateur dramatics society's interpretation of a famous play; it is all very nice but it is just not worth embalming just because it existed once!

I wouldnt know about its the importance of its location. I am going by the references to people on this forum, I trust their personal statements. I know of the importance of my hospital (charing X) Recent suggestion that it might be closed has caused an uproar and was promtly denied. It was only built in 1973 and is world class!

: The tower is from 1974, which isn't even relatively new now that UCLH tower is up and other London hospitals have plenty of new buildings.

I am only talking about the tower (the main emphasis of debate on this thread being a skyscraper forum). If 33 years is old for a purpose built hosital, then we are in serious trouble....I maintain that 33 years old IS relatively new. This is the largest single modern building that I know of...not one of just a collection of buildings.

I remind you both, with respect. Many average people, on balance, are not at all interested in the aesthetics of a building if it provides the services they require. It doesnt matter a toss if we dont like the look of it. Now that there is a genuine chance of a change of Government administration...what are the chances of any unnecessary rebuild from a party whos prime purpose is to increase personal income for the individual and cut state spending? I agress by the way Ptto...we should be seeking to update and improve the NHS...I am seriously concerned for my country if events repeat themselves.

but we are talking about the aesthetics! Also we are talking about a theoretical situation where there is a choice between keeping a structure or changing/demolishing it, in this instance I dont understand how the emotion of it being a hospital is getting wound up in the debate ultimately centred on the architecture ie is it worth preserving. The hospital trust will get their money back if they sell the site and Im sure they will be able to build a far superior structure in terms of aesthetic and facility.

Yes..I have made my point many times before on these forums. A more holistic approach to a subject is (IMO) much more rewarding. I never 'just' talk about the aesthetics of a building project or scheme and certainly...you never do. You are very concerned about how things tie in with the community, access and you are very socially minded. etc etc ;)

I again look at the title of the thread (which as you know, I am very bad at sticking too)

points taken, but then we have to ask if this is like having your cake and eating it.

Was it not the whole idea of the brutalist & modernist movement to sweep away any emotional attachment with the goings on inside? Perhaps demolitian once it has out-lived its lifecycle will be the ultimate gesture to symbolise this period?

We have enough varied examples that are protected from future destruction and you could even argue we are still in the same era as the modernists and we are merely just evolving (perfecting?) the movement; we only really tweak at her fundamentals dont we?

Interesting points. I read that apparently Japanese society are so used to natural disaster that they consider the preservation of buildings as an alien concept (I am sure it is much deeper than that is such a complex society)

Renewal comes once something is finished with (either through wear & tear, age or disaster) There are fery few architectural gems in Japan, whereas here we have a very different approach. Already we have lost all of our 122 leadenhall building types I think. I agree that there are other examples of
'Guys' Type, but there is something distastful about looking into the future and hearing: "brutalism? the greatest example of all used to be in this city"

However, I would not lose too much sleep over a good cleanup and some blue stripes up the side.

It certainly looks tired, but is still a prominant reminder of the brutalist style.

I never realised it was hospital for years, instead some crack-house infested highrise or indeed a noxious chemical plant. I have however, grown quite fond of the old girl, standing underneath you can't help but get taken back by the sheer scale of it, especially knowing there's a working hospital inside. It feels like a massive concrete monolith.

Having said that however, the question still remains though, if it wasn't a hospital, would it be joining the queues of other buildings scheduled for the 'Keltbray' treatment.

we weren't talking about the purpose of the building, the value of what is done within it.

Is this not as much part of architecture as aesthetics?

IMO Architecture is not just aesthetics; it's as much to do with whether the building serves its purpose. Which IMO Guys does.

HEALTH-LED REGENERATION PROJECT FOR LAMBETH

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears has granted approval to Guy's and St Thomas' Charity to proceed with the exciting plans for the Founder's Place health-led development, opposite St Thomas' Hospital.

The outcome of the hearing is welcome news to the charity and its partners, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and the Evelina Family Trust.



Guy's and St Thomas' Founder's Place
The development, designed by signature architects Farrells, will provide accommodation for 400 key workers at Guy's and St Thomas' and 45 affordable flats for local people. It will also provide brand new homes for the Charity's long-term tenants, currently living in Canterbury House and Stangate House on the site.

Other elements of the development include:


A 102-place nursery for the children of staff who work at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust;

Ronald McDonald House, managed by the Evelina Family Trust, providing 22 rooms for the families of sick children undergoing treatment at the new Evelina Children's Hospital;

New health facilities, including a patient hotel. There may also be a health facility for the use by the wider community;

Over 300 private flats to help fund the redevelopment of the site

Ron Kerr, Chief Executive of Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, said: "The scheme will bring many benefits for our patients. High quality worker accommodation and the new nursery will help us to continue to attract and retain the best possible staff to work in an area where property is expensive and relocating can be difficult.

"The development will also provide a much needed boost to the local community, opening up the links between the hospital and the local businesses in Lower Marsh by creating a brighter and safer environment."

As part of the development, the charity is discussing a Section 106 agreement package of improvements to the surrounding area, valued at over £2.3 million.

