Elizabeth House Redevelopment | Waterloo | 123m/53m | 29/10 fl | Approved

[Black Cat]

Originally Posted by SE9

London Southbank plans threaten Unesco World Heritage Site status
The Arts Newspaper
26 April 2013

Sounds like the UNESCO World Heritage Centre are determined to embarrace themselves yet gain by "crying wolf". Whatever one's aesthetic opinion of the proposed replacement for Elizabeth House, its well away from the Westminster World Heritage site, certainly has no physical impact, or any significant negative visual impact of views of the site from the river or elsewhere.

The post WW2 St Thomas' Hospital Block has a far bigger negative visual impact on the context of Westminster and I don't think anyone could say this building has a negative impact on the heritage values of Westminster Palace, Westminster Abby and the precinct. The UK government obviously concurs hence no "call in " by the Minister of the Environment, so this crying wolf only serves to question decision making at UNESCO.

As said previously, there are actual sites being physically damaged and destroyed, this is where UNESCO should focus its efforts.

[gravesVpelli]

Were they not referring to one viewpoint only looking towards the river from Parliament Square, inwhich case the London Eye's ugliness blinds the view!

[Jamsterx]

To be fair, the London Eye is an observation wheel, therefore built for a purpose. Bth, I can't see anyway it can be beautified further than it has already. As for the Waterloo fiasco, UNESCO should realize that the site is a long way from Westminster.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by menganito

Could we have some more demagogic criticism?

I'm getting sick of your snide personal attacks.

"A demagogue (/ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/) or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, prejudices, and ignorance of the less-educated people of a population in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population."

What is wrong with you?

So far we know that buildings should be:

-"Made to last."

-"Given a bit of loving, TLC"

(I hope I am not misrepresenting any of the bollocks which I copied literally.)

Yes you are. You're trying - and failing - to come up with a coherent, reasonable response in a debate, and are instead resorting to ridicule.

Do you really think that the architects sat down and thought :

-Let us not put any love on this design and lets build it so that it gets demolished in a near future.

No I don't, since you ask.
To which a more junior architect asked:

-How do we know what will happen in the future?

All of them turned to a cristal ball. Inside of it there was a classical building which was at the same time a ruin and a new built, being built and rebuilt again and again.
(Under the ball it said: Made in China. The Disney corporation.)

Well that came from you, not me. Are you asking me if I agree with that being the process?

Well the answer is no. It sounds idiotic.

Yes, for some the way to a "safe" future is going to the past. Others are a bit more adventurous. These have not been educated in the fear of change.

This has NOTHING to do with my views. You are wasting your time lecturing me on this.

Some people claim to, somehow, know what will the future be. Of course physics tells us that is impossible: time only flows in one direction. No one can go to the future and return to the present to tell us what will happen. Anyone who claims to know what will happen in the future (as in "this will be demolished, this will not be demolished") is a clown.

I have never argued that anyone knows what the future is. What is your point?

Anyone who demands to know what will happen in the future (as in "I want to know if this building will be standing in 80 years time") is an ignorant.

Honestly, I suggest that you don't bother responding to me in future unless it's got something to do with my stated views.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by gravesVpelli

Were they not referring to one viewpoint only looking towards the river from Parliament Square, inwhich case the London Eye's ugliness blinds the view!

That's the first time I've read anyone call the London Eye ugly!

I do agree with the general sentiment that it's stupid for this development to threaten some unesco listing (whatever I or anyone else thinks of it). The current buildings didn't threaten it. The hideous bunker replaced with the hotel on the far side of Westminster Bridge didn't seem to make a difference either. The hospital - well it's been there for ages too.

Dresden suffered from the same idiotic rulemaking because they wanted to build a road bridge far from the centre of town but one which would change a view of the city once photographed a long time ago. I doubt that even 0.001% of tourists are even aware of this bridge, but it was enough for unesco to throw its toys out the pram.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...eritage-status

[Core Rising]

Originally Posted by cnapan

I'm getting sick of your snide personal attacks.

He has nothing more to offer to this forum. Just ignore him.

[Loathing]

Originally Posted by Core Rising

He has nothing more to offer to this forum. Just ignore him.

+1

[Vnofd5]

If architecture geeks can't get along well online then there is a serious problem with the world....