Bloomberg Place | City of London | 41m | 10fl | U/C

[Monters]

Originally Posted by randolph

I too have always been a big Fosters fan.

Me too, it's underrated stuff. Firstly the brew you get here is a lot stronger ans sweeter than that you get in Australia. Secondly while stuff like Kronenbourg might have a fuller taste, it's a bit strong for all day drinking. If you're watching the football on a May afternoon there's little that can beat a can of Fozzie's.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by Monters

Me too, it's underrated stuff. Firstly the brew you get here is a lot stronger ans sweeter than that you get in Australia. Secondly while stuff like Kronenbourg might have a fuller taste, it's a bit strong for all day drinking. If you're watching the football on a May afternoon there's little that can beat a can of Fozzie's.

[Varenukha]

Oh dear Monters, you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. Randolph was referring to the architect, Lord Foster. You have taken his meaning to be the brand of lager, Fosters. Really, the two could not be more different, and I am a little surprised that you have confused them.

[Monters]

Can we at least rename this thread in honour of Bucklersbury House? Nobody knows where Walbrook is. I've worked out why I'm so fond of Bucklersbury btw. I met my fiance for the first time there.

[Bowater]

Save the old building!! Until we get something alot better looking please. Has it got planning permission?

[LondonRocks]

I met my fiance for the first time there.

I so thought you were a guy with what I thought was your rather pompous defence of this horrible building. But you are a girl and in love, so forgive me. I hope you and your fiance one day marry in the shadow of Buck House. Then we can knock it down?

[jimbo]

Originally Posted by Bowater

Save the old building!! Until we get something alot better looking please. Has it got planning permission?

don't think so yet.

@ monters, hope you didn't take her for a drink in the Mithras Wine Bar beneath the building. My department once got banned from there after a rather overenthusiatic Xmas party.

This new scheme is wacky, and maybe a step too far, but does anyone really think that the current incumbent is a better bet in the long run?

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by jimbo

don't think so yet.

@ monters, hope you didn't take her for a drink in the Mithras Wine Bar beneath the building. My department once got banned from there after a rather overenthusiatic Xmas party.

This new scheme is wacky, and maybe a step too far, but does anyone really think that the current incumbent is a better bet in the long run?

If this is turned down then we can have something less whacky instead. I prefer the old building if push came to shove! It has a bigish green space out front and its disregard for the plot shape is unique.

[Monters]

Originally Posted by LondonRocks

I so thought you were a guy with what I thought was your rather pompous defence of this horrible building. But you are a girl and in love, so forgive me. I hope you and your fiance one day marry in the shadow of Buck House. Then we can knock it down?

No I'm a bloke I just mistyped fiancee (its not a Danish wedding). Sorry for the unjustified excitement. It's not pompous simply to disagree with the majority btw, especially when they're wrong

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Bowater

and its disregard for the plot shape is unique.

This is the most depressing comment I have ever read in my five years on these boards.

[potto]

Originally Posted by Bowater

If this is turned down then we can have something less whacky instead. I prefer the old building if push came to shove! It has a bigish green space out front and its disregard for the plot shape is unique.

Its not unique, it is a waste! Like most of Urban Britain! Queen Victoria Street is horrible to walk down and one of the worst parts is when you come to Bucklersbury House, there is no intimacy, the street is far too wide. It is also pretty poor when you come across the boring new developments next to the millenium bridge and further down it gets worse into dual-carriage way 70s hell

The model of the new development looks like it will bring much needed intimacy at street level and for once the roof top wont be flat, which surely must bring a sigh of relief to everyone on here!

[Luke]

Also available in grey.

[JGG]

Originally Posted by potto

Its not unique, it is a waste! Like most of Urban Britain! Queen Victoria Street is horrible to walk down and one of the worst parts is when you come to Bucklersbury House, there is no intimacy, the street is far too wide. It is also pretty poor when you come across the boring new developments next to the millenium bridge and further down it gets worse into dual-carriage way 70s hell

The model of the new development looks like it will bring much needed intimacy at street level and for once the roof top wont be flat, which surely must bring a sigh of relief to everyone on here!

Sorry, but how exactly will the new development provide more intimacy at street level?

[jef]

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by Luke

Also available in grey.

[potto]

Originally Posted by JGG

Sorry, but how exactly will the new development provide more intimacy at street level?

err simple because it follows the street line and is tall enough for the road width. There are also some well thought out new pedestrian routes through the development which unlike the unreadable routes through the current building will at least be utilised fully

[Zenith]

Originally Posted by JGG

Sorry, but how exactly will the new development provide more intimacy at street level?

What was there pre 60's ?

[Monters]

Why is everyone so obsessed with the street line point? Two things:

1. Bucklersbury is hardly unique in not following the street line, loads of buildings go their own way; and

2. what is intrinsically good about following the street line anyway?

It's a criticism also levelled at the Clapham Park estate sometimes, that its buildings are set diagionally to the street. Who cares?

How is the average streethugging office block any more "intimate" from the passer-by's point of view?

[Monters]

Quite a handsome beast froom this angle:



btw it's Temple Court, to the right, which is most visible on the London skyline. Its presence, however, is no more intrusive or objectionable than the Foster building's would be.

[Monters]

Originally Posted by potto

err simple because it follows the street line and is tall enough for the road width. There are also some well thought out new pedestrian routes through the development which unlike the unreadable routes through the current building will at least be utilised fully

Oh, I'm sure they'll be utilised fully in the architect's fine plans, mate. Shame reality rarely works out to plan. Believe it or not the architects of Bucklersbury claimed their walkways would be "fully utilised" too (and in a way they are, all have thriving retail units in them).