The Charity will now be seeking a development partner to manage the construction phase. It is envisaged that demolition of the buildings on the site will begin early in 2008 and that building work will commence later that year.
www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk
www.terryfarrell.co.uk

Ronald McDonald House, managed by the Evelina Family Trust, providing 22 rooms for the families of sick children undergoing treatment at the new Evelina Children's Hospital;


Treatment to undo the damage caused by eating too much crap food from McDonalds ?

^^ (igoring Smarty's cheap shot)
Interesting news, Tyler, but wrong thread - it's the same NHS trust, but this is not about the Guy's site at all.

The building undeniably has a worthy purpose. [...] The thing is, we weren't talking about the purpose of the building, the value of what is done within it. We were talking about the building itself, the architecture.

Is this not as much part of architecture as aesthetics?

IMO Architecture is not just aesthetics; it's as much to do with whether the building serves its purpose. Which IMO Guys does.

Maybe I should have written aesthetics. It's true that Guy's Tower serves its purpose at a basic level, i.e. it provides lots of space for hospital facilities. But it's easy to imagine a higher-quality new building serving that purpose much better - more hygenically, more efficiently, more comfortably, more appropriately designed for modern medical equipment, etc. It's also hard to imagine that new building being anything like as ugly as Guy's Tower - that's my own subjective opinion, of course, but I'm pretty confident most NHS staff and patients would be with me on that even if some forumers here aren't. And it may be stretching a point, but arguably those aesthetic concerns do have a bearing on function - there's research showing that patients do better in attractive surroundings etc.

problem is if the nhs was to build anything on the scale of guys it would be done on the cheap. so you wouldnt for sure get anything thats better. a clean would do it wonders

problem is if the nhs was to build anything on the scale of guys it would be done on the cheap. so you wouldnt for sure get anything thats better. a clean would do it wonders

I think cleaning inside is a bigger issue! Don't think you're right, either - UCLH is a new NHS hospital, with a central London site, and it wasn't done on the cheap - and you can bet it's a far better building to work in (or be a patient in) than Guy's Tower. I'm having an operation in December, I've just found out, which may be at Guy's, so I'd be grateful if we can leave it standing for a few weeks more...

hope its nothing serious ^^^ Good luck

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3401


Plans for Guy’s Tower revamp move closer
Friday 11 July 2008
London SE1 website team

Proposals to refurbish the exterior of SE1's tallest building - Guy's Tower at Guy's Hospital - have moved a step closure with the appointment of architects and project managers to carry out a feasibility study.

I totally disagree that the hatred of brutalism extends only to the present. They were hated when they were built and they are hated now, by both professional and casual observers. I think what is particularly unflattering for these concrete monoliths is the overcast skys. They were never seen as part of an environment, they simply wished to create one. Personally I think it's a monumental failure.

you are wrong in all respects

both your assertions of purported fact, and your expressions of opinion, are baseless

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3401


Plans for Guy’s Tower revamp move closer
Friday 11 July 2008
London SE1 website team

Proposals to refurbish the exterior of SE1's tallest building - Guy's Tower at Guy's Hospital - have moved a step closure with the appointment of architects and project managers to carry out a feasibility study.

fine, i don't mind Guys as a period piece but it is looking incredibly tired, especially in the context of what is to join it as a neighbour. But if they do reclad, please make sure its pure quality, not a shabby stick-on grey panelling effort.

Interesting points. I read that apparently Japanese society are so used to natural disaster that they consider the preservation of buildings as an alien concept (I am sure it is much deeper than that is such a complex society)

Renewal comes once something is finished with (either through wear & tear, age or disaster) There are fery few architectural gems in Japan, whereas here we have a very different approach. Already we have lost all of our 122 leadenhall building types I think. I agree that there are other examples of
'Guys' Type, but there is something distastful about looking into the future and hearing: "brutalism? the greatest example of all used to be in this city"

However, I would not lose too much sleep over a good cleanup and some blue stripes up the side.

You don't have to look into the future. The greatest example of brutalism has already been demolished and it was the Tricorn Centre in Portsmouth now we have a car park in its place and failing plans for a poor quality retail quarter. :cry:

I dont believe that anything other than a massively expensive Stock Exchange style reclad would improve this building. Covering it in cheep grey or coloured plastic would look appauling, like some block of flats in Leeds. All this building really needs is a wash leave it at that. It would be the cheepest option and i think this building will look fantastic next to the shard they will compliment each other nicely.

you are wrong in all respects

both your assertions of purported fact, and your expressions of opinion, are baseless

http://sf.startupweekend.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/o_rly.jpg

How it looked the year it was built.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2414/2183508258_ca759457f7_b.jpg

Not exactly much of a difference from today really.

they should reclad it in yellow and make it look like a big piece of cheese

Is it structurely sound?- Didnt alot of these early pre fab concrete building have big issues?

Guys isn't a prefab is it? I thought it was a much more solid structure.

I really hope they just clean the outside instead of doing a reclad. A reclad may actually make it much worse. As it is right now, this building, although not a great example of brutalism, has some integrity. Furthermore it will provide some contrast witht he Shard. Clad it in glass, and it will reduce the soar factor of the Shard. If the NHS has some spare money, they should actually spend it on upgrading the interior of many of their London hospitals because they are of such poor quality you could believe you are somewhere in a thrid-world country.

