daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy (aug.2, 2013) | DMCA policy | flipboard magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > London Metro Area > Completed projects



View Poll Results: Would you support the demolition of Guys Hospital?
Yes! – demolish it completely, it’s a hideous and oppressive building. 307 42.17%
No – but I’d support a renovation, or some kind of reclad/reworking of the structure. 336 46.15%
No – it’s an important and historic piece of architecture and should be left alone. 65 8.93%
Not sure. 20 2.75%
Voters: 728. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 24th, 2007, 05:12 PM   #81
Evil Bert
Registered User
 
Evil Bert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 138
Likes (Received): 0

they need to get rid of it. it ruins the appearance of LBT which is a tower that should stand alone
Evil Bert no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old September 24th, 2007, 05:14 PM   #82
gothicform
Bossman
 
gothicform's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: s****horpe
Posts: 30,428
Likes (Received): 2236

they need to get rid of what is the tallest brutalist tower on the planet? this building is architecturally outstanding, one of the best examples of brutalism in the country. it meets all the listing criteria.
gothicform no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 05:40 PM   #83
Megalothian
Blood, sweat, gravy, egg.
 
Megalothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,519
Likes (Received): 92



Pay me a few million and i'll give it a lick of paint!...
Megalothian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 05:42 PM   #84
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,671
Likes (Received): 1619

sorry Alsop beat you too it
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 05:57 PM   #85
wjfox
Save the bees!
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 37,333
Likes (Received): 5260

Quote:
Originally Posted by gothicform View Post
they need to get rid of what is the tallest brutalist tower on the planet? this building is architecturally outstanding, one of the best examples of brutalism in the country. it meets all the listing criteria.
But it's fucking grotesque.
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 06:27 PM   #86
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by gothicform View Post
they need to get rid of what is the tallest brutalist tower on the planet? this building is architecturally outstanding, one of the best examples of brutalism in the country. it meets all the listing criteria.
Are you serious? "Brutalism" shouldn't be allowed to pass itself off as some high-concept architectural style. It's not - it's just the result of, and a post-hoc excuse for, the clumsy use of cheap concrete, usually almost entirely devoid of any aesthetic intention whatever. The fact (I assume you're correct in this) that Guy's Tower is the tallest example of it in the world is a very good argument for pulling it down, or at the very least recladding it. If the listing criteria mean that this of all buildings should be preserved as is, then the listing criteria are utterly stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjfox2002 View Post
But it's fucking grotesque.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 06:39 PM   #87
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 16,883
Likes (Received): 1525

We should keep an example of every trend of architecture in London, but brutalism is such a controversial form of building that is definitely challenging to the idea of beauty. Part of its beauty lies in its harshness and unapologetic dark nature.

That said, Guys isn't a particularly 'attractive' piece of brutalist architecture. I find the Hayward Gallery or Robin Hood Gardens far more interesting structurally than I ever would with Guys. Having it as a listed building simply because it is the tallest example of brutalism doesn't really cut it with me I'm afraid- I wouldn't want the concrete chimneys of power stations listed, even though they have a similar liking to the tall nature of Guys.

That said, a reclad could make this building look worse, and if The Shard goes up next to it might even detract from the beauty of the Shard. Imagine it clad in a style similar to the plastic cladding that seems to be appearing on our new builds such as Travelodge's up and down the country. It will look like the Lidl trying to be a Tescos next to the Harrods Food Hall - out of place and bringing it all down. At least leaving it in brutal fashion leaves it for what it is and doesn't make an apology for itself (although I wholeheartedly support a total scrub down of the exterior).
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 06:40 PM   #88
gothicform
Bossman
 
gothicform's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: s****horpe
Posts: 30,428
Likes (Received): 2236

i dont care whether its grotesque or not, who the fuck made you the decider of good taste? we should be preserving one of the most significant examples of one of the leading post war styles of architecture because of its sheer historical importance. all it needs is a clean.

most of all though, people are too fucking stupid to realise that when a style reaches about 50 years old we start to knock it down because it looks dated. then when it reaches 100 years old we fight to preserve it because we recognise its historical worth over and over and over.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=521143
gothicform no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 07:01 PM   #89
mulattokid
BLAND
 
mulattokid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London
Posts: 8,673
Likes (Received): 237

^ as I say, it should be kept as an example of its era. Imagine a world where we can only....well imagine.

Architectural fascism should be a crime. London has more than enough room to show everything...time is not a representation of ones personal likes and dislikes.
__________________
Quote: "Everything in life is our fault...but that's not our fault" (By a friend of Quentin Crisp)
www.jclodge.com (my singer sisters site)
The headlines read: 'another footballer is charged with sexual miscontuct'!

