Lost London

[Black Cat]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

It is not. I've seen it in many cities. There is no reason to have a jungle of signs and traffic lights, railings, painted tarmac, traffic islands and tacky plastic traffic bollards. If yo think this is what makes a city exciting I feel sorry for you.

I concur. The problem is that all these street furniture and signage items are standard items located by people, usually in traffic departments of jurisdictional authorities who mostly have little if any interest in the aesthetic aspects of city design, and have few guidelines to provide some practically useful direction. People who do this work have no training either in the careful design and positioning of street furniture items. - Traffic engineers and staff have often been the worst destroyers of the historic characters of our cities and are rarely open to any questions on their actions except perhaps at initial stages of road layouts. This problem is across the world.

In historic districts, property owners have to follow development guidelines, but there is no equivalent for those responsible for the public realm, including streets. Even where an attempt is made, such as laying bricks on Brick Lane, none of the statutary services (electricity, gas, communications, water, sewers, etc) who dig up roads reinstate these finishes properly, and the next generation simply tarmacs them over with no idea of what they are doing. Perhaps English Heritage should take an initiative here?

What is most sad are the small streets and laneways in the City, which are often very historic, interesting and full of character, but are cluttered beyond belief with everything from lots of traffic signs, double yellow lines, and other misc. stuff. Surely there must be ways to improve such streetscapes in a sensitive and consistent way. Perhaps there should be specialised staff within traffic departments who could look after such streetscapes, which ought to designated in some way.

[WallyChops]

Attached are some interesting Flickr shot's of St Thomas's Hospital. I knew the hospital had been damaged in the war and assumed that the two block's nearest Westminster Bridge lost - hence the ugly main building. But these show that they were still standing and in use in the Sixties.

From 1958 (from doveson2008 London RIP set: -http://www.flickr.com/photos/recoveringscot/4949175671/in/pool-1229394@N22/)

Upstream from 1964

And upstream from 1976

[WallyChops]

And some more depressing then and now contrasts - again from Flickr.

1. Highbury & Islington Station demolished in the Sixties. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tetrame...l-1229394@N22/)


2. High Holborn 1980-2010 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rollthe...l-1229394@N22/)


3. The Monument 1951-2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/st_hart...l-1229394@N22/)


4. Charing Cross Road1964-2011 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rollthe...l-1229394@N22/)

[Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by WallyChops

1. Highbury & Islington Station demolished in the Sixties. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tetrame...l-1229394@N22/)

Wtf?

That's the worst example in this thread by far. Mindblowing vandalism.

[WallyChops]

Originally Posted by Pennypacker

Wtf?

That's the worst example in this thread by far. Mindblowing vandalism.

The Highbury & Islington one is pretty shocking - the comments on the link say it all.

These comparisons (and much of this thread) show how bland and out of place most of London’s modern architecture is. I’m no Prince Charles – I’m not against change and urban renewal if it’s progressive, but many of the new buildings are almost always more aesthetically inferior to what they are replacing.

Although there are some apologists on here for the standard of modern architecture, other SkyscraperCity forums show the real zeal (by people I assume are architects and planners) for what I consider shocking standards of architecture. Anyone who dares counter their support is shouted down as being stuck in the past or a Nimby.

I sometimes feel like it’s a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes – we all know there’s something seriously wrong with modern architecture, but are unable to admit it. Meanwhile, much of London becomes uglier and uglier.

[Mr Bricks]

So sad!

[ill tonkso]

The old Highbury and Islington looks like a grand terminus in some of our smaller cities. From a logical point of view as well, they have LOST rentable Office and Retail space with the new building!

[ill tonkso]

Hmm, turns out that it actually looked like this when it was pulled down. It took a direct hit from a V1 Missile.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tetramesh/6949800342/

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by WallyChops

And some more depressing then and now contrasts - again from Flickr.

1. Highbury & Islington Station demolished in the Sixties. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tetrame...l-1229394@N22/)

Can anyone tell me what purpose those plastic cones/bollards or whatever you call them, serve?

[NCT]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Can anyone tell me what purpose those plastic cones/bollards or whatever you call them, serve?

They indicate which side of the island traffic needs to go. At night time it's surprising how hard sometimes it is to see those islands and the little lit up boxes do come in handy. They are far from unique to the UK - as I was flicking through my Amsterdam pictures I noticed widespread use of similar things too.

They are not the prettiest of things but they have their uses.

[El_Greco]

Then remove the island. Its just more pointless clutter which goes to show that urban thinking has to change from car-centric to pedestrian-centric.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Then remove the island. Its just more pointless clutter which goes to show that urban thinking has to change from car-centric to pedestrian-centric.

