Bath Spa Developments

[Andrew]

In my opinion this would have been an excellent piece of architecture had it been built! Quality architecture like this, dispite being overtly contemporary would not have damaged the setting of the world heritage site in my opinion.

[cardiff]

I think it would have been out of scale with the rest of the city.

[El_Greco]

^ Its the attitude like this that is to blame for much of the dross being built all over the country.

[cardiff]

Are you really saying that in order to have a succesful scheme it must be large? Bath is a historic city consisting of predominantly one style. The old shopping center was a failure because it was not scaled well, poorly laid out and not only designed but constructed with no refereance to the rest of the city. The dross being built around the country is due to economics, not well designed building built to fit in with their surroundings. Look at most post war architecture in the Uk and comare it to similar schemes in European city centers, they are more often the same scale of the buildings around them and therefore look much beter in continental europe. Large indistrial cities could get away with it more but small cities like bath would look quite overwhelmed by it.

[El_Greco]

No in order to have a succesful scheme it must be exciting brave & bold it mustnt be boring.
This was an exciting scheme that got thrown out the window just because stuffy heritage dinosaurs refuse to accept we are living in 21stC.Damage the setting my arse.It would have improved it.

Dont you see how many exciting designs get watered down (or worse killed off) just because they in some sad peoples minds will 'detract' from some cute but unremarkable Georgian house?We have awesome technology we are capable of building amazing stuff (Gherkin for example) but the stuffy dinosaurs (UNESCO EH Jenkins Charles etc) wont let us do that.So instead we are filling our cities with boring trash that people wont notice.British Museum Extention designed by Rogers will now not be built because.....thats righ its not in keeping with the rest of the area.So I suspect well get something very very boring.

Arguments like 'will destroy views' 'overshadow' 'not in keeping' are lame and shouldnt be used in the debate about modern architecture - they should be ignored.Cities should be able to evolve freely and without interferences from the change-averse people but at the same time we should not be wrecking-ball-happy.I think the past and the present can co-exist peacefully.Im a big fan of conversions extensions and anything that gives a new lease of life to old buildings.
As long as old building is standing Im happy even if theres a skyscraper on top of it (ie BNU Tower in Macau or this sadly killed off scheme).

[london lad]

Originally Posted by cardiff

I think it would have been out of scale with the rest of the city.

Hows it out of scale? Its only a couple of extra floors built on top of an older building so it was hardly going to overwhelm Bath . An excellent piece of old & new that would have given the UK a world class engineering facility. Just because its not a couple of storeys smaller and not clad in Bath Stone it gets kicked into touch. Ridiculous.

I'm with El Greco on this one.

[delores]

The render to me say's something like the bbc building in manchester by Peel, which is pretty awful, i'm glad it's not being built, they need to get an architect that really understands bath, that doesn't mean pastiche but something truly worthy of such a lovely city.

[cardiff]

Exactly delores, we arnt talking about any old city here, we are talking about Bath. Its a very unique city with a unique character that was spoilt by the old shopping center and shemes like the one above would only add to this. My gripe with the building wasnt its modernity, its was its scale. I have lived in Bath and can well see how this was out of scale with the rest fo the city/town, if you cant see that a few extra floors COULD really overwhelm the area of the city its in then you cant see that further developments to the same scale as it would ruin the very fabric of what makes Bath so unique and pleasing to the eye.
It could be just as inovative and modern but on the same scale as the rest of the city, failure to see this prooves that you arnt looking at the bigger picture. size isnt everything, modern architecture has to take into acount its surroundings, if it doesnt then we are repeating the same mistakes of the post war era! Buildings like the gurkin are succesful because they are not isolate in scale (ie nat west tower), are you really saying that Bath should try to emulate the capital because we both know that if cities like Manchester and Leeds find it hard to build large skyscrapers then Bath has no chance except destroying its fabric with monolithic buildings out of scale with everything around them.

[london lad]

You can hardly equate skyscrapers in London with a building that is 4 storeys tall.
How can this building be out of scale when the extra 2 floors raise it to the same height of the building next door.

[El_Greco]

Arent these out of scale?You can just about make out the site of the scheme in the extreme right side.The surrounding buildings are twice the height of the sadly killed off scheme!Out of scale my arse!



Or how about this?