I know of a perfect plan to upgrade the Guy's Tower: I give the rectangular portion of the tower a completely new facade, and give the square part of the tower a coat of white paint and new windows. I won't be turning it into luxury flats however, because it will be robbed of its World's tallest hospital title if that happens.

there's a majority against demolition.

always thought there was a tendency towards lunacy in these parts.

It is amusing that a new hulking ground scraper like the east end hospital being built at the moment would actually look better behind the Shard than the vista created with Guys tower, far more clarity.

Im personally still dubious about the aesthetic merits of Guys as it stands now in the existing mini-cluster but happy to hear other people promote its difficult virtues.

Having said that, 'the tallest hospital in the world' mantra is a bit pointless and shouldnt cloud our opinions.

I have used this often for visitors surveying the views East toward Tower Bridge and even with that knowledge the London Bridge quarter is quickly erased from their memory either from their embarrasment at having to look at it and pretend a 'wow' or it does not provided a strong enough signature for memory as they look further downstream or over the City for inspiration.

this whole area behind borough high street and south of london bridge station is a mess at ground level, due to the sprawling nature of the guy's site rather than the tower itself. the older portions have a certain charm but even they block off routes east from borough high st and then the modern additions are simply an incoherent mess, made worse by the huge rail viaducts (which will be worse with thameslink) and gradually merge into crappy council estates.

Bit of extra info from an NHS meeting from September.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Guy’s Tower external refurbishment – Arup and Penoyre + Prasad have been
appointed to work with us to undertake a feasibility study that will appraise methods
of refurbishing the external fabric of the building, establish budget costs and make
recommendations on defining the scope of works for the project going forward. The
Charity and KCL are engaged as key stakeholders in this project during the feasibility
design stage which is due to be completed in January for a report to the Board in
February 2009. This project will be subject to significant town planning scrutiny
because of the impact on the London skyline and this represents a risk to the ongoing
programme. However, at this stage we anticipate that the project could be
completed in 2012.


Guy’s Site redevelopment – BDP and EC Harris are the consultants who are
developing the design exemplar and business case for presentation to the Board in
November 2008. This work will give us an understanding of the architectural and
commercial potential of the Guy’s site and options for development of hospital
facilities in the context of the vision for cancer services. A decant plan will form part
of the recommendations to show how Borough Wing might be vacated. We will
investigate the third party property developments that are planned in the London
Bridge area in order to evaluate whether we can gain any decanting benefit from
such developments that are already in the planning system. We are also looking into
procurement options from traditional procurement to more innovative funding options,
together with an analysis of the risks/rewards of each of the potential options for
consideration by the Board to enable a greater level of understanding before a
funding decision can be made.

''This project will be subject to significant town planning scrutiny
because of the impact on the London skyline and this represents a risk to the ongoing
programme''

I don't see that being a problem with Shard nextdoor?
Either way, to see this being completed for the same year as Shard, very promising.

As I've said before, they should clad the whole thing in solar panels - it would look really cool and futuristic, as well as being eco-friendly.

It will look awful if you mean the blue ones used in Manchester? I find this a very hard project to visualise what you can do. It’s either disguise the Brutal concrete or get rid of it. I find some elements of the building very compelling especially the top of the building. My worry is that the concrete will just be painted white and will look like that Goldfinger pile of rubbish in Elephant and Castle.

I am a bit worried on the outcome of this. It can ends up muche worse in the longer run than a simple cleaning.

I would rather see a light touch approach to the revamp unless someone shows me something radical and appropriate for a 140m tower in the centre of London.

I'd rather it be demolished personally. It takes away the soar of the shard, despite being over half the size.

I really hope someone doesnt suggest 'adding a bit of colour' to the building. I really think a mature and intelligent approach is needed here, no jokey architecture.

It's one of those buildings I hate but would miss. It's iconic and unless it was a radical change it will stand out even more. Just picturing that tower proposed in the Docklands which looks like this with the multi-coloured panels.

Just give it a good clean, that's all it needs IMO.

Just give it a good clean, that's all it needs IMO.

I totally agree, I'm quite attached to the concrete beast, I regard it as a good neighbour that ain't pretty but has become a familiar and friendly face! :nuts:

Also, if clean, maybe I could finally get some good shots out of the 30th floor windows! Have they never heard of window cleaners!?

I totally agree, I'm quite attached to the concrete beast, I regard it as a good neighbour that ain't pretty but has become a familiar and friendly face! :nuts:

Yes, its definately grown on me since I first saw pictures of it, and I found it quite impressive when I was down in London in the summer.
I think that the windows could do with a clean, but I would go so far as to say that the structure itself looks alright as it is. Liverpools Royal liver Building was given a clean up and compared with photos of how it was prior to it being cleaned, its much more atmospheric in its uncleaned form. I think Guys might look a little stupid if the concrete itself was cleaned.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think it should stay as it is as well. Definately clean it though, and tidy up the mess on the roof.

I can't believe how many people want this blot on the skyline to remain essentially in its current form! Aren't people at least interested in seeing some renders of what a reclad might look like before they write the idea off?

I can't believe how many people want this blot on the skyline to remain essentially in its current form! Aren't people at least interested in seeing some renders of what a reclad might look like before they write the idea off?

Yes were are, but we're maybe a bit faithless in contemporary architecture in London.
If you announce me that Danish, Dutch, Austrian or German architectural practices are competing to the job, then, I would be very excited.

