One Oxford Street | West End | 267,000 sq ft | 8fl | Pre-planning

[davidaiow]

I must say, I agree with the pavement width. If they want to transform this end of Oxford St, making wider pathways would be a VERY good start.

[Jex7844]

The made of glass building despite not looking terrific, is pretty ok actually (I'm waiting to see some more renders though), but the black one replacing my beloved Astoria Theatre (among others) is fugly, so cold looking... Its poor design could be a lot improved imo. I dunno whether that's more or less the final design, but I think it would look a bit better if the metallic beams were actually grey (or white)...whatever, taking down the Astoria to build such a monstrosity instead really breaks my heart...

PS: many thanks to LazyOaf for taking me to this thread .

[kerouac1848]

I used to live in Barcelona. Their council and planners really understand the importance of the aesthetics of the built environment. Even down to things like the design and quality of the pavements and lamp posts. When I'd bring friends from Barcelona to the UK, they'd look a bit puzzled and say things like "but everything needs to be repaired!" But then, anything looks better in the sunshine.

As much as I love Barcelona it does have its fair share of duds (les Corts for example), whilst like Paris and unlike London, it has never expanded its administrative boundaries to match its urban area. The districts here are quite neglected in the main.

Anyway, I always believed that the main reason for cities like Barcelona's approach was their centralised structure of governance. Indeed, look how London progressed under the LCC and compare it to the fractured borough system which replaced it. However, when i was living in the Netherlands I noticed that Amsterdam features a similar system to London, with 8 boroughs (was halved from 15 last year) in an area roughly similar in size to what the old County of London was, responsible for 'local' issues, with the mayor dealing with city-wide concerns. Yet, signs, pavements, lighting, etc are uniform and there is a coherence and cooperation between the councils and mayor which just seems so much better than here. They also have a single central borough which helps.

[Bachy Soletanche]

Originally Posted by Light Parade

Plus, the ground level treatment of the turn - some sort of off-centre entrance is crap. There's my art-deco-ish symmetrical shape rising above, like a very fat arrow, compromised by a gutless ground floor.

So I've redesigned it (below), with a little more vertical emphasis and (what the hell) a mantelpiece clock on the top.

How about a small dome above a slightly more edwardian than Art Deco fasadé?

[london lad]

Looks like this turd has finally made it to planning.

Surprise surprise the images released are mainly the new Astoria next door.

Nows the time to get signing the petition ??
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1275887

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/ahmm-...026374.article

AHMM designs theatre for Tottenham Court Road Crossrail site
19 October 2011 | By Ruth Bloomfield

Hawkins Brown involved in residential and retail buildings for development

AHMM has designed what would be London’s first new West End theatre for a decade.

The stepped, glazed building is the centrepiece of a multi-million pound regeneration of the shabby eastern tip of Oxford Street which also includes residential and retail buildings by Hawkins Brown.

Proposals for the scheme, to be built around the new Tottenham Court Road Crossrail station, were lodged with Westminster Council today.

They have already been welcomed by mayor Boris Johnson. “The east end of Oxford Street has long deserved the economic boost, improved public space and glamour these plans will deliver,” he said. “It will be a gleaming example of the opportunities that will follow the route of this new line.”

AHMM’s 350-seat theatre, with a distinctive “cut away” entrance, replaces the historic Astoria music venue which hosted bands including the Rolling Stones and Nirvana. It was demolished two years ago, despite a heated campaign to save it.

The plans involve demolishing a series of buildings at the junction of Oxford Street and Charing Cross Road, close to Richard Seifert’s Centrepoint tower, and replacing them with a new eight-storey block of offices and shops, also by AHMM.

Hawkins Brown has drawn up plans for two further blocks on a prime site on the junction of Oxford Street and Dean Street. The buildings, atop a new entrance to the Tottenham Court Road Crossrail ticket office, will contain 92 residential units and yet more shops. One of the buildings is clad in a distinctive yellow and black motif.

The development together includes some 50,000sq m of mixed space and there will be a new pedestrianised link between Soho Square and Charing Cross Road.

Ian Lindsay, Crossrail land and property director said: “These development plans will enhance Oxford Street and Charing Cross Road as a thriving cultural and retail destination. The quality of the new commercial space created will help attract major retailers to the eastern end of Oxford Street and boost the wider regeneration of the area.”

Crossrail will not carry out the works itself but intends to sell the sites on to developers with planning consent attached, so recouping some of the cost of building the line.

[delores]

Interesting that Derwent have take the images of the scheme off their website? Hawkins Brown's scheme is actually alright pity the BD have obviously shown their favoritism to AHMM again without even questioning the building that will be the most viewed building of the development and we only get a corner shot.

[Light Parade]

The latest proposals for the Dean Street end of TCR station are quite attractive. - see http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...871486&page=50.

Of course, Dean Street is a more hemmed-in site (more so than it appears from the render), so they're creating a background building of quality (I hope), rather than what we have proposed at TCR, which is a landmark dung-heap.

[delores]

This has to be a joke and I hope this does not mean we get this awful building but it's been awarded a MIPIM Future Project Award, must of been a quiet year then. http://www.ahmm.co.uk/

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

The only two buildings Octoman like are 'anything built in classical style' and 'The Shard'.

