London - Full Summary of Projects 21

[kerouac1848]

At the very least there should be: proposed; approved; U/C. Basically would follow the layout in the stadium section. An alternative would be by size/height.

[jack_jones]

Just some additional projects and changes to be made:

In the 'Other Projects (Various)' section

- 150 Stratford High Street - Needs to be highlighted in red as this is under construction.
- 25 Churchill Place - Needs to be highlighted in red as this is under construction.
- SilverTree - Has a new name 'The Pump House'. New thread can be found here - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1508023
- Manhattan Loft Gardens - This project seems to be missing. Has been approved and is likely to start construction in early 2013. Thread can be found here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1211899

In the 'Large scale regeneration projects' Section

- Need to add the Royal Docks regeneration project. Thread can be found here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1350521

Could look like this:

The Royal Docks - Newham
http://www.royaldockslondon.com/
- 154.50 acres
- Royal Albert Dock: 34.50 acres
- Minoco Wharf: 41 acres
- Silvertown Quays: 50 acres
- Peruvian Wharf: 19 acres

[Ebeneezer_Goode]

"The Pump House" sounds like a brothel.

[woodgnome]

Great job on the new thread, Medo. Much appreciated.

To Large scale regeneration projects, please add: Earl's Court & West Kensington Opportunity Area. Can you also get it moved to the Metro Area forum, ta.

To Other Projects (various) add: Unveiled HOK's Bio-Medical Research Centre at St Pancras. Please move to The Construction Forum and change thread title to 'The Francis Crick Institute | Camden | U/C'.

[SelectYourLifestyle]

Is there a akready threat on the Goldman Sachs development/campus around Farringdon Road?

[gravesVpelli]

Skyscrapernews has reported the future development of River Plate House in Finsbury Circus, showing an artist’s impression of the new building by Wilkinson Eyre.

The present façade on Finsbury Circus is a 1980s stone front that works extremely well with its neighbours and especially with Britannnic House. It has a post modern richness of detail in the façade treatment with strong features. I find it absurd that they intend to demolish the current structure and replace it with something that is no better, but simply more streamlined and ‘moderne’ in appearance. They are looking at increasing floor space but surely this can be done behind the current facades.

They intend to retain the 1920s façade on South Place as if anything built in in the 20s is sacrosanct and untouchable. Why on earth does London constantly want to pull down perfectly acceptable buildings less than twenty years in age. Why can’t these imbeciles construct something that has a lasting appeal, both functionally and aesthetically. There are so many hideous constructions in the City and beyond. This may be an acceptable replacement for somewhere else but I do not find it contextual or in keeping with the remainder of the circus.

[Aesir]

Originally Posted by gravesVpelli

Skyscrapernews has reported the future development of River Plate House in Finsbury Circus, showing an artist’s impression of the new building by Wilkinson Eyre.

The present façade on Finsbury Circus is a 1980s stone front that works extremely well with its neighbours and especially with Britannnic House. It has a post modern richness of detail in the façade treatment with strong features. I find it absurd that they intend to demolish the current structure and replace it with something that is no better, but simply more streamlined and ‘moderne’ in appearance. They are looking at increasing floor space but surely this can be done behind the current facades.

They intend to retain the 1920s façade on South Place as if anything built in in the 20s is sacrosanct and untouchable. Why on earth does London constantly want to pull down perfectly acceptable buildings less than twenty years in age. Why can’t these imbeciles construct something that has a lasting appeal, both functionally and aesthetically. There are so many hideous constructions in the City and beyond. This may be an acceptable replacement for somewhere else but I do not find it contextual or in keeping with the remainder of the circus.

I dont know what to say but 'urgh'. it will ruin the lines of the crescent. does the CoL not care about the aesthetics at all?

[Langur]

Shocking, just shocking. They want to replace this...



With this...



Brainless philistinism. The City of London planners should be hung, drawn, and quartered.

[Octoman]

I can't believe this would ever be allowed. But then again, look at what has been done to Piccadilly ...

