Lost London

[Snowy]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

How many times I have to say that Guys is the ONLY modernist building I like?And I wouldnt cry if Guys was demolished.Same goes for commie blocks.And where did you get that "love" nonsence from?Ive never said I love them.
Its not like Im saying 'hey commie blocks/concrete buildings are cool lets build some more'.No.I hate modernism its ok to have few modernist buildings though but others must go because theyre crap.
I like Victorian/Georgian/Tudor etc architecture.End of story.

Ok, fair enough, I genuinely thought that you loved Guys but I was obviously wrong.

I also thought that you really liked commie blocks because you've posted quite a few pictures where they are featured prominantly and praised similar pictures posted by others forumers.

Anyway, I for one love the pictures that you post which show London's messy skyline of church spires, commie blocks and skyscrapers, with the commie blocks representing the 'grit' of London (with the church spires representing the city's history and the skyscrapers, the city's wealth) and I for one, would be sad to see all commie blocks erased from the skyline, though I too wouldn't be too upset if some of them were demolished.

[Monters]

Every bit as much as you hate modernism, I hate pickle-in-aspic naive romanticism that pretends everything in the past is glorious and everything in the present despicable. I lionise modernism. I think it's wonderful.

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by Monters

Every bit as much as you hate modernism, I hate pickle-in-aspic naive romanticism that pretends everything in the past is glorious and everything in the present despicable. I lionise modernism. I think it's wonderful.

Far from everything in the past is glorious, there are great looking modern building, but on the whole modern architecture isn´t that impressive. Let´s face it, Victorian slums looked better than most buildings built today.

[Monters]

Not sure I agree but different strokes, etc.

Most skyscrapers these days are modernist, btw. 122LH and the Shard certainly are.

[Lonedwarf]

Originally Posted by SuomiPoika

Far from everything in the past is glorious, there are great looking modern building, but on the whole modern architecture isn´t that impressive. Let´s face it, Vistorian slums looked better than most buildings built today.

you seem to have an overly romantisised view of historical london.
the majority of the slums of london were cheaply built and helped surpress the people who lived in them. even if they hadn't been knocked down they would have fallen down by now
I assume by modern architecture you mean contempory or commercial architecture. for me modern architecture ranges from le corb through to zaha hadid

[Monters]

Most of those slums that people posted pictures of earlier looked pretty ugly to me, and were cheaply built without any consideration for those who would have to live in them.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Lonedwarf

you seem to have an overly romantisised view of historical london.
the majority of the slums of london were cheaply built and helped surpress the people who lived in them. even if they hadn't been knocked down they would have fallen down by now
I assume by modern architecture you mean contempory or commercial architecture. for me modern architecture ranges from le corb through to zaha hadid

Originally Posted by Monters

Most of those slums that people posted pictures of earlier looked pretty ugly to me, and were cheaply built without any consideration for those who would have to live in them.

Modernists always saw victorian/georgian architecture as ugly and cheaply built.But the thing is Victorian/Georgian buildings were of a high quality and built to last...now I cant say the same about modernist buildings...some of them are even falling down.
Modernists were also big vandals.Have you seen their plans for Covent Garden for example?They wanted to flatten the area and build concrete blocks there!Insane!


Yesterdays slums todays gentrified areas.People would pay big money to live in Victorian houses but noone would want to live in a tower block.



Ugly :



Beautiful :

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by Lonedwarf

you seem to have an overly romantisised view of historical london.
the majority of the slums of london were cheaply built and helped surpress the people who lived in them. even if they hadn't been knocked down they would have fallen down by now
I assume by modern architecture you mean contempory or commercial architecture. for me modern architecture ranges from le corb through to zaha hadid

Well, those who lived in the slums were no doubt leading unhealthy and dangerous lives etc, but imo the architecture was far more attractive than many of the glass boxes going up today. Of course not all new architecture is ugly, a quick look at all amazing skyscrapers proposed for London confirms that.

I think we all have overly romantisised views of the past centuries, however, there are still Victorian slums left (some restored) to vitness about how nice the architecture was back then. Whitechapel was a slum 100 years ago and look at the old buildings there, I would hardly call them ugly.

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Ugh! Where is that? Looks like Bucklersbury House.

[El_Greco]

Yes thats Bucklersbury...cant wait for it to be demolished.

[Mr Bricks]

Bucklersbury is the building I´ve highlighted with the red circle (is it not?). My question is, what is that other eyesore I´ve highlighted in blue?



Thanks.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by SuomiPoika

Bucklersbury is the building I´ve highlighted with the red circle (is it not?). My question is, what is that other eyesore I´ve highlighted in blue?



Thanks.

Thats 78 Cannon Street.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=...-unitedkingdom





-
Old Weavers' Houses At Bethnal Green :



Mile End Road :



The Memorial Hall Farringdon Street :



Monument :



View From St Pauls Looking South West :



View From St Pauls Looking North West :

[Mr Bricks]

^Great pics!

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Thats 78 Cannon Street.

Thanks. Once this and Bucklersbury are gone the skyline will look much better.

[Monters]

Loads of people pay big money to live in tower blocks. You seem to use "modernist" interchangeably with "brutalist". As I've said, the Shard is modernist.

[Lonedwarf]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Modernists always saw victorian/georgian architecture as ugly and cheaply built.But the thing is Victorian/Georgian buildings were of a high quality and built to last...now I cant say the same about modernist buildings...some of them are even falling down.
Modernists were also big vandals.Have you seen their plans for Covent Garden for example?They wanted to flatten the area and build concrete blocks there!Insane!


Yesterdays slums todays gentrified areas.People would pay big money to live in Victorian houses but noone would want to live in a tower block.]

I absolutely agree that a lot of victorian/georgian bulidings were of a very high quality, and it is true what you say about gentrification. My own house was built in the victorian era. My point was that we shouldn't look through rose tinted glasses.







That must be an Alfred Waterhouse. Where is it?

[El_Greco]

^ Yes.Thats Prudential Assurance Building In Holborn.

[Lonedwarf]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

^ Yes.Thats Prudential Assurance Building In Holborn.

Ok, thanks. I like his buildings, very powerful.

[Monters]

boss building that

[DarJoLe]

Whitechapel is still a slum.

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Whitechapel is still a slum.

I´ve seen many impressive pictures of that area.