Its dreadful and must be redeveloped! The Shard should not have anything over 100m next to it IMO, so it can remain to soar. Something major needs to be done about this, it looks terrible next to The Shard.

I'm sure I said exactly the same thing a few months back... I'm not really sure why I've made a U-turn. I don't think I'd mind it being demolished really, I just can't imagine a reclad at all. I don't think it'd be that ugly a building if it were cleaned & tidied up, but it would be better for the Shard if it wasn't there at all.

^^ Yeah demolishing hospitals. Always a vote winner that.

That's why it's never going to happen.

has happened where i live. and they don't open a new one to replace it, and then it takes people an hour in an ambulance to travel from the remotest parts of lincoln to the casualty department.

That's what I'm saying, I wouldn't mind the tower being demolished and being replaced with a more low-mid-rise hospital, just so that the Shard can stand alone with all the soar it should have, nothing else on the skyline would detract from it's size.

Obviously like you said this would never happen, so I think Guy's should remain as is and be cleaned up.

Quite interesting on this site that whenever someone comes in and complains London's towers are not tall enough everyone attacks and says it's all about the design and not the height. And yet these same people constantly go on about soar and that we need our towers to be bigger and taller than the surrounding buildings, like height is the only thing that matters when you stand looking at the skyline, or whatever.

http://www.penoyre-prasad.net/ are the architects.. Their works rather interesting especially RDCEC Moorfields.

Prasad is president of RIBA...but it's not a quality stamp these days.

Penoyre-Prasad did a great job with Moorfields Eye Hospital so this could be very promising.

Its dreadful and must be redeveloped! The Shard should not have anything over 100m next to it IMO, so it can remain to soar. Something major needs to be done about this, it looks terrible next to The Shard.

I agree. The Shard is unique enough to be standalone, like Yooksum Tower (63) in Seoul. It used to stand on the river bank with nothing around it and was a vision in itself, but recently they capitalised on the location and built low rise around it - ruining the main tower. The Shard is similar. If there was a 3rd tower to join shard and Guy's, it would be a mini cluster, but just the two of them isnt great.

From the LBT thread

From the new exhibition at Building Centre. Um, it says the Guys reclad will be done by 2012!!??
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/supertek/DSC02016.jpg

Redo its cladding, maybe, to fit in more with the Shard, but don't demolish it! As far as I know, it's the tallest hospital in the world, thus it would be a shame to destroy it.

Another option pehaps is to cover the building in stainless steel, this atleast would keep the form of the building and rid it of it's grubby looks.

Yeah, i think a stainless steel/dark glass approach on the main section would look quite good, but keeping the look of the building broadly similar (just with updated cladding). And that weird lift shaft could be left as concrete but given a good clean and some more windows punched through it (together with an interesting night lighting effect).

I'm not too keen on that proposed reclad, it's a bit too much and just yells 'look at me' which isn't ideal as it'll compete with the shard and lose everytime.

Chop the bint's head off! This is the ugliest thing about the building and, looking at that render, they're painting it even more brown?

http://i42.tinypic.com/qoysea.jpg


The new central element looks pretty decent but where's the helipad!? World's tallest hospital and no helipad? :nuts:

hilarious pic

I don't like it, but I acknowledge it's relevance.. so think it just needs a really good clean and a lick of paint (but nothing that'd detract from the brutalism..) The multi-cladding systems on that render, its a bit too much really :S

Keep it as it is or demolish it. The reclad idea does not really sound like a great idea and the render above looks more like a cheap attempt to hide or to wrap it in cheap plastic.

Like the Barbican, it is a "nice" example of 'brutalism' and represents an architecture and mentality of the 50s and 60s.
Especially after seeing the ideas for the three new residential towers in the area, I think that this concrete monster would add a nice contrast to glass..

However, if it would meet the wrecking ball I wouldn't be too sad either, but reclad? no thanks!

Thats looks very interesting, I really like it. I hope it looks as good from the other side though I'm not a huge fan of brown blocks.

It's also hard to imagine that new building being anything like as ugly as Guy's Tower - that's my own subjective opinion, of course, but I'm pretty confident most NHS staff and patients would be with me on that even if some forumers here aren't.

Actually I am NHS staff and my Trust have units on the Guys site. :)

^^And I'm a regular patient at Guy's!

^^And I'm a regular patient at Guy's!

Hopefully we look after you well! :)

I would like to state my opinion on the proposed recladding of the Guy's Tower.

Over the past few months, I wanted to see the Guy's Tower get a reclad in the near future. But after I saw the rendering, I began to think it is a mediocre design. The new glass exterior looks like a chain-link fence. Nobody wants to see a skyscraper whose exterior facade looks like a chain link fence. And its elevator core looks like it's clad in some granite, but in the same chain-like fence design. And I don't know what that height-extending thing is, but it's the only part of the building without the chain-link design. You want to properly reclad the Guy's Tower? Do it the way it is in the rendering, but scrap the chain-link fence-like design in favour of a more simple design, like horizontal lines across the new facade of the building.

the whole redesign seems a little forced to me...
Yes, the building is MONUMENTALLY ugly, but we cant reclad every brutalist building there is for the sake of it. Instead, they should spend longer on the redesign, its not totally urgent, but would be good by 2012

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3841

http://i42.tinypic.com/2448iuo.jpg

Lol. As someone else mentioned this looks like fishnet tights - Guys in drag?