[gravesVpelli]

I have voiced my disbelief and concerns to the City Corporation Planning as the proposal is awaiting review and they invite submissions. The website is http://www.planning2.cityoflondon.go...?action=simple.

The current structure is harmonious with Lutyen’s Britannic House and I cannot see any reason why they should choose to demolish in place of a strident minimalist frontage that clashes with the ’Edwardian baroque’ of the crescent. The more people who submit disapproval, the better. The 1920s South Street frontage that is to be retained is I believe a mock Georgian style so that is pastiche. The Circus frontage is a good up-to-date rendition of the Britannic’s articulation without being pastiche.

I have a close-up photo of the current building but have been unable to download it, being new to this forum.

[gravesVpelli]

Full website address failed to produce. It is http://www.planning2.cityoflondon.go...?action=simple

[gothicform]

and another one... st barts hospital to be partially demolished and this built.

[gothicform]

and one that's an improvement... 71 queen victoria street to get the icky 80s facade wiped out and a pretty much full overhaul

[El_Greco]

I rarely say this regarding groundscrapers, but I wish it was slightly taller.

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by Octoman

I can't believe this would ever be allowed. But then again, look at what has been done to Piccadilly ...

The building is from the 80's or 90's... It's not bad but it's nothing special and it's obvious it isn't the real deal from all the circles dotted over the facade (when seen in person).

[gravesVpelli]

So because it is from the 8os it is not worth retaining? This is the logic behind City planners. It isn’t some masterpiece it is true but it is more contextual with its surroundings than the proposed indignity. It has whisps of 1980s post modern detail but so what. It has a Portland stone façade. The new project will probably succeed as it offers more square metres of office space and, the bottom line is more space = profitability = welcome = acceptable.

[gravesVpelli]

What a miserable proposal and a lost opportunity for something a bit more imaginative at 71 Queen Victoria Street. All glass naturally as this is the flavour of the year. It might be better than what is there currently but only by a thread in my book. I would have liked to have seen some stone here to compliment the building to its right and yes, a little more height. But at least they haven’t presented us with more ghastly random cladding.

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by gravesVpelli

So because it is from the 8os it is not worth retaining? This is the logic behind City planners. It isn’t some masterpiece it is true but it is more contextual with its surroundings than the proposed indignity. It has whisps of 1980s post modern detail but so what. It has a Portland stone façade. The new project will probably succeed as it offers more square metres of office space and, the bottom line is more space = profitability = welcome = acceptable.

Because it's from the 80's means it's not Edwardian like the rest of the circus, so it does not contribute to the uniform feeling of the circus. Also without the aid of a better picture it means the facade is not the same quality as you might have imagined.

So what I'd it does have a Portland stone facade? I'm sure when it was built it was for £££ too.

Lastly its to the neighbour to the right is in the process of being renovated with masses more space, and yet the developers have kept the 90's facade there - it's nothing special either.

[delores]

I think in this case Wilkinson Eyre are certainly not the choice if you want something sympathetic to the heritage of Finsbury circus, the city really does have contempt for its architecture. The building it's replacing is not perfect but at least it's tried to work with the surrounding buildings which is arguably one of the very few places in London that is on a grand scale, planned and relatively untouched by so called contemporary architecture.

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by delores

The building it's replacing is not perfect but at least it's tried to work with the surrounding buildings which is arguably one of the very few places in London that is on a grand scale, planned and relatively untouched by so called contemporary architecture.

I disagree. The existing building and its modern neighbour both have a focal point in the middle where the sides of the facade works towards, so very much 'look at me.' This goes against the grain of the rest circus where every building follows a similar pattern of repitition, whilst the other buildings are far larger than these two modern tiddlers, they are understated.

If you look at the proposed replacment it follows the pattern of repition and also the massing of its neighbour to the left, and lacks the naff focal point. What's the point of making the smallest building in the circus the most eye catching, smacks of poor taste.