Seriously how do you conservationists propose city moves forward?What do you want it to become?A pretty disney land town stuck in time?Sorry but thats just retarded.
Never in the long history of cities and architecture have arguments like 'out of scale' 'ruin views' been used.Indeed the Flavian Amphitheatre when completed dwarfed everything around it ditto The Houses of Parliament and these are the some of the most famous buildings in The World.
Preserving views is completely new phenomenon which only shows our lack of confidence and imagination.This at the time when humans have awesome technology and are capable of pretty much anything.Time to embrace the future or at least the present?

[cardiff]

You arnt talking about a large building built to the same style as Georgian bath, or gothic London as was another of your examples. You are talking about a completely jarring and unsympathetic design. Im not equating skyscrapers in london with an extra two floors, im equating out of scale buildings ruining Baths fabric as a predominantly lowrise city of georgian architecture and similar out of scale developments ruining other cities centers.
You arent arguing for just this scheme to go ahead, you are arguing for wholesale development to take place that is out of character with the rest of the city. A what point do you say 'actually no, any more evelopment will destroy what makes Bath unique'.
Bath will never be a disney town stuck in a time, the people who live there are just too wealthy to not keep up to date with the rest of the world, but then Bath is a city representative of a particular era, do you want to destroy that for future generations? Create a new Coventry? As for preserving views, would you like to hide St pauls behind a tower block so it could not be seen from the river? Anyway how is views relevant to this, i have not mentioned them as i dont believe any views would be spoilt by this 1 development, just buildings of its scale around the city center as you are advocating would spoil views of Bath. Just because you can doesnt mean you should, we have the technology to built the Burj Dubai in bath, does it mean we should? We have had the technology to build the Eiffel tower in blackpool, does it mean they did, no because there are other factors affecting development which is really stupid of you not to have seen!

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by cardiff

You are talking about a completely jarring and unsympathetic design.

Why is it unsympathetic?Because its not clad in stone?

What do you think about The Wales Millennium Centre and The Senedd?Arent they a bit out of scale with the rest of the city?Dont they overshadow The Pierhead?

Im not equating skyscrapers in london with an extra two floors, im equating out of scale buildings ruining Baths fabric as a predominantly lowrise city of georgian architecture and similar out of scale developments ruining other cities centers.

But this proposal isnt out of scale I mean the nearby buildings are two times taller!

You arent arguing for just this scheme to go ahead, you are arguing for wholesale development to take place that is out of character with the rest of the city.

Out of character.....as I said before - its the attitude like this that is to blame for much of the dross being built all over the country.If you cant build bold exciting modern architecture for fear it will 'ruin' character of a city what can you build?Thats right a boring trash and thats exactly what is happening in the UK!

May I remind you Rogers' exciting British Museum extension was rejected precisely because its 'not in keeping' with the rest of the area.

What would you rather have?A cheap pastiche/boring trash or exciting bold modern building?

A what point do you say 'actually no, any more evelopment will destroy what makes Bath unique'.

You know what does more damage to our cities' uniqueness?The poor public spaces clutter and traffic.Not modern architecture.

do you want to destroy that for future generations?

Where did I say anything about wanting to destroy Bath?Why not spruce up existing buildings but at the same time add some sexy new modern ones?Loads of cities are doing this - Warsaw restored its Old Town but at the same time they are building massive malls and skyscrapers.Same in Singapore - the colonial quarter is protected (i think) but just behind it they have sexy skyscrapers.

As for preserving views, would you like to hide St pauls behind a tower block

A tower block.Sounds like something you read on Evening Standard but to answer your question I dont see why views of St Pauls should be protected.So yes I wouldnt have problems with skyscraper appearing infront or right behind the cathedral.

Anyway how is views relevant to this

Views character scale its all the same.

Just because you can doesnt mean you should, we have the technology to built the Burj Dubai in bath, does it mean we should?

Thats a bit extreme.Why not go for a sexy modern low rise building by Libeskind or Gehry instead?

other factors affecting development which is really stupid of you not to have seen

Like change averse-people you mean?

[cardiff]

Why is it unsympathetic?Because its not clad in stone?

No, because its trying to attention seeking in a city where it is not needed

What do you think about The Wales Millennium Centre and The Senedd?Arent they a bit out of scale with the rest of the city?Dont they overshadow The Pierhead?