You'll be singing from a different hym sheet once the traffic starts going willy nilly all over the place and goes the wrong way round roundabouts. Given the extensive coverage of public transport in London car trips are relatively rare, so London drivers tend to be less practised than those in other parts of the country. London gets disproportionally more visitors who are not farmiliar to the area. Adding the generally higher traffic volumes in London, those channelisation measures are needed. Besides, the islands actually help pedestrians too by giving them more green time.

[El_Greco]

Priceless! Remove the islands or those bollard thingies and there will be anarchy on the roads and quite possibly entire Western civilization will crumble into dust too! Where do you get this nonsence from?

[NCT]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Priceless! Remove the islands or those bollard thingies and there will be anarchy on the roads and quite possibly entire Western civilization will crumble into dust too! Where do you get this nonsence from?

Cut the hyperbole. The fact is that islands and central reservations are just as widely used elsewhere in Europe.

Brussels



Amsterdam



In fact, on a point of general clutter, London's discrete black poles are actually easier on the eye than the chunky and stripy one in the above photos.

[El_Greco]

Londons clutter is discreet? Signs and traffic lights are probably the largest in Europe! Those above are the discreet ones (still ugly though) - smaller and blend in into urban landscape much easier. Still, bottom line is that removal of those stupid islands wouldnt lead, as you claim, to anarchy and the collapse of Western civilization. How do you come up with these crazy ideas?

Clutter is the biggest enemy of cities. Most of it is unnecessary and you could easily get rid of most of it without compromising safety. All you need is less focus on cars and more on pedestrians as well as some common sense. It also amazes me that nobody ever talks about the very design of the clutter - look at the lenghts Victorians went to make their cities impressive; everything from bollards to lamposts were of great aesthetic quality, theres no reason why we cant do the same.

[Fitzwilliam Beaufort]

Originally Posted by Pennypacker

Wtf?

That's the worst example in this thread by far. Mindblowing vandalism.

The sixties were a flipping massacre. St Pancras Station nearly got demolished as well.

[NCT]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Londons clutter is discreet? Signs and traffic lights are probably the largest in Europe! Those above are the discreet ones (still ugly though) - smaller and blend in into urban landscape much easier. Still, bottom line is that removal of those stupid islands wouldnt lead, as you claim, to anarchy and the collapse of Western civilization. How do you come up with these crazy ideas?

They aren't smaller - bollards are about the same in size as those in the UK and poles are distinctly chunkier. Stop exaggerating what I said out of proportion and construct strawmen. You dismiss the idea that other priorities might exist straight out of hand, but thankfully authorities across Europe do acknowledge that certain street furnitures are needed for safety reasons. That London and the UK's clutter is so much worse than everywhere else in Europe is purely your imagination.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by NCT

thankfully authorities across Europe do acknowledge that certain street furnitures are needed for safety reasons.

Thats because cities are run by boring beaurocrats with no imagination, who think people are stupid and believe that removing one bit of clutter will lead to anarchy. A bit like you then eh?

Of course clutter is far worse here, thats why you get even government complaining about it. Heres a couple of posts by fellow forumer -

Originally Posted by JGG

Having moved to this country a long time ago, I believe the main reason why most British cities appear uglier than their Europan counterparts is the poor quality of the public space and sometimes very poor massing. Unfortunately it is also not improving.

Poor public space:

- British appear to love clutter: the more traffic signs, the more railings, the more strips of coloured asphalt, the less consistent the street lighting, the more plastic furniture, the better.

- But then, even in the wealthiest parts of the UK such as the City of London, there is no money to maintain the clutter. Railings are bent, coloured and anti-skid coats of asphalt crumbled off, seven different types of lamposts on a short stretch of road (Bitshopsgate) with many of them not working, etc. (by the way, what is the purpose of anti-skid asphalt coats in city centres anyway where you can only drive 30???)

- Because there has never been any consensus on the place of the car in the city in the UK, there is no distinction between roads and streets. In most European cities there is such consensus, which lead to the constrtuction of major roads such that the streets were kept pleasant and that in the centre they could be largely pedestrianized. Europe is generally even more car based than the UK, it is just much better organised and this is possible because there is more of a consensus with regards to cars.

Poor massing:

The Victorians were the masters in this. However something happened such that the UK became rather very poor in this. I read the discussion why modernism seems to be better liked in many European cities. The answer is simple: because when constructed in the centre it has to be kept to the same scale. In the UK this is never the case. Modernism seems to be an excuse in the UK for very poor massing; just look at that massing disaster of those three fat buildings that are going to go up in front of Waterloo Station. Hard to imagine something like this would happen in any other Euopean city these days. Note, the UK massing disaster is not limited to the city centres; just look at the endless urban sprawl...

