London - Full Summary of Projects 20

[Officer Dibble]

You couldn't get a blanker glass box. Each is the laziest architecture of its day, but if anything I think I slightly prefer what's there now.

[El_Greco]

This cant even be called architecture.

[Mr Bricks]

Yeah it's ugly isn't it.

It's a very weird area the one between Cannon Street/St Paul's Church Yard and Queen Victoria Street. The whole area needs to be redeveloped, the same goes for the area between the Thames and Queen Victoria Street. Random blocks of very low quality placed here and there and blank walls at street level.

[delores]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

This cant even be called architecture.

It's just a bland re clad very disappointing considering it's location.

[potto]

its environment is far worse than its cladding

[the spliff fairy]

Originally Posted by *Nurse*

Well it would certainly be an improvement, but a bit out of keeping.

(Photo rights reserved by Google and DBK)

God that's shit. Did they do a whip round for their budget? I bet Sandra from IT now owns 50 percent of the lobby, and Dave from Accounts all the chairs.


.

[Black Cat]

This may be a disappointing renovation architecturally and urbanistically, but is par for the course in the City. Images on the web show the building from the Cannon Street side, which looks better than when looking from Queen Victoria Street, but overall its simply a reclad of the existing structural frame where the floor plates now extend past the columns, so probably some very valuable square footage has been added to the net floor area. What I feel is a pity is the poor handling of the south end of the building which makes no effort to fit with the street lines, or to make a feature of the SW corner which could add some interest to the form and urban fit of the building into the cityscape. That said, it is no worse than what was currently existing. Its also unfortunate that there was no effort to articulate the Friday Street facade, its just a bland facade tyoical of cornflake box architecture of the 1950s and 60s. However, given its location, I'm sure it will make its forecast revenues, and will probably be reclad in 20-30 years time. What could have been very interesting is if the building was redesigned to fit with and extend the design style and facades of the adjacent former Credit Lyonnais building. Perhaps next time.

[london lad]

Like most of the projects in the City the last 18+ months this is another example of a not to bad building proposed in the mid 2000's being replaced with something cheaper and blander.

This is what was previously proposed.
http://www.tpbennett.com/portfolio/project_profile/10


This started almost a year ago now so should almost be done now.

Not sure what all the fuss is though, considering the site, certainly better than what is there now.

[delores]

Well the planners should insist on having the old design although not great this is just bland rubbish.

[london lad]

Originally Posted by delores

Well the planners should insist on having the old design although not great this is just bland rubbish.

Well that's the trouble, the chief planners approved this without any trouble which is why it's nearly built now.
The five/six years when they felt threatened by canary wharf and pushed for something a bit different that gave us the current crop of towers, one new Change and the original walbrook has long passed and now it's back to this and dull stone framed office blocks.

[wjfox]

Blackfriars Station re-opens today after 3 years of construction work.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by wjfox

Blackfriars Station re-opens today after 3 years of construction work.

Posted the link to an article and some photos in the Transport thread here.



It's looking good.

[NCT]

Travelled through Blackfriars on the District today - slightly strange that it now stops there. Nice to see it finally open, clean, well lit and spacious, having witnessed the slow transformation over the months and years. Can't for the life of me remember what the underground station was like before though, or maybe I never saw it before it was closed.

[Langur]

It was a typically rundown District Line station. I find them somewhat charming, though I'm sure the new station's a huge improvement.

[DarJoLe]

Richard Rogers: Build as high as possible
6 March 2012
By David Rogers

Richard Rogers has said tall buldings should be built as high as possible because towers at 40 or 60 storeys are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

[potto]

at last someone in the industry has talked some sense

[ill tonkso]

As much as I respect rodgers, I would hardly say 40 floors and 60 floors is indistinguishable. That's a 50% increase in height.

However, 60 floors can make more economic sense than 40 if you get your lift and core configuration right. Especially with the housing market. London needs more mid wealth hi rise, it all seems to be either council housing or 'luxury'. Building tall could be the solution to the lack of family sized homes, particularly with the massive Public Transport boost the Isle of Dogs is about to get. You could even turn Mudchute into a proper city park. Then there is Nine Elms...

(Though my ideal solution would be to shift some of the demand up North, Brum and Manc have plenty of room and transport capacity)

[potto]

Do we really notice the difference between a 3 or 4 story building, no, yet that is a 25% difference. Or the Burj Dubai, it is tall yes, I have to stretch my neck up and because it is taller than the rest when I view it from a mile away, but 100 or 200 or 300 floors? Who knows.

Such differences are indistinguishable in terms of dominance and environmental impact, but these are the key fears that drives the hysteria to chop arbitrary bits off things in this country.

A cathedral here, a tower block there the landscape is littered with structures that appear tall, I doubt if 1% could accurately describe heights in terms of metres or floor count. Someone recalled in another thread that their friend thought 1 Canada Sq was taller than the Shard.

What people do perceive however is elegance, the height/width ratio. It is natural ingrained part of the human psyche, maybe to do with identifying other humans.

He is certainly commenting on the planning systems bizarre desire to knock off 8 floors here and 20 metres there on an already tall building. Meaningless nonsense in terms of urban-scape impact, unless it hits the magic height not to appear from certain viewpoints granted.

Yet this is what the planning system seems to obsess about for each and every application, maybe it is time for clearer and logical guidelines for councillors and the public about the aesthetics and impacts of tall buildings?

With the current level of height micro-management it is merely pandering to pointless fears (assuming the site has been allocated as suitable for tall buildings) to the detriment of the architects ability to extract an attractively proportioned tall building out of the financial constraints of the site.

How that can be useful or positive I don't know.

[larven]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

As much as I respect rodgers, I would hardly say 40 floors and 60 floors is indistinguishable. That's a 50% increase in height.

If you build enough of them they become virtually indistinguishable.

Years ago HK was building 40 storey residential towers and that has slowly creeped up to the current position where towers of 50, 60 and even 70 storey's are commonplace. Despite the significant increase in height you still perceive the city as high rise and dense whilst only a trained eye would be able to tell you (or even care) how many floors those towers have from a glance. Most people probably wouldn't give the number of floors a second though and merely register a 40 or 60 storey tower as a 'tall building'.

[potto]

even an isolated 40 - 50 - 60 story building will have the same light/shadow impact and a perception of dominance yet the taller one may appear more aesthetically attractive.