Totaly different city and situation, there was no streetscape in this area and it is all a modern creation, Cardiff is a big enough city to get away with such large buildings and this area of the city has no predominant style unlike Bath which is small and of one style and built of one type of material. A silly comparison, show me a modern develoment in cities like York, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, Salisbury etc that are modern and of larege scale than the buldings around them!


But this proposal isnt out of scale I mean the nearby buildings are two times taller!

The nearby buildings are warehouses and are out of scale with the rest of the city, lying on the perifery of the center, but depite this they are built of Bath stone and are of a style that is neither showy or demanding attention.

Out of character.....as I said before - its the attitude like this that is to blame for much of the dross being built all over the country.If you cant build bold exciting modern architecture for fear it will 'ruin' character of a city what can you build?Thats right a boring trash and thats exactly what is happening in the UK!

You dont get it, its not attitudes that affect development, its economics! London could get away with modern extensions due to the urban fabric and size of the city, and i believe in that case it should be a modern creation but again it should be in scale with the rest of the building instead of trying to overshadow it. Look at the existing urban form and design towards that, rather than an architects whim.

May I remind you Rogers' exciting British Museum extension was rejected precisely because its 'not in keeping' with the rest of the area.

I have seen the design and cant really remember it, so cant comment on this case but its unrelated to Bath

What would you rather have?A cheap pastiche/boring trash or exciting bold modern building?

I'd rather a building that was neither modern or old, just well designed and relating to the urban environment around it. Dont forget that Neo Gothic was pastiche in its day!

You know what does more damage to our cities' uniqueness?The poor public spaces clutter and traffic.Not modern architecture.

Bath has good public places and little clutter, its not perfect but its far from being spoiled by those. What would you call modern architecture 00's, 90's 80's etc? What makes you think that modern is better in all cases?

Where did I say anything about wanting to destroy Bath?Why not spruce up existing buildings but at the same time add some sexy new modern ones?Loads of cities are doing this - Warsaw restored its Old Town but at the same time they are building massive malls and skyscrapers.Same in Singapore - the colonial quarter is protected (i think) but just behind it they have sexy skyscrapers.

Warsaw didnt restore its old town, it rebuilt it, to you the whole area should be pastiche! Have you been to Warsaw, in areas it is quite inhuman and the streetscape is not that good. I have been to singapore, again its a large city that has had many styles of architecture and has a very pleasing streetscape because the is gradual transition between these styles. Bath is of one style only..... Keep on the subject Bath is not the same size or style as Singapore, London or Warsaw!

A tower block.Sounds like something you read on Evening Standard but to answer your question I dont see why views of St Pauls should be protected.So yes I wouldnt have problems with skyscraper appearing infront or right behind the cathedral.

So you would be happy in hiding views of Parliament, not being able to gain views of Canary wharf from the royal observatory because of... lets say a big wall?

Views character scale its all the same.

No it isnt, development must be good on all these points to be a truely worthwhile piecve of architecture.

Thats a bit extreme.Why not go for a sexy modern low rise building by Libeskind or Gehry instead?

Why not, as long as its realated to the urban fabric of Bath or other cities

Like change averse-people you mean?

No like economics, THE URBAN FABRIC OF A CITY.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by cardiff

No, because its trying to attention seeking in a city where it is not needed

No its not.Its just a simple extension and besides its seperated from the city centre by the river and busy road.

Totaly different city and situation

Not really.In all British cities the predominant style is Victorian so going by your logic there shouldnt be The Senedds Gherkins or any other celebrated modern buildings.

The nearby buildings are warehouses and are out of scale with the rest of the city, lying on the perifery of the center, but depite this they are built of Bath stone and are of a style that is neither showy or demanding attention.

Er the two other warehouses are of red brick!And the building in question is.....derelict.

You dont get it, its not attitudes that affect development, its economics! London could get away with modern extensions due to the urban fabric and size of the city, and i believe in that case it should be a modern creation but again it should be in scale with the rest of the building instead of trying to overshadow it. Look at the existing urban form and design towards that, rather than an architects whim.

Yes its attitudes and you just prove this - just because proposed building isnt clad in stone it shouldnt be built because according to you it would ruin the character of the place.In your opinion something safe and boring should be built instead.
Dross.In.Other.Words.