Irreversable?

I think it can actually be fixed very easily. Massing is just a matter of proper planning rules. Public spaces is just a matter of the local politicians doing something about it. It is even not expensive. Just look at what wonders Trafalgar Square and Kensington High Street have done. The UK city centres can just be as beautiful as those in Europe with a little bit more attention and focus.

Originally Posted by JGG

Battered railings, excessive notice boards, cheap plastic street furniture, an inconstent mix of cheap lighting poles, poor pavements make British cities interesting? I think most people will say they make British cities look poor and ugly by Continental European standards.

For instance have a look at Bath. Bath could simply be one of the most beautiful cities in the world. But it isn't and the simple reason is its incredibly shabby streetscape and public realm. I find it hard to believe that a city such as Bath does not have more civic pride to ensure its streets live up to all the great surrounding buildings lining the streets. When I get visitors over from Continental Europe I take them sometimes to Bath. All of them are impressed by how rich Bath must have been since Roman times, but how empoverished it looks today. Just benchmark Bath against Bruges; they are of similar size. Bruges has been investing its public realm for the last 40 years. It has constructed ring roads to take most of the traffic out of the inner centre. It then progressively turned over the inner city into a pedestrian or mixed-use streetscape, using high-quality natural materials. They introduced planning laws strictly controlling the lighting, also private lighting (white lighting of front shops, off-licence style, is banned). Monuments are lit subtly, no orange 70's style floodlighting like in the UK. It introduced planning on shop signs to avoid tacky plastic. It introduced large underground parking garages such that cars do no longer need to line the streets. There is a medieval tower in Bruges you can climb; look out from there onto the roofs. You do not see a single areal or satellite dish. In fact their planning department also controls the roofscape. And despite this strict control, it probably only takes a fraction of the time to get planning permission in Bruges compared to any UK city or town. It is because the rules are clear. Despite all of that Bruges is not a boring city; in fact it completely revived the city centre and in the evenings and at night there is more street-life than in the West-End! It is also not sterile, it is harmonious and pleasant. Now what does it matter that Bath, which has as many exceptional builings, looks like a dump in comparison? Because a good public realm improves the quality of life and attracts business, in particular tourism. And it makes people pround of their city and that is uplifting and motivational.



1) It breaks down all harmony of the streetscape. One colour for bus lanes, another colour for the anti-skid surface, another colour for cycle paths, and another colour for pedestrian crossings.

2) Most coloured asphalt is only a superficial surface treatment and after no more than two years, pieces start breaking away making the road appear poorly maintained.

3) The poor state of the utilities means the roads are always broken up and this creates a patchwork of coloured asphalt. Find me a bus lane in London longer than a few hundred meters which is actually not a combination of patches of different types of reddish pink.

4) It assumes that the British drivers are incredibly stupid. In all of the world simple white lines of varying widths do a perfect job of indicating what is a cycle path, zebra crossing, a bus lane etc. I also know of no place on this planet where in 30 or 20 mile zones they need anti-skid asphalt.

5) It hurts me to see how much money is spent on all this coloured asphalt and clutter. The same money could be saved and used to progressively give streets the "Kensington High Street" treatment.

[NCT]

Excessive and unreasonable clutter is being removed and coloured bus lanes are going out of fashion in most places, though constant road works remain the problem yes. But let's be realistic, some street furniture is essential. Removing a bit of 'clutter' will not result in anarchy, but will very likely result in a negative change in some safety parameter like accident rates. The change might be small but significant enough.

Now, I actually think the police box islands guarding the city of London are a right nuissance, and some pedestrian islands on roads like Fleet Street can also go. Doing this would actually increase traffic speeds and in some places reduce the flexibility for pedestrians to cross roads or reduce the green time for some crossings. I'd be very happy to see reduced congestion and a better operating environment for buses, but the outcome of decluttering might not be what the pedestrian crusade bargained for.

[El_Greco]

You're hilarious. You keep banging on about safety yet later openly admit crossing roads on the red, then you claim removal of clutter will lead to anarchy (people going willy nilly) only to contradict yourself later by saying that actually it wont! Give people some credit they are not stupid and know how to cross a street, theres no need for you to tell them how to do it. Above all make some sense and stop being so dramatic. Dont worry Western Civilization wont collapse and corpses wont start piling up on the roadside if the streets are cleaned up.