What would happen to the hospital if this reclad were to take place? By this I mean the functions taking place inside. Guys NHS trust are carrying out the study implying they ultimately want to keep and use the building, but where would all the services they currently provide be housed?

For the record, I don't like this proposed refurbishment. I'd much rather retain the clear horizontal lines present in the building's current state. Not the sheer curtain wall ever present on so many new builds and refurbs. I'd like to see that kept as a feature of any reclad.

Not going to happen by 2012 by the looks of it then.

I like it. It echoes the rather excellent new errr air vents/oxygen tanks (?) at the base

It's interesting to read some of the posts here hoping to see Guy's demolished and the hospital moved to a new site elsewhere.

I think this would be a massive shame for a few reasons - there has been a hospital on this site for hundreds of years, it's the tallest hospital in the world, and it's also a good example of 'brutalist' architecture (not very popular i know but when its gone people would miss it). I also work there and it's very easy for me to get to it.

Obviously members of staff would be the last to know anything about redevelopment plans, but so far the rumours i've heard include the refurbishment of the tower, and in about 4 years all of the wards located at the Guy's site would move up into the tower. The smaller 8 story brick building below known as the 'Borough' wing (where most of the wards including mine are located) will be demolished. So far i've heard there will be a regional cancer unit built on the site, and then i heard they were going to build a multi story car park (as the area is hell to park in). No one working at the trust actually know what the plans are (if any), so knowing the NHS as i do i expect nothing will actually happen for the next 20 years.

with government spending under pressure, demolishing a hospital is incredibly unlikely to happen. tbh recladding an existing one is not much more likely

I like it. It echoes the rather excellent new errr air vents/oxygen tanks (?) at the base

You mean this? They need to look after it a bit better and stop surrounding it by clutter. Its already filthy and shabby looking.

http://i44.tinypic.com/smsw95.jpg

Wow the base (not that new bit) is truly horrendous. You might think that being stained and a bit dilapidated it would gain some kind of cool blade runner like vibes but no :ohno:

I have a big problem with mesh cladding, it always gets filthy in external conditions. Another building that's really looking an absolute mess and quiet frankly a fire hazard is Alsop’s DLR station at Canary wharf, rubbish and detritus clogging up behind the supposedly stainless steel woven sheets that have now gone rusty.

^^The mesh at the base of the tower looks dirty if you get close to it, and the whole area in the photo looks generally shabby - it makes me cringe when i walk past. I really can't understand why the wasted so much money on it when parts of the interior desperately need a lick of paint.

I think an reclad should emphasise on the verticals. That chain link effect makes it look fat.
Strong, maybe even thick vertical mullions would work a treat here

It would be very simple to give the Heatherwick cladding a quick jet-wash. Maintenance is the issue surely? No building is enhanced by having skips and breeze-block out houses surrounding it. Why did the trust bother to hire a talented designer only to leave it like that?

I think public buildings have this weird assumption that once you build it, it will never need to be maintained. Look at the Guy's main building, have they ever thought of cleaning the concrete? NO.

I was on the 30th floor of Guy's tower when I noticed this:

http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc360/londonfire/Picture14420042.jpg

...more details....

http://www.jacksonlifts.com/jlgmodernisationandnewguys.html


Lifts for the tallest hospital in the world


Jackson Lift Group are pleased to announce their appointment as the lift contractor for Guys Hospital Tower in London. The modernisation will include the complete modernisation of the existing 5 low rise and 5 high rise tower lifts with a project value in excess of £2.5 million.

The four year programme will provide new energy efficient machines, control and door systems, car interiors, pushes, indicators and signalisation. The existing 2.5 m/s and 3.5 m/s lift speeds will be retained with the installation of the latest AC gearless machine technology, energy efficient drive arrangements, together with industry standard support equipment throughout the whole installation.

Presently we are engaged with the engineering & design process of this project, ordering the various components, compiling the relevant risk and specific works method statements and inducting the installing engineering staff for the November 2008 start date.

As we prepare for this project we look forward to working closely with the clients specialist lift consultants, Dunbar & Boardman Partnership and the management and engineering team of Guys & St Thomas' Hospital NHS trust.

We will continue to provide further updates via this web site regarding this interesting and challenging project throughout it's various stages.


Brief Project Overview

> Complete modernisation of ten high speed passenger lifts
> Latest energy efficient technology control systems and drive control
> Heavy duty, heavy usage door drive systems
> Improvements to passenger waiting times
> Streamlined and faster flow through of visitor traffic
> Vastly improved passenger confidence and lift reliability


Project update 22/04/09

The necessary enabling works have progressed to programme and the engineering staff on site have now taken delivery of the first two machines.

The route through this busy hospital had been carefully planned and agreed with the whole works and management team and included the use of an empty full travel lift shaft and specially created opening to the main lift motor room.

All relevant equipment to commence and complete the first two lifts is now safely in place within our storage area. An update detailing the testing and completion of the first phase of works will follow at a future date

cool, at least it's something!

but nothing about external cladding...

^^ Good to see the lifts are being replaced - a colleague of mine got stuck in one of the high level tower lifts a few months ago. Eventually they had to get her out through the roof of the lift by lowering a chair in for her as the lift was stuck between floors and they couldn't get the doors open:lol:.

