One Tower Bridge | Southwark | U/C

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by randolph

'Equally importent as Tower Bridge' yet 'understated'. Ummm interesting!.

I dont understand people like him.Propose something amazing and they will shout that its too eye catching and will distract from Tower Bridge.Propose something 'safe' and they will shout that its an eyesore which is completely out of place etc.So what do they want?Park?Theres already one there!
Would love to hear what Mr Tiler would like to see proposed for the site.

[The Sage]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

Whatever this new proposal is, I hope it's something detailed, sensitive and built on a 'human scale' - in other words, several smaller buildings (5-8 storeys max.) interspersed with greenery/sculptures and other nice features, rather than a giant glass slab covering most of the site. Of course, knowing our luck we'll get the latter...

How about a couple of tapering midrises with open space/retail around them? I want a space that everyone can enjoy, but I think whatever's there should stand out at least somewhat, if only to distract people from the rather distressing cladding on City Hall...

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Tiler

How about a statue of Randolph...oh sorry, this would also be out of keeping with the area as his head would make the statue a target for EH due to it's monstrous height.

Seriously mate...who do you think you are. Opinions are opinions and mine is that the land should never have been allowed to be sold to someone like Berkeley Homes. Keep on championing corporate boxes if you want.

It's not my fault you can't formulate a coherent and properly thought out argument mate!

[randolph]

If anyone thinks that Simon Hughs will be behind anything decent you must be living on cloud 9! As to the Hill - it is a joke. This sounds like a play for time on the part of Southwark - a desperate attempt to stop Ken taking the land off them. I will believe it when I see it. Be ready for something very poor and very ordinary! I hope I'm wrong. I am, as you know strongly in favour of the present scheme, but if it gets cancelled and something of equal or better quality takes it's place I will as happy as anyone else. The fuss made over the current scheme will only lead in one direction - a fake cultural centre with bland 'innoffensive' housing attached. I hope I'm wrong, If I'm not London will have lost yet another good scheme, and an oportunity to look to the future and not the past.

[Tiler]

My argument is fairly coherent actually...

A cultural or civic building with some residential element to it that isn't monstrously tall and isn't going to visually clash with Tower Bridge. A music hall/ venue with a public square and restaurant/ retail element?

That's not so difficult to understand is it?

My main objection to the current scheme is mainly based on the render that someone posted which showed that viewing this area from the other bank of the river, it looked an absolute mess and in terms of heritage and the importance of the area, another horrible cluster of glass daleks is just not right. If you think these buildings are amazing fair enough, that's your opinion. I just think they are in the wrong location and won't actually benefit the local area or residents.

Anyway, doesn't really matter what I think as I don't live in the area and the greedy developers will hold onto the land throwing their toys out of their pram unless the mayor can get a compulsory purchase order and save the day.

The end.

[randolph]

The reason I pressed you on the 'in keeping' phrase is because it is one that is used often on this forum. Usually it is code for some sort of pastiche. However I note from your post that you are not one of the More London bashers so perhaps this is not what you meant. This site is almost impossible to call on this 'in keeping' phrase. To the east are Victorian Warehouses, converted into exclusive residences.. to the west is the truely dire Southwark Crown court ( I did Jury service there and the interior is no better!) And then the glass and steel of More London. To the south is Tooley st with a collection of very poor and average buildings, and of course then there is Tower Bridge, a late Victorian Neo Gothic fantasy and The Norman Tower of London.

In order to build anything there must be a need for it. As yet no one has suggested what this longed for cultural centre would be and there seems to be no arts or cultural body / organisation coming forward to make a claim on the site. One reason I get so exasperated with some of the critisisms of this scheme are how inacurate they are. It is often said they it is a 'gated' development - never has been so. This myth seems to stem from an inverted snobbery against 'the rich' In fact the towers will house shops, cafes and a 'cultural centre' of some kind at their bases and will also include 140 (? - think that is the figure) 'affordable homes. They are also not actually that tall and will not appear any taller than City Hall when viewed from the North bank - that is evident from the renders. I understand that some people don't like them - that is ok - but no one has come up with any real alternatives- just wishful thinking with no basis in the commercial realities of this site.

[Joe 2007]

This long suggested cultural centre should be an art gallery. If it was built in a Neo-Classical style, then others might ape it's form, bringing about a 21st Century renaissance in Neo-Classical architecture. This way we can forget that shitty glass boxes, and dust bin esque architecture ever existed. Where are the Christopher Wren's of this age?

[El_Greco]

Lol first it was Crystal Palace now something Neo-Classical dont be ridiculous.

[The Sage]

Originally Posted by Joe 2007

This long suggested cultural centre should be an art gallery. If it was built in a Neo-Classical style, then others might ape it's form, bringing about a 21st Century renaissance in Neo-Classical architecture. This way we can forget that shitty glass boxes, and dust bin esque architecture ever existed. Where are the Christopher Wren's of this age?

