120 Moorgate | City of London | 8fl | Approved

[danm]

I've just come across this development but could not find a thread on it. If there is already one then please merge.

120 Moorgate is a re-development of an existing 1960's office development. The current design was apparently approved in July 2011. The architects are Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands. I have not seen the site recently so have no idea if the existing building has been demolished. If anyone knows more about this, then please post in here and I can make the necessary corrections.

The development is listed under "current projects":http://www.lifschutzdavidson.com/

Sitting at a prominent curve in the street, 120 Moorgate marks the transition into the City from the north. The building replaces an undistinguished 1960s development with eight storeys of Grade-A office space and retail at ground level.

The building responds to the corner location, the proximity to Lutyen’s Grade II* listed Britannic House, and the wider context of the Finsbury Circus streetscape. Composed of two interlocking blocks expressed through scale and materiality, the building is unified through the application of a 1.5 meter grid and deep façade.

Viewed in the oblique it is a solid mass, while viewed directly the façades are open and light. This sense of movement is emphasised by contrasting materiality - the front building is an iridescent off-white glazed ceramic while the rear is a crisp dark grey aluminum engineered façade. The design balances the restoration of the scale and unity to the city block while adding some ‘drama’ to the corner.

Skyscrapernews link on the project: http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=2902

120 Moorgate Approved

Published on 27-07-2011 by Skyscrapernews.com

The City of London has approved the latest designs for 120 Moorgate, a site near Moorgate underground station that is being developed by Redevco.

The previous plans were penned by Allies and Morrison at the peak of the boom back in 2006, but since then the economic winds have changed and the developer has brought in Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands instead.

The building now consists of 11 floors above ground, and two floors below ground. There will be ground floor retail on the street-fronts, and a separate office reception. Part of the first floor will also be retail, whilst there will be further retail units on the upper basement and part of the lower basement.

The height of the scheme was decided as the most appropriate for the site fitting in with the Helicon Building that stands next door. At the height it is set at of 42 metres it will also not be visible behind the roof-lines of the buildings that front Finsbury Circus. The building is split into two interlocking blocks, the short of which is six floors, providing a step back for the upper levels and a terrace on floor seven that the office occupants can enjoy.

Dominating the exterior are strong vertical lines, with horizontal bands of cladding set to correspond with the floor levels of the neighbouring buildings and thus add continuity to the streetscape, and most specifically the listed neighbouring Britannic House.

The cladding on each of the blocks will contrast however to mark them out, with a creamy colour palette employed on the shorter block that should help it blend in with its stone neighbour at street level, and dark grey aluminium used on the larger section which will be visible rising above.

With 18,994 square metres of space, the developer hope that they can complete the scheme in 2014.

This is the existing building:


Renders of the new building:







An older render from 2006 by architects Allies and Morrison:

[musefreek]

Wow, good news. I go to the Barclays in that building every so often.

[danm]

Originally Posted by musefreek

Wow, good news. I go to the Barclays in that building every so often.

So is the old building still there?

[london lad]

Originally Posted by musefreek

Wow, good news. I go to the Barclays in that building every so often.

I dunno if it is good news. The previous A&M was far superior. This LDS scheme is another dull stone framed building that the City of London seems to love these days.

[El_Greco]

Oh look another non-descript box!

[DarJoLe]

The last four years have been a complete turn around in terms of architecture in the City. The days of proposing intriguing buildings that compete on a world stage are pretty much over. No-one seems to be leading but simply ticking boxes in the name of 'saving the economy'.

[El_Greco]

What are you talking about? Apart from a handful of skyscrapers the architecture in the City has been shit since the 60s, so nothing really changed.

[Mr Bricks]

I prefer the current 60s building.

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

The last four years have been a complete turn around in terms of architecture in the City. The days of proposing intriguing buildings that compete on a world stage are pretty much over. No-one seems to be leading but simply ticking boxes in the name of 'saving the economy'.

and given the way that rents have stayed up compared to the rest of the country, it's really just a case of profiteering in the city.