"signalisation" ha ha ha. I hope they're configurised correctly too.

First time caller, long time listener and all that shabaz

I just had a thought whilst looking over one of your guys (dolls?) renderings of Canary Wharf in a few years. Im hopeless at photoshop so maybe one of you could put your skills to work. Anyway, Guys shouldnt be demolished just because of service, add to that te supposed fact that its the tallest hospital in the world and thats a double no, but it is still ugly as fuck and doesnt deserve to be next to something as beautiful as The Shard. I was thinking I its look if they put a metal frame extneding from the 'tumor' on its roof directly down to the floor. Something similar to the xxxxx style arch over Wembley but thicker so the building doesnt have any bits that stick out horizontally, just the extra bit for the chimney extending vertically up through the roof.

Then, add a glass face on the two widest sides of the tower, but have the extend over slightly at the sides and roof just like on The Landmark.

Hopefully this will draw attention away from guys by making it appear as an acceptable tower, nothing too good or too bad that draws the eye away from The Shard.

noticed this small paragraph on Guys that may be of interest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5886509/300m-of-repairs-needed-to-NHS-buildings.html

Guy's and St Thomas' Trust, London. £26.5m. A spokesman said problems were with the external fabric of the main tower block at Guy's Hospital. A permanent solution is to re-clad the lift and staircase tower at an estimated cost of over £26 million and the Trust hopes to start the work soon.

so a partial reclad?

Even that may do the job from certain angles, just by putting on verticle lines the building should look less robust and oppressive over the shard.

Posters have been put up around Guy's today saying that the refurbishment and recladding of the tower is imminent. There isn't much more information given than that, so i assume it will start over the next few weeks.

Posters have been put up around Guy's today saying that the refurbishment and recladding of the tower is imminent. There isn't much more information given than that, so i assume it will start over the next few weeks.

You got any more info on this as its rather strange that a load of external works info would go up around Guys saying work will start imminently without a start date & more importantly a planning application.

^^It didn't say that much really - i'll make a note tomorrow and post it here when i get in from work. Presumably there musy be a planning permission if work is going ahead surely??

^^It didn't say that much really - i'll make a note tomorrow and post it here when i get in from work. Presumably there musy be a planning permission if work is going ahead surely??

Yes it would require it but there isn't one so maybe that is what the note is saying (that an application is imminent). Try and get a snap on your camera phone and post here.

It all sounds a bit piecemeal to me.

It all sounds a bit exciting to me..

This sounds like the refurbishment of the main entrance on Great Maze Pond, rather than anything more extensive;

http://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/news/newsarchive/newsarticles/20090907guys_entrance.aspx

Interesting article. Not that I agree with all of it, but it does make me pause for thought.

Helpless towers are being buried
(http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3149054&channel=783&c=2&encCode=0000000001a21621)Owen Hatherley
18 September 2009

What lies behind this Europe-wide mania for recladding post-war buildings?

One moment there’s a tall building, made perhaps of precast concrete panels, some seventies aggregate, with Mies-ish I-beams or a shiny Gordon Bunshaft curtain wall. The next, there’s still a tall building, but now it boasts green glass, plastic or fibreglass panels, perhaps a bit of red terracotta tiling. Stealthily, as if by magic, a remnant from the bad old days of comprehensive redevelopment has become “regeneration”.

The mania for recladding post-war high-rise office or council blocks is more pronounced in some places than others, but it extends all over Europe. It was very popular in the eighties and nineties with municipal towers, where it was (rather bafflingly) thought that encasing the buildings in plastic would remove the stigma of poverty. Many of the blocks given pitched roofs, bright colours and some stick-on panels were of little worth, but some works which might have been listed by now — Millbank Tower in Southampton, Hyde Park in Sheffield — have been permanently entombed, their original forms never to re-emerge.

Meanwhile the cladding proceeds apace, with nobody ever really questioning it. One suspects the Glasgow Housing Association would be genuinely surprised by the opinion recently expressed (Letters August 28), that the Dundasvale Estate looked better before it was painted magnolia and given mirror-glass panels. Similarly, the few of us who admire the demented shabby futurism of London’s Guy’s Hospital Tower might be horrified by the recent plans for it to be given a metallic new face to make it more “in keeping” with its future neighbour, the Shard — but we don’t expect anyone else to agree.

It might sometimes be excused by the need for insulation as much as fashion-chasing, but it’s still strange for so many buildings to be so heavily altered. The skylines of northern Britain are often “new” only in appearance; while in Brussels almost all the Miesian towers have been given smoother new curtain walls, with the play of metal against glass effaced by sheer, untouchable Fosterian surfaces. Perhaps the nearest historical equivalent would be the manner in which Georgian terraces were treated by the Victorians, where terracotta ornament was stuck onto Bloomsbury squares in an effort to make them less monotonous In Russell Square, sections of the sober, dull terraces were demolished and proper architecture, like the wild, ultra-kitsch Russell Hotel, inserted in their place.

Of course, nobody is comparing the former Secret Services HQ in Waterloo to these untouchable squares. Yet could it possibly have been worse than what it became when reclad: the astounding Perspective Building, a bonsai version of Taipei 101? Similarly, could anyone honestly argue that Leicester’s St George’s Tower looks better now that it’s in a Big Brother house bright blue? It’s just possible that the imitations of Mies that used to mark the skyline were less offensive before they were given barcode facades and jolly colours. Yet regardless, these curious instances of inadvertently Archigram-esque clip-on architecture, invariably pass without protest.