Just look at the protected sightlines we have in London.They will only lead to more crap.Nobody is even talking about economics.
So its attitudes after all that are to blame for the boring trash.

I'd rather a building that was neither modern or old, just well designed and relating to the urban environment around it.Dont forget that Neo Gothic was pastiche in its day!

In other words something safe and boring.

Bath has good public places and little clutter, its not perfect but its far from being spoiled by those. What would you call modern architecture 00's, 90's 80's etc? What makes you think that modern is better in all cases?

I didnt see it like that.I experienced it as a city with beautiful buildings but poor public spaces and horrific traffic.

So you would be happy in hiding views of Parliament, not being able to gain views of Canary wharf from the royal observatory because of... lets say a big wall?

No it isnt, development must be good on all these points to be a truely worthwhile piecve of architecture.

Why not, as long as its realated to the urban fabric of Bath or other cities

Why nobody in the past worried about ruining views?Why all the famous iconic buildings are larger than life and dwarf everything around them?St Pauls Houses Of Parliament etc?
If people in the past had attitudes like yours then today there wouldnt be Bath or Cambridge!Seriously just think about it!

All cities are ever evolving and I dont see why this process should be stopped just to please some people living in the past.
If Bath was full of similar extentions restored Georgian terraces and sexy modern buildings it would still be beautiful.Modern and beautiful.Whats wrong with that?Yeah perhaps it would no longer be UNESCO World Heritage Site but who cares?People would still flock in their thousands just to see it just like they did all these centuries ago.

[cardiff]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

No its not.Its just a simple extension and besides its seperated from the city centre by the river and busy road..

Its a structure within Bath, what makes Bath special? Ask yourself that! Then ask yourself how this scheme fits in with what is nice about Bath.

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Not really.In all British cities the predominant style is Victorian so going by your logic there shouldnt be The Senedds Gherkins or any other celebrated modern buildings..

Most British cities owe a large amount of thier development to the victorian period, but i would hardly say they looked victorian, just take Cardiff.... Georgian arcades, gothic castles, imperial civic center, victorian shopping streets, modern apartment blocks.... Bath has none of these styles its all Gerorgian. Modern would stick out more than it would in Cardiff or London.

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Just look at the protected sightlines we have in London.They will only lead to more crap.Nobody is even talking about economics.
So its attitudes after all that are to blame for the boring trash..

Sightlines in London have preserved historic views, if crap has been built its not because of them, its because the architect could express a good design that wasnt large in scale, the senedd which i think is a good design would disapear if placed in the city of London. The wales millennium center would also disapear if placed there also. Again size isnt everything but good design is.

Originally Posted by El_Greco

In other words something safe and boring..

No something well designed to fit the urban environment be it Bath, London or Cardiff.

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Why nobody in the past worried about ruining views?Why all the famous iconic buildings are larger than life and dwarf everything around them?St Pauls Houses Of Parliament etc?
If people in the past had attitudes like yours then today there wouldnt be Bath or Cambridge!Seriously just think about it!.

They did care about views, the difference was they were creating the views we are protecting today! Why did they build the houses of parliamnet next to the river, why not further in land, surely it would have been an advantage (ie big stink!). The people of the past used to believe in slavery, should we not try to better ourselves part of which is our urban environment with good architecture that relates to the city around it? Oxford and Cambridge are examples of cities built in very similar styles and materials. If you can give me an example of a modern city built of the same materials and similar style then go ahead because there arnt any in the UK, they are either old like Bath because they have been preserved or are a mixture of styles.

Originally Posted by El_Greco

All cities are ever evolving and I dont see why this process should be stopped just to please some people living in the past.
If Bath was full of similar extentions restored Georgian terraces and sexy modern buildings it would still be beautiful.Modern and beautiful.Whats wrong with that?Yeah perhaps it would no longer be UNESCO World Heritage Site but who cares?People would still flock in their thousands just to see it just like they did all these centuries ago.

Because if you fill the city with modern buildings that pay no attention to the scale of Bath then you loose why people go there to visit. Can you not really see that breaking up the georgian fabric of Bath would result in it being indistinguishable from any other Uk industrial city? We both know that modren development are not based on how wonderful the developer thinks it will look in the end, its how much money they can make from it!

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by cardiff

Its a structure within Bath, what makes Bath special? Ask yourself that! Then ask yourself how this scheme fits in with what is nice about Bath.