Every other building in the world is just ugly.

The people who should be criticised with respect to this development are not people on a messageboard who do not like the building, but the architects who intend to inflict yet more mediocrity on our city and the city planners who let them get away with bland rubbish.

There is a design process behind this project. But it has resulted in an ugly building which, 30 years down the line, nobody is going to give a stuff about if it is pulled down.

Do we really need what must be the 4598th example of another piece of bland shit?

Sure, the tenants will be very happy. But then they usually are, given that they are looking out of it.

And sure, it's better than what is there now (i.e. a crater!)

And sure... it'll be clean and new... for a bit.

But when you see what councils consider to be good architecture for themselves, you have to wonder where the problem lies:

Westminster:



Islington:



So the people responsible for our cities are quite happy to inflict bland shite on our wonderful city, so can we really be surprised that architects can get away with similar?

No. We can't.

[hifive605]

The root of the problem is this... contemporary buildings are rarely build to last. I really believe that the guy who built Selfridges or the Old Bailey or the Mandarin Oriental Hotel truly intended his/her creation to last for ALL FUCKING TIME. This approach influenced every level of the architectural process and resulted in an end product that aesthetically no-one will have a problem with.. EVER. This tacky piece of shite is a throwaway slave to economics that is actually intended to be knocked down in 30 years.

Until we get away from this attitude the majority of modern builds are always gonna be crap, and the holes in the city will never be filled with timeless worthy monuments.

[delores]

What annoys me about this scheme is that it on one hand the cultural building looks promising but the ugly lump next to it almost gets no commentary. It's almost like the sacrifice we have to pay for a concession to 'culture'.

[Mr Bricks]

Yeah but to a lot of people it is completely natural to tear down buildings every 30 years or so just in the name of progress. The capitalist idea that everything has to grow, be replaced and changed is really very unatural when you thing of it. There is a big difference between change and improvement.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Yeah but to a lot of people it is completely natural to tear down buildings every 30 years or so just in the name of progress. The capitalist idea that everything has to grow, be replaced and changed is really very unatural when you thing of it. There is a big difference between change and improvement.

What is odd though is that capitalism has fuelled the creation of most of what was built throughout most of our history - including much of what we hope to preserve today - yet it was only in the 20th century that this system stopped considering beauty as an integral part of the job of designing and building things.

At some point, architects stopped having to build beautiful buildings. Clients stopped demanding beautiful buildings. Regulatory authorities stopped requiring the built environment to be beautiful.

This has now been the case for decades, and the result is that the people responsible for creating the built environment do not consider beauty their job.

So I guess until clients start demanding more from their buildings, or until the regulatory authorities start demanding that our new buildings (and other aspects of the built environment) are beautiful, we're stuck in a hole.

How can this change?

[cnapan]

Sorry for the second post.

For a trip forward 30 years, simply check out this thread about sea containers house:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...4&postcount=62

There's a building with similar architectural merit. It's being 'face lifted' (not that it had much of a face in the first place).

This is the future of Number 1 Oxford Street - or they migtht just tear it down completely. Nobody will complain. Everyone will say 'well it will probably be better than what it replaces'

....and so we go round and around.

What a waste of effort. And in the 30 years between construction and demolition, the city's inhabitants have to put up with yet another bland pile of shite that drags the spirits down and makes you want to be somewhere else.

I invite any lurking architects or city planners to defend this crazy situation.

[n_pon88]

got this letter today
image hosted on flickr

[chrissus83]

from www.bdonline.co.uk

AHMM gets approval for new West End theatre




Venue will sit on site of Astoria on Charing Cross Road


Westminster Council has approved plans designed by AHMM for a mixed-use scheme in central London, including the West End’s first new theatre in 30 years.

The scheme, for Derwent London, includes two nine-storey buildings between Charing Cross Road and Oxford Street, on the site formerly occupied by the Astoria and the Mean Fiddler. Both venues closed following compulsory purchase of the buildings to make way for Crossrail.

The larger building, on the corner of Oxford Street and Charing Cross Road, will include the station entrance, retail and office space. A smaller building to the south will include the theatre, with office space above.

Robert Davis, deputy leader of Westminster City Council said: “For years London’s Theatreland has been one of the city’s top attractions for visitors from around the world, and this flagship scheme marks a significant investment in the city and will play an important role in the regeneration of east Oxford Street.”

[delores]

The theatre was obviously the draw card, get a theatre and build an incredibly mundane 60
s style building as a sacrifice.

[Gordion]

Originally Posted by AUTOTHRILL

Oooh, now that is grim. Looks horrible, doesn't compliment the more traditional buildings at all

+ agree

[Citizen4012]

It looks like I'm among a clear minority here who are vaguely optimistic about this proposal. My hope is that, if the quality of the cladding is good, it may turn out to be surprisingly pleasing.

Certain key qualities just can't be assessed from the renders. For example, look at the monstrosity that the W Hotel in Leicester Square turned out to be, complete with a gaudy M&Ms world at its base.