Is it pure coincidence that a mans Scrotum resembles a brain - requisite with both hemispheres, and its truncated spinal cord - always in search of sensation?
(Mark Joseph 2008)
mulattokid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 07:08 PM   #90
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by gothicform View Post
i dont care whether its grotesque or not, who the fuck made you the decider of good taste? we should be preserving one of the most significant examples of one of the leading post war styles of architecture because of its sheer historical importance. all it needs is a clean.
I'm not sure if your question is directed to me, but certainly no one made me the arbiter of good taste; and I wouldn't deny for a moment that taste is subjective. You could make the case that "brutalism" of this sort is historically important because it sheds light on the lack of money for public buildings in the post-war decades and the recourse therefore to poorly designed and cheaply built concrete towers. But architecturally important? I really don't think so. Lumping "brutalism" together with actual architectural styles such as neoclassicism, art deco, or whatever you'd call the big-glass-shapes style we're seeing now, is elevating it way beyond anything honest practitioners of it themselves would ever have claimed.

I'd go a bit further even. As human beings occupying this planet we are to a very large extent in control of our environment. We can choose what to preserve of the past, and what to destroy, replace or improve. Even if so-called "brutalism" were an important architectural style, which I don't accept for a moment, we could still decide nonetheless to get rid of all the buildings so described because they suck so much. It's our choice whether that's a massive improvement to our built environment or a terrible loss to history, and if you believe it's the latter then I have no doubt you're in a very tiny minority. Take all the pictures and video footage you want, build models... then get rid of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gothicform View Post
most of all though, people are too fucking stupid to realise that when a style reaches about 50 years old we start to knock it down because it looks dated. then when it reaches 100 years old we fight to preserve it because we recognise its historical worth over and over and over.
Yes, people clearly do make that mistake, but by that argument we should be preserving pretty much everything ever built just in case it seems historically important at some point in the future. Somewhere we always have to draw the line, as some buildings always have to be replaced for cities to develop. A reasonable place to draw that line, it seems to me, is at buildings that anyone in their right mind can see are without any architectural interest or merit whatever (and I come back to whether there was any aesthetic intent to speak of in the first place) and that are clearly ruining the skyline for everything else around them.

Knock down Guy's Tower tomorrow (if that were possible without killing a load of patients, nurses, etc) and I'd be quite willing to bet that in 50 years' time no one would be regretting it.
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 07:12 PM   #91
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,671
Likes (Received): 1619

Im not convinced. I think that there is a very clear division between say pre war and post war. It is the division of hand craft & human scale versus mass production & infinity. We have always hated the past because things become outdated and we constantly seek ways to improve our lives. It seems that until post war britain there was only minor concern for cherishing buildings as opposed to improving them.

However in the age of mass production and engineering technology that allows for unlimited structures the things that were previously handcrafted and limited to certain forms suddenly became 'endangered', their crafted appearance suddenly felt (and practically were) irreplaceable in the current climate of the machine and the financial constraints that this implies.

This hand crafted frission also extrapolates to the global scale of building technology and form, the UK devoid of a national style did not compete at all on this now global level. So the case for preserving the best or first example of a style is also defunct.

I feel that there is probably an intellectual arguement for protecting certain post war buildings, say the Barbican for example, it may never be loved by a majority and requires a specialist understanding of architectural trends. It is a bit like the change from art as a form of craftsmanship to art as concept (modern art). It is this that makes it very difficult to be so sure about saving buildings, certainly trends and fashions will change ever more regularly as building methods and technologies improve, do we start to list a building just because it was built in a certain year?!

The fact that the majority find Guys tower aesthetically ugly rather than neutral, the fact we could build an exact replica in half the time and cost, the fact that it has offerered nothing and has had no interaction to the culture of who we are gives a damning indicment on the building. I would much rather look to the myriad of other contraverial structures that exist but at least have interacted with us culturally.

Having said that Im quite open to the arguements for listing a structue just that I do not agree with the case that because we found old buildings worthy of saving before automatically means we need to do the same now... as I said at the beggining, the world has changed fundamentally .

Last edited by potto; October 7th, 2007 at 02:48 PM.
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 07:49 PM   #92
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by mulattokid View Post
Architectural fascism should be a crime. London has more than enough room to show everything...time is not a representation of ones personal likes and dislikes.
I don't think "architectural facsism" is a meaningful phrase. Fascism is a crime; getting rid of buildings (of whatever style or quality) may sometimes be a terrible mistake, but it's not a crime in that sense, and even if it were I don't see that it would be fair to compare it to fascism!

I agree that personal (i.e. one person's, or an elite's) taste should not on the whole dictate which buildings are and are not preserved. That could easily lead to architectural homogeneity, which has indeed happened where you've had for example strong monarchs or political leaders appointing their own architect to rebuild an entire city. Sometimes the results are great, of course, e.g. Haussman's Paris, but it's not how London has developed, and I'm not advocating it now. I expect and hope to keep living in a city where I like some buildings and dislike others.