Its outside the city centre and I believe conservation area too.As for what makes Bath special dont know to me it was the hills.

but i would hardly say they looked victorian, just take Cardiff.... Georgian arcades, gothic castles, imperial civic center, victorian shopping streets, modern apartment blocks.... Bath has none of these styles its all Gerorgian. Modern would stick out more than it would in Cardiff or London.

Oh please everywhere you look in your average British city you see Victorian buildings - suburban terraces civic buildings factories warehouses inner city apartments shopping arcades etc.The predominant style everywhere is Victorian.Even Cardiffs castle is Victorian.

Modern wouldnt stick out in Bath if done well and this proposal is done well.It even would have given a new lease of life to a derelict building.Indeed you conservationists are a strange breed.You say you want to protect old buildings but its just a lie isnt it?You are just change-averse otherwise youd give thumbs up to schemes like this but no you dont you are perfectly happy to see an old building rotting away.

Hey thats exactly whats happening with Battersea Power Station - EH keep rejecting the proposals - oh no not in keeping overshadowing blahblah.

Sightlines in London have preserved historic views

Er.....can you show me those historic views?All I see when I walk along the Thames is the sea of flat roofs - the result of sightlines.

if crap has been built its not because of them

Yes it is.

but good design is.

Indeed this proposal is good design.

They did care about views, the difference was they were creating the views we are protecting today!

Take a look at Victorian photographs of St Pauls - it was hidden behind tall riverside warehouses.Or how about Tower Bridge?A bit showy and demanding attention no?

Why did they build the houses of parliamnet next to the river

Perhaps because the old Parliament was next to the river no?

The people of the past used to believe in slavery

Thats generalisation.Ever heard of John Wesley?

Oxford and Cambridge are examples of cities built in very similar styles and materials.

Cambridge before university was a thriving fishing village it was destroyed.Atsmosphere character all gone.

If you can give me an example of a modern city built of the same materials and similar style then go ahead because there arnt any in the UK

Poundbury?People hate it though.

Because if you fill the city with modern buildings that pay no attention to the scale of Bath then you loose why people go there to visit.Can you not really see that breaking up the georgian fabric of Bath would result in it being indistinguishable from any other Uk industrial city? We both know that modren development are not based on how wonderful the developer thinks it will look in the end, its how much money they can make from it!

How would it be indistinguishable from any other UK industrial city?First Bath is not industrial city second The Circus The Royal Crescent and The Georgian terraces would still be there.It would be the same city just with more funky conversions and sexy modern buildings.Infact Im sure it would become even more popular.Seriously just look at the amount of tourists near Lloyds or Gherkin.People love bold architecture.

[char]

Originally Posted by london lad

Looks great, and think it would quite match Bath's surroundings. QUITE LOVELY.

[cardiff]

Its outside the city centre and I believe conservation area too.As for what makes Bath special dont know to me it was the hills.

Bath isnt about the city center alone, Bath its about georgian terraces and uniformity of design and materials.

Oh please everywhere you look in your average British city you see Victorian buildings - suburban terraces civic buildings factories warehouses inner city apartments shopping arcades etc.The predominant style everywhere is Victorian.Even Cardiffs castle is Victorian.

Victorian buildings doesnt mean victorian style, the victorians used all sorts of styles from greek classicism to gothic fantasy. Cardiffs castle is not victorian, its roman, norman.... hell its every period of history just look at its website i cant be bothered to explain it all.

Modern wouldnt stick out in Bath if done well and this proposal is done well.It even would have given a new lease of life to a derelict building.Indeed you conservationists are a strange breed.You say you want to protect old buildings but its just a lie isnt it?You are just change-averse otherwise youd give thumbs up to schemes like this but no you dont you are perfectly happy to see an old building rotting away.

1 modern building wouldnt stick out too much, but you are advocating building modern buildings wherever there is an opertunity. Dont lump me in with conservationists, i believe in development but in the right places and Bath is not the kind of place where modern development would sit comfortably. If i was change averse i wouldnt want schemes like the glass needle and Bay pointe go ahead in Cardiff, bay pointe prooving my point in that 3 different schemes have been proposed, the most recent (and least ambitious) is the one i hate! But then bay pointe is on scrap land, next to a modern development on a prominant site, it wouldnt destroy the urban form of anything around it just increase the urban form. Would you be happy with a massive ground scraper canary wharf taking up alot of space? No i dont think you would because we both know that canary wharf is special because it has skyscrapers and therefore new buildings should echo this.