Nurse!

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Joe 2007

This long suggested cultural centre should be an art gallery.

London already has enough art galleries.

I still don't know why they don't get the Design Museum to move here. They're looking for new premises.

And if people are so worried about the thing 'fitting' in, get someone like Libeskind to design it who manages to make buildings with so much wow factor that the existing buildings are pretty much forgotten.

[El_Greco]

^ I actually think something like that would look great next to Tower Bridge.

[Manuel]

And that's the dubai-zoo effect!

What would London do when the "watch-me" architecture will be over? say in 5 years?

[The Sage]

This thread really is attracting the loonies.

I think you'll find that the Guggenheim museum is still pretty effing popular.

[Zenith]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

London already has enough art galleries.

I still don't know why they don't get the Design Museum to move here. They're looking for new premises.

And if people are so worried about the thing 'fitting' in, get someone like Libeskind to design it who manages to make buildings with so much wow factor that the existing buildings are pretty much forgotten.

As always I find myself agreeing with you Darjole. Remember the 'spiral'? I lament its demise even now, and I firmly believe that Libeskind is the perfect man to design for this location. In fact I would love to see Libeskind produce something groundbreaking for London. The SouthBank is THE place to see this kind of architecture...its spiritual home perhaps?

[Zenith]

Originally Posted by Joe 2007

This long suggested cultural centre should be an art gallery. If it was built in a Neo-Classical style, then others might ape it's form, bringing about a 21st Century renaissance in Neo-Classical architecture. This way we can forget that shitty glass boxes, and dust bin esque architecture ever existed. Where are the Christopher Wren's of this age?

Jo Jo, what kind of art gallery? Do you realise that a Neo classical building in this location would be totally out of place?

[DarJoLe]

I wouldn't say out of place, but would look incredibly Las Vegas.

Does anyone have the renderings and model pics for the original site of More London? They were in a book about Prince Charles looking at Architecture in London - one had a strange Venetian style and looked like a Las Vegas hotel plonked in Central London.

[johnnypd]

Darjole's idea of a Libeskind like building on the site is a good one and i think a better use of this world-class location than a modern day take on the council estate with 7 or 8 identical towers placed arbitrarily in a field.

[Bob]

yep great. Now all you need to do is raise about £300m, buy the land and build it, figure out how it will finance itself long term and.... oh and figure out what will go inside. Simple.

Or... I dunno we could actually... I know call me a mad man.... put something there that is in massive demand, has oodles of cash behind it and will generate considerable income long term?

This obsession with turning the Thames into a parade of medals and codpieces irritates the hell out of me. Look at what we have had for the whole of the cities history. Useful things like wharfs, houses, offices... Why change now?

[johnnypd]

first of all, economic viability is not a good in-itself, but simply a boost to feasibility. And anyway i think a showpiece cultural building on this site would receive more than enough visitors, in fact it would probably be swamped! And Darjole said the Design Museum should re-locate there so that renders your "oh and find a use" barb slightly redundant. whether or not Darjole's suggestion makes a profit for a developer doesn't bother me too much as i am not coming at this site from that perspective. to criticise a suggestion on the basis that the person behind it doesn't have £300m to spend is, frankly, pathetic, juvenile and bizarre.

secondly, yeah, the river has had a host of uses throughout history, mostly industrial, so let's run with this idea, and build a one-storey light industrial pre-fab warehouse for a company that makes waterproof paints for oil liners. alternatively we could take inspiration from the South Bank's recent history as a destination for the arts and culture and continue the theme, using this site as one piece in a larger whole stretching from the design museum, through to city hall, borough market, the globe, tate modern, architecture foundation, millenium bridge to nft, royal festival hall, hayward gallery, old and new vics, and so on.

personally i'm not a huge fan of showy buildings that don't integrate with the surrounding environment and are made to be isolate buildings rather than one piece to fit into a jigsaw. But there is a place for exception. and if there is one single site in the whole of london, or even the whole of the UK, where i think the best modern architecture, or a showpiece cultural building, SHOULD be placed, then this is the very site. it stands next to the most famous image of london round the world and should rightfully be an advertisement for how great modern britain can be, alongside an emblem of how great victorian britain was. I think building the same boring design 7 or 8 times over, plonked at random in a field, is inappropriate for the location.

[randolph]

All this endless fatatasy about 'cultural centres' and galleries is a total waste of time. This land will be used for residential or office development. Anyone suggesting an art gallery when the worlds largest art gallery housing the worlds 3rd largest collection of modern art is just ten minutes walk away is just plain daft (Not to mention the Hayward Gallery). Using this land for flats is by far and away the best use for this site. If we dont get the present scheme we will most likely end up with a generic brick clad block the type of which can be seen all over the Uk and that will add absolutely nothing to the area.