Elizabeth House Redevelopment | Waterloo | 123m/53m | 29/10 fl | Approved

[Smoggie_Si]

Originally Posted by fitz44

And are they really proposing to leave the side wall of Waterloo Station exposed like that? Poor integration with surrounding buildings A&M.

Absolutely, this was a huge opportunity for an imaginative architect to come up with something that really related to Waterloo station and the Shell Centre but no a bland glass box The blank side wall epitomises how lazy A&M have been.

Manuel, I totally agree about the Blue Fin building, it's not a fashionable view on these forums but despite its bulk I actually think it works very well and the cladding is great. Southwark Street is a very different proposition locationwise to Elizabeth House though!

[Manuel]

@darjole
2 of the 3 buildings are twisting slightly on themselves.
the cladding, very repetitive and graphic may complement the simple window pattern of the shell centre.

I would hate something organic for this site. The wall effect is working well with Shell and the round London eye that soars above them all.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Manuel

2 of the 3 buildings are twisting slightly on themselves.

Whoopie do. Thousands of years of architecture that has seen mankind build and redefine the surface of the earth as we know with all manner of structures and all of a sudden changing the angle of a facade of a box is seen as an architectural highlight. Have we really dumbed down that far? I honestly think the world has gone mad.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

I honestly think the world has gone mad.

Well at least we agree on one thing.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

It really pisses me off that these will simply fly through the planning process.

Well, what do you expect? They aren't tall - which is all that matters these days.

Aesthetically, this project is abysmal, possibly the dullest looking towers I've ever seen. It's truly, eye-wateringly bad.

[Manuel]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Whoopie do. Thousands of years of architecture that has seen mankind build and redefine the surface of the earth as we know with all manner of structures and all of a sudden changing the angle of a facade of a box is seen as an architectural highlight. Have we really dumbed down that far? I honestly think the world has gone mad.

London is not some kind of Dubai Zoo, thats the way we're going mad...

Did you like any of the other proposed designs (Make...)?

[DarJoLe]

The MAKE proposal was hefty, but if it had been built would have been quite an impressive piece of engineering.

The original A+M masterplan of three towers in different heights worked well. I wanted the three buildings to be different though - possibly something like what is being built at the World Trade Center in New York - somewhat similar, but each different.

[The Sage]

Still very poor. So much bulk, so little style.

[Manuel]

@Darjole

So basically Darjole, you would like another signature, a new statement in this location?
Dont you think there's not much room for that...there's the parliament right on the other side, the Eye, the Shell...

[The Sage]

Hmm. Naah. I think i'll let someone else rip that apart.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Manuel

So basically Darjole, you would like another signature, a new statement in this location?

Yes. All our tall buildings need to be well designed and give off a sense of wonder and awe.

Originally Posted by Manuel

Dont you think there's not much room for that...there's the parliament right on the other side, the Eye, the Shell...

We shouldn't shy away from adding more icons to London's skyline. London simply absorbs whatever is built on its skyline, and filters out the bad and turns it into background noise.

What would be perfect for this location? Possibly a Heron Tower, something with a spire. And two other towers at a separate angle by two other architects that worked up in height to the Eye from the Waterloo Bridge view.

[wjfox]

What's needed here is variation in scale and height, and at least some attempt to be creative, different or visually stimulating. This project offers no such qualities. It's bland as can be, and the "safest" possible height, which combined with its monotone grey cladding will form a wall effect with the neighbouring Shell Building. Can't you see this Manuel??!

[Manuel]

@Darjole
I get your point...that's bold!...maybe I'm too sceptical of what's being built right now to take the risk to enable very tall buildings in this particular location...

@Wj
Yes I can see it...it can be graphic and sleek but too conservative one may think...

[ill tonkso]

Leaving aside my negative attitude tonight (which i appoligise for in advance), i think these will do some good to be honest, when the other south bankies go up, combined with the Union Jack Club and Shell, will create some nice bulk for a future project. (How about Shard Waterloo hehe)

[DarJoLe]

Something like this - three buildings that don't create a wall but create a dynamic cluster.

This:
image hosted on flickr


Not this:

[Manuel]

Dont want to go to much into it but I wont be among the ones that tolerate distracting the eye from the Parliament and the imperial north bank of the Thames.

What function would these towers have? office space? residential space? is it really necessary to get louder than the rest for these types of functions in this sensitive location?

There are not symbolic nor inspiring functions and furthermore, the City and CW are already full of money markers! I know London is some kind of avatar of Neo liberalism but there are other meanings and symbols out there that can be preserved into this rich mix that is London.

[DarJoLe]

You know what, you could put the Shard in Parliament Square and the Houses of Parliament wouldn't lose its importance. when you stand on Waterloo Bridge you can barely see Big Ben thanks to the pylons on Hungerford Bridge and the more blocky buildings along the riverfront. They are the ones that detract rather than thin tall inspiring shiny reaching for the heavens skyscrapers on the opposite bank of the river.

[potto]

Originally Posted by Manuel

Dont want to go to much into it but I wont be among the ones that tolerate distracting the eye from the Parliament and the imperial north bank of the Thames.

but a large wall, which seems to be the goal of the massing of this project; in fact a wall far larger than the houses of parliament (and all the buildings on the north) will dominate as well. It will dominate in a negative way because that part of the skyline will now look ugly. We've already seen this effect in Canary Wharf and to a lesser degree with the more spread, old mid-rises in the City and it just doesnt look good. It looks forced and uncomfortable, bulging at the seams and not one bit of space given to aesthetic.

Cambridge the City of spires, probably the UKs most celebrated skyline, not because there is any one structure that stands out symbolically but each one is dramatic and tries to do something special and as a whole it works as a sum greater than its parts. London, indeed any city should always aim for this. Massing seems to be a particular problem with offices, LBT showed a clever mix use policy to the advantage of aesthetic and we see here another example of sight lines and blanket height limits to protect a very specific view at the expense of far far wider variety of views. We have to ask if it really is worth it? Similar issues but perhaps slightly less wall like is the new developments at Victoria.

[UrbanG]

Originally Posted by fitz44

And are they really proposing to leave the side wall of Waterloo Station exposed like that? Poor integration with surrounding buildings A&M.

wow! shocking render-how crude is that I thought there would have been some effort to integrate this with waterloo station - this looks almost worse than what its replacing.

[gothicform]

this is the sad thing about this scheme. the original elizabeth house scheme was much superior to this, but one of the reasons it was dumped was that the planning authorities felt it tried to do too much at the base. by too much i mean move a road, create a new public space, sort out the poor pedestrian circulation and access in the area.