But as I wrote in response to gothicform's slightly intemperate post, I think it's dangerous for us to be so paranoid about losing anything of historical value that we feel obliged to keep almost anything. There are difficult cases - was it right to let the Baltic Exchange go (to the Baltic, as it turned out) and get the Gherkin in exchange? The Gherkin's wonderful, but most would agree that the Baltic E was a beautiful and historically important building. But then there are easy cases - and I believe Guy's Tower is one such.

Last edited by Officer Dibble; September 24th, 2007 at 08:45 PM.
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 08:13 PM   #93
gothicform
Bossman
 
gothicform's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: s****horpe
Posts: 30,428
Likes (Received): 2236

Quote:
the UK devoid of a national style did not compete at all on this now global level.
come on now, this simply isnt true. gothic revivalism not only dominated the agenda in the uk for years, and indeed was used in parliament specifically because it was considered a national style, but then spread across the world whether it was buildings the british built themselves or early skyscrapers in america, grand national european projects like cologne cathedral. by the outbreak of world was one gothic revivalism was considered THE leading style in the world.
we have hawksmoor and wyatt starting it and then britten, pugin, ruskin, scott and so on all leading this charge and you can see the effects of it right up to the woolworths building and even early empire state building designs which were gothic revival. of course art deco overtook them as the 20th century matured it was, and probably still is our national style. its exactly what people think of when they picture england, dreaming spires...

gothicform no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 08:15 PM   #94
hugh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Don't call it Frisco
Posts: 1,712
Likes (Received): 364

Guy's is at least uncompromising - unlike a lot of more recent architecture in this country. It's a good example of when architects dared. I'd support conserving it - unless some other building was proposed that was outstanding - then by all means tear it down.
hugh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 08:15 PM   #95
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 240

potto I don't know if you're "I'm not convinced" was in response to my post, but for what it's worth I agreed entirely with yours!
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 08:35 PM   #96
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugh View Post
Guy's is at least uncompromising - unlike a lot of more recent architecture in this country. It's a good example of when architects dared. I'd support conserving it - unless some other building was proposed that was outstanding - then by all means tear it down.
Compromise isn't always a bad thing. I don't think the architect was daring, I think he was just allowed to come up with any old rubbish as long as it had lots of floor space for the new hospital and didn't cost much. If someone had made him compromise by insisting that the building also improve rather than ruin the street layout, and be reasonable to look at, it would have been a better building for it, and could have been far more daring - because he might then have bothered to design something interesting.
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 08:36 PM   #97
El_Greco
Flâneur Extraordinaire
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 17,690
Likes (Received): 1740

Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer Dibble View Post
was it right to let the Baltic Exchange go (to the Baltic, as it turned out) and get the Gherkin in exchange?
To be honest The Baltic Exchange was nothing special - there are much better examples of Victorian Italianate architecture in London but of course its shame that its been sold...
EH or someone else shouldve bought it and rebuilt somewhere (in one of London parks for example).
__________________
My Photos : Bergen|Brussels|Fes|Lisbon|London|Madrid|Naples|Paris|Rome|Rotterdam
El_Greco está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 08:43 PM   #98
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
To be honest The Baltic Exchange was nothing special - there are much better examples of Victorian Italianate architecture in London but of course its shame that its been sold...
EH or someone else shouldve bought it and rebuilt somewhere (in one of London parks for example).
Yes, it wasn't a masterpiece, and ultimately it was probably the right decision to let it go. Which makes it all the more astonishing that people think we shouldn't let Guy's Tower go (or get reclad) if we get the chance.



vs

Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 11:12 PM   #99
mulattokid
BLAND
 
mulattokid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London
Posts: 8,673
Likes (Received): 237

Yes, but there is another point...Guys Tower is a point in history...not just history, but more locally..our history...I recall Guys being built. Now..it was not just another building in the style of..'lets see what we can build as quickly as possible and as cheaply'...it was so much more than that! It is modern, it wis public, it was the GREAT NHS (and still is) If it was some businessmans Phallus, I might agree, but it is part of the great British social system and was percieved, designed and built for that purpose, that makes this tower an important part of our society, a bit like a pyramid...a time when we had vision, hope, money and weight. It is a valuable piece of our history and a record of our evolution The great future...what the fuck is up with the 't's on this keyboard...bas ards!!!
__________________
Quote: "Everything in life is our fault...but that's not our fault" (By a friend of Quentin Crisp)
www.jclodge.com (my singer sisters site)
The headlines read: 'another footballer is charged with sexual miscontuct'!

Is it pure coincidence that a mans Scrotum resembles a brain - requisite with both hemispheres, and its truncated spinal cord - always in search of sensation?
(Mark Joseph 2008)
mulattokid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 11:31 PM   #100
wjfox
Save the bees!
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 37,333
Likes (Received): 5260

Poll added...
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
hospital, london

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu