Ludgate and Sampson House | Southwark | approx 165m | Pre-planning

[*Nurse*]

Originally Posted by Douglas Quaid

I can only respond to this bit. The tower looks ok. The tall one is set back and at bridge level, which is nice. I guess they won't provide another entrance to Blackfriars at this level?
The far left corner is strangely empty. A billboard advertising the Tate Modern, or indeed everything to see further east would be good.

[Pants1254]

I quite like it from the renders, admittedly they are not an amazing stand out design but it will add to the future cluster of blackfriars and the whole of London. They will also help regenerate the area and may be a catalyst for future skyscraper developments in the area around Blackriars. Just hope EH dont kick up too much of a fuss (even thought they probably will) and they get approved and built.

[Scary_]

Originally Posted by Bowater

Do the proposals include plans to demolish and rebuild the station? Are their any renders of the new station? I was at Blackfriars station earlier this year and it looked like they were dismantling it. It looks so modern but it's not a very pleasant place.

They've just spent the last 5 years rebuilding Blackfriars Station! No need for renders, just go and have a nose around!

There's a nice timelapse of the work here
http://www.theconstructionindex.co.u...tation-rebuild

[jamiefearon]

It really pisses me off, Blackfriars Bridge still has some of the old columns remaining, just about wide enough to support a great cycle bridge. Would it have been so crazy to build this cycle bridge at he same time the station was being build, as all the necessary equipment would be at hand?

[i_like_concrete]

Those pillars would be better utilised for extra platforms at blackfriars should they ever be needed, and should the necessary safeguarding be put in by the developers and the council.

Blackfriars road bridge is more than wide enough for segregated cycle lanes, it is just not politically desirable to do so.

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by i_like_concrete

Those pillars would be better utilised for extra platforms at blackfriars should they ever be needed, and should the necessary safeguarding be put in by the developers and the council.

Blackfriars road bridge is more than wide enough for segregated cycle lanes, it is just not politically desirable to do so.

So are they safeguarding the route to the extra pillars? This development could restrict or open up the option depending on the layout. What we need is a plan.

[gravesVpelli]

It’s a pity we can’t take a page out of Chicago’s book and start to be a little inventive with our residential proposals. All our architects can muster are straight vertical rectangular blocks - so unimaginative. There are a few exceptions if they ever get off the drawing board, such as Baltimore Wharf and Vauxhall Cross. Having just returned from a period in Chicago, which I consider the best city for anyone passionate about architecture, the wealth of building styles, and shapes of its new breed of residentials is impressive, both evoking the past glories of the 20s and 30s and the contemporary. We still have to produce mundane blocks (that’s all I can call them) without meaningful ground floors (this new ’Lincoln Plaza’ in docklands with it’s 1960s style pilotis a point of reference). I find these efforts also bland and mundane. At least better than the dross currently damaging the riverside.

[delores]

I have to agree that this proposal just looks like a massing exercise with minimal decoration added. I think it looks ok but nothing spectacular, what's wrong with tapering the crowns of the buildings doing something at least to alleviate the boredom, being slightly adventurous with the planning not just stacked and then nothing.

[gothicform]

a few renders of the project















full story on skyscrapernews here with a summary of each building.

[Yorkshire Boy]

Oh my...

[Pants1254]

OH MY GOD Iv just had sex with my computer (I need a life badly) Looks bloody amazing

[woodgnome]

[Yorkshire Boy]

I hate to say it, but it looks so New Yorky.

[DarJoLe]

There are some really awful architectural clichés in this project and I can't fathom the reasoning for the design of the main tower at all (it's not that great). Some of the low rise facades are genuinely awful (the low rise in the forth render for example has a rather cack handed cladding when you see it from Southwark Street) but the ground level has good things going for it and the fact the scheme has been separated into individual blocks is a positive, it's just a shame once you get into the detail you realise how genuinely dull the whole development is. For such a prime spot, opposite St Paul's and next door to One Blackfriars this really needs to be of the highest exemplary design quality and this simply isn't.

[Zin5ki]

Time for a spot of irony:

[Black Cat]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

There are some really awful architectural clichés in this project and I can't fathom the reasoning for the design of the main tower at all (it's not that great). Some of the low rise facades are genuinely awful (the low rise in the forth render for example has a rather cack handed cladding when you see it from Southwark Street) but the ground level has good things going for it and the fact the scheme has been separated into individual blocks is a positive, it's just a shame once you get into the detail you realise how genuinely dull the whole development is. For such a prime spot, opposite St Paul's and next door to One Blackfriars this really needs to be of the highest exemplary design quality and this simply isn't.

I concur. Urbanistically the general layout and massing looks great, as is the relationship with the embankment - but the elevational designs and elements could be improved. Lets hope that there is an interest to review the facades and perhaps add some crowning details, particularly of the tallest tower.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

and perhaps add some crowning details, particularly of the tallest tower.

I did mention this at the planning open day and noted a facade run off (actually similar to the second smaller tower) or at least an openness to it rather than the white horizontal band would create a better relationship and lightness of touch against the sky. The architect felt the opposite, that the solid crown denoted a sense that the tower had essentially been 'pulled' from the ground upwards and that this notion of the individual towers growing out of the ground level was an artistic message that ran throughout each of them.

Again, going back to my original point about the buildings themselves it is just generally the complete lack of diversity among them that worries me. Essentially they are just kit of part blocks with a slightly inventive cladding on a couple of them, with standardised elements on the other (especially the two at the back, away from the river). Why not use the fact the railway runs through the site to delineate the floor plan of the north two towers at least? I appreciate there were problems associated with building over the railway line, but slightly shifting one of the facades to run alongside the slight curve of the railway arches would at least introduce something eye catching, from the Millennium Bridge especially.

All that is being introduced here is a micro-Canary Wharf style set of towers that really don't live up to the standards of tall buildings originally proposed and now being built in the locale. It's a shame, because it wouldn't take much change to make them that.

The elephant in the room that hasn't been discussed, of course, is that the shrinking of One Blackfriars due to the usual hysteria of the typical subjects, has once again resulted in a height ceiling that no developer is willing to break. The days of a varied, diverse height and aesthetically dramatic skyline cluster have been sadly eroded further and further away from reality.

[Gherkin]

Indeed, the band at the top makes the taller tower look a lot like this:

[RugBurn]

Im not sure this is the right place for a cluster and Im kind of tired of buildings that step up. Reminds me of the Shell redevelopment

[i_like_concrete]

The biggest shame is the height reduction of 1 Blackfriars, the standardised cladding of the towers in this development might have been more palatable if it had been in the shadow of a much taller dramatically shaped 1BF, instead it is on a par with it height wise and both are as prominent as each other. Another loss for London's skyline.