Aparently they are starting with the redevelopment of the main entrance shortly. The recladding of the tower will be completed by 2012. There are some very nice posters dotted around Guy's with renderings of a recladded Guy's, also showing the completed Shard next door. If i can remember i'll take my camera into work and get a snap of one of the posters (plus some shots of the Heron Tower which we can now see from the ward).

Really? the suspense is killing me! It's all very hush hush isn't it?

Aparently they are starting with the redevelopment of the main entrance shortly. The recladding of the tower will be completed by 2012. There are some very nice posters dotted around Guy's with renderings of a recladded Guy's, also showing the completed Shard next door. If i can remember i'll take my camera into work and get a snap of one of the posters (plus some shots of the Heron Tower which we can now see from the ward).

From the new exhibition at Building Centre. Um, it says the Guys reclad will be done by 2012!!??
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/supertek/DSC02016.jpg

could it be that render you seen there?

Well the entrance I don't think looks anything like that render? It's strange that nothings really been mentioned on Guys website if this is what they are saying is going to happen?

Aparently they are starting with the redevelopment of the main entrance shortly. The recladding of the tower will be completed by 2012. There are some very nice posters dotted around Guy's with renderings of a recladded Guy's, also showing the completed Shard next door. If i can remember i'll take my camera into work and get a snap of one of the posters (plus some shots of the Heron Tower which we can now see from the ward).


Didn't they spend a fair bit of money on the Guys tower boiler house entrance with the woven stainless steel meash do you mean another entrance in another building?

This re clad is actually needed as according to Guys documents the concrete is deteriorating on the tower hence the reclad. Darren can you take a camera pic of the notices up in Guys and post here.

EDIT- Just found this. The new entrance work seems pretty minor and unassuming. Couldn't find anything on the tower reclad. Darren

http://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/news/newsarchive/newsarticles/20090907guys_entrance.aspx

^^ Yes, that's the rendering on the posters ibiza- looks a bit like the scales on a snake to me.

London lad, i'm on a night shift tonight so i'll take my camera in, i haven't posted any pictures here yet so it may take me a day or two to work out how to do it.

^^ Yes, that's the rendering on the posters ibiza- looks a bit like the scales on a snake to me.

London lad, i'm on a night shift tonight so i'll take my camera in, i haven't posted any pictures here yet so it may take me a day or two to work out how to do it.


Nice one- Easiest way is to upload a pic onto www.tinypic.com then copy and paste the "IMG Code for Forums & Message Boards"
All will be self explanatory when you log on to tinypic.

http://i37.tinypic.com/6sqcyv.jpg

There you go - i finally worked out how to do it.

Really good news!

Re-cladding the tower wing facade and to improve its appearance and energy consumption: Completes end of 2012...

banana time ;) :banana:

OMG....i thought that scheme was just a 'wish list' pipe dream done for PR...

But its actually happening!!!!.

Great news.

I hope its not a dozen different facade treatments like that hoarding suggests (but then I suppose if its on the hoarding, thats pretty much confirmation that it is :( )..

They should install a big glass box on top of it, so that patients can get a little rest bite out on a terrace and take in the views, especially those who are in for a while (and able to) it'd be nice to give them some release, without any of them being able to jump off the edge!

fantastic news, I'm almost punch drunk from all thats going on at the moment - tower cranes at the Shard, Guys recladding, cranes arriving at RSS, Heron, Strata, residentials at Deptford and CW all with tower cranes - all during a recession, its bonkers.

Now just announce that Leadenhall will start with immediate effect and i'll be pretty pleased :lol:

Hmmm..is anyone else getting a bit nervous about what seems to be an uncoordinated design approach? We have Heatherwick's existing curvy cladding at the base. Van Hayningen and Haward's new entrance (below)

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/renders/guys1.jpg

and what looks like Peynord and Prasad's tower cladding in the large render. A recipe for a curates egg anyone?

so they are cladding the tower wing and does that include that rectangular addition between the tower wing and the chimney in the rendering ?- and I wonder what will happen to the camel head tower at the back - they can't leave it as its is can they - it will have to cleaned or painted or something .

Good point chest - I hadn't noticed but it looks like the "camel head tower" is going to be left as bare concrete. Oh dear.... a bit of a frankenstein building is emerging right next to the Shard I'm afraid.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa278/fit3xl/renders/2448iuo.jpg

fantastic news, I'm almost punch drunk from all thats going on at the moment - tower cranes at the Shard, Guys recladding, cranes arriving at RSS, Heron, Strata, residentials at Deptford and CW all with tower cranes - all during a recession, its bonkers.

i hear ya cluckin' big chicken - never been a better time to be a skyscraper geek in london.

re guy's: thanks for the info, it's not amazing, but it is an improvement.

reclad looks okay. Will fit into a nice little cluster developing, especially if the Three Houses scheme is more than a pipedream. The new cladding looks like a sort of honeycomb effect, nay bad at all.