Hey thats exactly whats happening with Battersea Power Station - EH keep rejecting the proposals - oh no not in keeping overshadowing blahblah.

Battersea power station is a completely different subject, the most recent plan for it look rediculous to me.

Er.....can you show me those historic views?All I see when I walk along the Thames is the sea of flat roofs - the result of sightlines.

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


just a quick look for some there

Indeed this proposal is good design.

Its ok, not great.

Take a look at Victorian photographs of St Pauls - it was hidden behind tall riverside warehouses.Or how about Tower Bridge?A bit showy and demanding attention no?

I have taken a look its not hidden behind them, in fact its more hidden now! What tower bridge got to do with anything? It was emulating the style of the building next to it (tower of london) and has become an icon because of that..... it works against your argument.....???????

Perhaps because the old Parliament was next to the river no?

I think it would have been easier to build it elsewhere, there wasnt much left of the old parliamnet!

Cambridge before university was a thriving fishing village it was destroyed.Atsmosphere character all gone.

So are you saying that we should destroy bath to build modern architecture? like was done in Cambridge? Afterall cities are in your words evolving and simply museums!

Poundbury?People hate it though.

Poundbury isnt an example of a town/city designed modernly, its desgined in an old style.

How would it be indistinguishable from any other UK industrial city?First Bath is not industrial city second The Circus The Royal Crescent and The Georgian terraces would still be there.It would be the same city just with more funky conversions and sexy modern buildings.Infact Im sure it would become even more popular.Seriously just look at the amount of tourists near Lloyds or Gherkin.People love bold architecture.

people dont go to Bath to see a set piece, they go becasue the WHOLE city is the attraction. Walk any of the georgian terraces and tell me you think it would look much better with a large modern building sticking out. baths beauty is in its uniformity not its diversity. Its the same reason why Paris is described as the most beautiful city in the world, because its arguably the largest city with an area of uniformity of design and materials, the difference is that Paris is a large enough city, and has classical buildings of significant size to be able to get away with large maodern buildings in its center, Bath is tiny!

[capslock]

Originally Posted by cardiff

Bath isnt about the city center alone, Bath its about georgian terraces and uniformity of design and materials.

A little bit about the context of the site, which you seem to be entirely ignorant of.

This is on the south side of the River Avon outside of the historic centre of Bath. It's immediate context to the south is the busy Lower Bristol Road, with a petrol station opposite. As El Greco has pointed out, the buildings immediately besides it to the east are large 4-storey high, brick built industrial warehouses. Immediately oppsite the site to the north, on the opposite side of the river is a large carpark, a knackered multi-storey with a 'temporary' steel and concrete structure built in the 1960s and a coach park for visting hoards of French school children. No Georgian terraces, no Bath stone. I presume therefore that would have liked to see this building designed to fit in with surroundings, with the exception of all the buildings that immediately surround it? A brick and concrete 4-storey high lump reminiscent of a petrol station then?

Fortunately the architects are aware that designing in context in Bath is about more than slapping Bath stone on it. Not that I think this is the greatest design in the world, but going by those obviously early concept renders, I'd say this building would not have harmed the 'setting' of Bath one iota! Unlike in my view, the Southgate Centre, which chepens the genuine charms of Bath's historic core through theme-park style mimicry. If that was the genuine planning approach city wide, you'd lose Bath in place of a Disney style Georgian-Land (children welcome - includes free entry to Jane Austen World). Depressing!

Secondly, when Dyson approached the council about building an engineering school, this was the site that they suggested. The scheme was at a later date entirely redesigned to retain the unlisted facade on the Bristol Road to appease the heritage lobby, before the scheme was later being kicked out by the same council that chose the site, because the site was on a floodplain.

Have a read of this

[london lad]

"Heritage fanatics stridently resist any bold contemporary initiative, but tolerate stultifying mediocrity".


This sentence from the article is spot on although rather depressing. For every Shard & Heron tower that gets opposed by the heritage nimbys several dire premier inn's & Holiday Inn express breeze through planning & deface city centres for years to come.