[danm]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

I prefer the current 60s building.

The new proposal is bland, but the current 60s concrete block is far worse. In my opinion.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Oh look another non-descript box!

I thought it was the portland stone building in the first render at first, got excited

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

I thought it was the portland stone building in the first render at first, got excited

Me too!

Can you imagine the shock if someone actually proposed a beautiful building - you know, one of those buildings which people would want to preserve rather than replace in 30 years with something 'a little less shit'.

In today's world it would be an avante-garde move.

Still. At least we can wave goodbye to something truly awful and say hello to something merely 'bland' or 'trite' or 'good for another 30 years', so that's progress of sorts.

I still bet that whatever they build won't be around for many decades either, so lacking in intrinsic worth will it be, as are almost all new buildings.

:-)

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by danm

I've just come across this development but could not find a thread on it. If there is already one then please merge.


An older render from 2006 by architects Allies and Morrison:

That one reminds me of the buildings in the background of old playstation games which are:

a) easy to render, being just a few polygons
b) covered with a not-very-well-fitting texture (which doesn't matter because it's a game and we're supposed to be looking at the fighters in the foreground)

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!

[musefreek]

Originally Posted by danm

The new proposal is bland, but the current 60s concrete block is far worse. In my opinion.

Totally.

I don't get why people constantly whine and moan and whine and moan and whine and moan. What sort of building do they want? You are hardly going to design a groundbreaking and award-winning 6 floor building situated on the corner of two average roads.

People here have too high expectations and seem to be oblivious to the complete and utter horrendous buildings the new ones are replacing.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by musefreek

You are hardly going to design a groundbreaking and award-winning 6 floor building situated on the corner of two average roads.

The past civilizations managed that without much of an effort, but nowdays an exciting and (oh no!) a beautiful building is a near impossible task! Really maybe neo-classical stuff is not such a bad thing...

[musefreek]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

The past civilizations managed that without much of an effort, but nowdays an exciting and (oh no!) a beautiful building is a near impossible task! Really maybe neo-classical stuff is not such a bad thing...

Post some examples of what you would've like to see.

Not every building can and should be a masterpiece, like you lot seem to expect.

[El_Greco]

Perhaps they should seeing as every building these days is just a dull box.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by musefreek

You are hardly going to design a groundbreaking and award-winning 6 floor building situated on the corner of two average roads.

I don't think that's necessarily true, I just wish we could be a bit braver when it comes to office design. It seems we kind of got there a bit with One New Change and New Court, sadly we lost the original Walbrook design which did the trick and now it seems we've lost it again with 5 Broadgate, London Wall, Fenchurch Street and this.

We've had the odd one throughout each generation, Lloyds being the eighties one of course springs to mind, but to me the city is reverting back its corporate dull defacto design that plagued it in the nineties. Where's the flair, the drama, the shaking one out of daily life? Where are the City's SOMAs, the zaBor's, the Wolfgang Tschapeller's..?







I want them to be rubbing shoulders with our Koolhaas, our Foster's, Rogers' and Stirling's. We don't need to go back to a past to bring architectural talent to our streets.

In fact, just a few streets away in neighbouring Hackney, is a whole bunch of fantastic stuff going up which should be talked about on these forums. Deezen have even run a feature on it - it's these practices which we need to get into the City to give it the vibrancy its streets need.

http://www.dezeen.com/designedinhackney/

[hifive605]

vile building, I came straight here from the 120 Fenchurch Street thread - another ugly, make-do money maker which detracts from the streetscape. For a second I thought the proposal was Brittanic house! ha! [laughs bitterly..]

[danm]

Originally Posted by hifive605

vile building, I came straight here from the 120 Fenchurch Street thread - another ugly, make-do money maker which detracts from the streetscape. For a second I thought the proposal was Brittanic house! ha! [laughs bitterly..]

Vile is a bit of a harsh word. I'd agree with bland, boring, safe, uninspiring. But surely you'd prefer this to what's currently there?

The more of these concrete 1960's slabs we get rid of, the better.