I like the reclad too but I find the glass cladding more successful than the Crocodile print which I find a bit odd for a hospital and more akin to a handbag manufacturer.

reclad looks okay. Will fit into a nice little cluster developing, especially if the Three Houses scheme is more than a pipedream. The new cladding looks like a sort of honeycomb effect, nay bad at all.

it's the fishnet stockings reclad. :tongue2:

reclad looks okay. Will fit into a nice little cluster developing, especially if the Three Houses scheme is more than a pipedream. The new cladding looks like a sort of honeycomb effect, nay bad at all.

I agree, and I really do hope the Three Houses Scheme does go ahead - I have a strange feeling that it will (not based on evidence, a pure hunch). SO fingers crossed. Then again at the same time maybe I'd prefer to see Three Houses in the newly rising E&C cluster or even with the Vauxhall cluster, not only to give those future clusters more of a boost, but I kind if like the idea of the Shard being a standalone building - makes it seem more dominant in my opinion (and being that the Shard is destined to be a UK icon, that's how it should be imo!).

Are they just going to tack the snake skin glass cladding on top of the concrete?
That is going to look like shit on a cloudy day.

Why are they trying to hide a turd in a glass box.

Are they just going to tack the snake skin glass cladding on top of the concrete?
That is going to look like shit on a cloudy day.

Why are they trying to hide a turd in a glass box.

Would you rather they just left it as a bare turd?

No i'd rather the turd was flushed, but I know there is no money for that.
Trying to hide 2/3 of the building behind some trendy glass that will look outdated in 10 years isn't going to help the buildings aesthetics either.

As fitz44 said it's turning into a Frankenstein building.
It needed one architectural style to bring the whole site together, not these random patch jobs.

No i'd rather the turd was flushed, but I know there is no money for that.
Trying to hide 2/3 of the building behind some trendy glass that will look outdated in 10 years isn't going to help the buildings aesthetics either.

As fitz44 said it's turning into a Frankenstein building.
It needed one architectural style to bring the whole site together, not these random patch jobs.

Hmm I disagree - we have the world's tallest hospital in London and that's something to be proud of, so I think the reclad is just what it needs to maintain any impressiveness it has left.

Yet at the same time I do agree with you and fitz44 on your second point. I think the multiple cladding patterns could be a mistake, and would much rather have seen one nice 'all-over' clad.

Then again, who knows?!?!? Once it's finished it could surprise us all!

I would like to think P&P would respect the integrity of the original design and somehow make it look fresh and beautiful as has been done at the Barbican. Possibly that would be a bit more of a challenge with this building. I just hope that the initial renders we've seen on here dont resememble the finished product. We're definitely going to get a slim central tower element though - fact.

The integrity of the original design? It's fucking ugly. Then as now. The architect should be tried for crimes against humanity. I do agree that the 'redesign' is less than perfect though (to say the least).

Hmm I disagree - we have the world's tallest hospital in London and that's something to be proud of, so I think the reclad is just what it needs to maintain any impressiveness it has left.

Quite why is that something to be proud of? There are numerous countries more than capable of building taller hospitals if they saw fit. It would appear tall hospitals are less efficient than shorter ones, hence why Guy's has not been challenged for several decades.

When was the main ward tower block built? I think it should be demolished and the historical buildings retained and converted. Guys Hospital's title as the worlds tallest hospital cannot get in the way of redevelopment.

The towerblock is a right eyesore and it needs to be knocked down.

When was the main ward tower block built? I think it should be demolished and the historical buildings retained and converted. Guys Hospital's title as the worlds tallest hospital cannot get in the way of redevelopment.

The towerblock is a right eyesore and it needs to be knocked down.

How do you retain and convert historic buildings on the Guys tower site when Guys tower is on the site ;)

How do you retain and convert historic buildings on the Guys tower site when Guys tower is on the site ;)

Smart arse. :lol::lol:

I just googled and the 34 storey tower was completed in 1974 and opened in 1976. The turd should be flushed as people say and the building demolished but on the same site the historical buildings elsewhere (London Lad:lol::lol:) should be retained.

Prasad to overhaul Guy’s hospital tower
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=29&storycode=3155263&c=0
18 December 2009

Sunand Prasad’s practice is set to be chosen to work on a radical refurbishment of Guy’s tower, part of Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital in London, Building understands,

Penoyre & Prasad will design the 34-storey tower’s revamp, which is understood to be worth at least £30m. The aim of the project is to make the seventies building, designed by Watkins Gray, more energy efficient and to repair defective concrete.

The makeover of the London Bridge tower is also intended to complement Renzo Piano’s Shard, being built on the adjacent site.

The extent of the refurbishment is under discussion. Plans range from replacing the crumbling concrete on the services tower, which houses lifts, to enclosing the main accommodation tower in a structure called the “wafer”. This is designed to be higher than the main towers and would be a slim, rectangular form.

The project is being funded by Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust and is likely to start on site next year. Penoyre & Prasad’s win follows a six-month feasibility study it began with Arup in 2008.

The building was one of the most innovative hospital designs of its time and is still the tallest hospital in the world.

Guy’s Hospital said no formal decision on an architect had been made. It said: "We’re at the design stage at the moment but we hope to have it completed by 2012/13."

^^ Hopefully this will turn the tower into a sight for sore eyes, rather than making my eyes sore :lol:

But probably not though, i'd say demolish the thing if it didn't cost so much.