daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

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

The Construction Forum For everything tall going up in London right now.



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 5.00 average.
Old September 10th, 2007, 10:13 AM   #21
UrbanG
Registered User
 
UrbanG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 363
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by NothingBetterToDo View Post
These are all the pics i could find, it may not look it in the pics, but it is a rather impressive building. I remember walking down that road a couple of years ago and my friends (not interesting in buildings at all) even commented on it looking good.

(Also, its not actually victorian, oops..its more modern that that...1920's from what i could find, but still very much worth saving i think)










IMG Is this being demolished?? what the hell is wrong with it!!
UrbanG no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old September 10th, 2007, 12:46 PM   #22
johnnypd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Norwich
Posts: 6,131
Likes (Received): 148

the little open courtyard pictured, facing onto charlotte street (iirc), would make a great valet style entrance, the type you see on big grand hotels and apartment buildings in the States.
johnnypd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 12:52 PM   #23
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,806
Likes (Received): 508

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnypd View Post
tart up the hospital, keep most the facades, redevelop some of the interior, turn it into offices, apartments, a hotel, lease out part to nearby UCL, put in some ground floor shops and so on. would be commonsense in most places, but not london sadly.
Slight problem with this is its an old NHS hospital not particularly suited to conversion & is a hox potch mix of buildings from a few era's ,as are most NHS hospitals. I posted an overhead image of this site when the same discussion came up in the London thread way back which showed it was a bit of a mess. I can't say i'm particularly impressed with certain aspects of this MAKE scheme . The renderings are not very good so its difficult to judge it. Until we can get a design & access statement (has anybody go on the westminster website to get it??) i'll reserve judgment until then.
london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 01:42 PM   #24
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,190
Likes (Received): 190

It's ashame that make and candy and candy's scheme didn't even attempt to use the existing building and instead are insistant on demolition of yet another building that makes this part of London what it is 'pun not intended '. English heritage are again absent, what a surprise. Just because this building is tucked away and in some respects hardly known, it doesnt mean it has some architectual and contextual importance to the area.
delores no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 01:52 PM   #25
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 17,206
Likes (Received): 1943

AJPlus.co.uk
Published 10 September 2007 at 11:47
Make is quick to win approval for central London’s Middlesex Hospital



Ken Shuttleworth’s practice Make has won the go-ahead for this ambitious £1 billion overhaul of the former Middlesex Hospital in Fitzrovia, central London, in double quick time.
The scheme, which will create 273 homes and 33,000m2 of office space, was only submitted for planning in February (Make aims for £1 billion overhaul of central London hospital) and has now been approved unanimously by Westminster City Council’s planning committee.

Backed by developer Project Abbey (Guernsey) – the winner of a high-profile bidding war to redevelop the 1920s red-brick hospital building last October – the 95,000m2 development will wrap around a ‘jewel-like’ chapel in a new public square at the heart of the scheme.

Interior design company Candy & Candy will be leading the fit-out of the scheme, which has been dubbed Noho Square.

Speaking for Project Abbey (Guernsey), Christian Candy, also a partner in Candy & Candy, said: ‘It is a remarkable achievement to have gained planning approval for such a major scheme in such a short amount of time. This is in no small way due to the efforts of the world-class team involved.’

Shuttleworth added: ‘The key driver behind our design has been the need to open up the site and transform it into a dynamic new urban focal point that combines world-class architecture with the creation of a generous new public space - the first such amenity in this area of London.’



by Richard Waite
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 03:38 PM   #26
JGG
LONDON - Westminster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,841
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by NothingBetterToDo View Post
These are all the pics i could find, it may not look it in the pics, but it is a rather impressive building. I remember walking down that road a couple of years ago and my friends (not interesting in buildings at all) even commented on it looking good.

(Also, its not actually victorian, oops..its more modern that that...1920's from what i could find, but still very much worth saving i think)










This is indeed what it looks like.

I walked along the site with a German real estate investor and explained to him what was happening. His answer: well, in 20 years' time they will be able to blame on the second world war!

This new scheme is utter crap compared to what it is replacing. I could be sufficiently progressive in accepting the old goes, but not for some development of which the architectural merit is at or below council housing standards!
JGG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 04:02 PM   #27
johnnypd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Norwich
Posts: 6,131
Likes (Received): 148

Quote:
Originally Posted by london lad View Post
Slight problem with this is its an old NHS hospital not particularly suited to conversion & is a hox potch mix of buildings from a few era's ,as are most NHS hospitals. I posted an overhead image of this site when the same discussion came up in the London thread way back which showed it was a bit of a mess. I can't say i'm particularly impressed with certain aspects of this MAKE scheme . The renderings are not very good so its difficult to judge it. Until we can get a design & access statement (has anybody go on the westminster website to get it??) i'll reserve judgment until then.
i don't really buy that and i think it betrays a lack of imagination on your part to emphasise the problems rather than the potential of refurbishment. the main facades could be retained and the insides redeveloped, while smaller, later additions that detract from the overall balance of the structure, as well as most of the interior structures can be demolished. would also be a good idea to add some modern elements where possible, for instance adding a glazed floor or two on the shorter facades, or an inner courtyard not unlike what is being proposed already. even this new scheme proposes that some of the smaller buildings' facades are maintained so it shows that it is possible.

there's going to be problems renovating any building or site but it doesn't mean that renovation shouldn't be done. likewise, youre going to encounter problems demolishing such a huge site and then building anew in central london, but i don't see anyone arguing against demolition anywhere on those grounds.

some of the adjoining buildings on the site:


johnnypd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 04:07 PM   #28
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 17,206
Likes (Received): 1943

One of the facades is remaining, as you can see on the model rendering.
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 05:12 PM   #29
NothingBetterToDo
Better To Do Nothing
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 10,494
Likes (Received): 9

yeah, but its hardly the most impressive facade.

I would perhaps be slightly more understanding if they were keeping the grand front of the building. But they appear to be keeping the plain, less impressive side-facade as a cynical nod to appease the planners, and objectors. They can simply say "oh, but we are retaining some facades".

Not only that, but the facade they are keeping isnt even encorporated very well into the rest of the scheme, it is simply swallowed up and engulfed by the amorphous blob that surrounds it.
__________________
My Pictures:
London - Amsterdam - Copenhagen - Berlin - Oslo - Bergen - Prague - Dublin
NothingBetterToDo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 06:41 PM   #30
El_Greco
Flāneur Extraordinaire
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 17,728
Likes (Received): 2021

We cant do quality modern architecture can we?
Bankside 123 More London North Bank this etc etc. all horrible buildings...and then modernist lobby ask why people have no confidence in modern architecture?Seems pretty obvious to me - it sucks.For every Swiss Re there are ten More Londons.

Oh and before you attack me and start telling to stop living in the past - Im not living in the past I just wish architects started using their imagination.
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 06:46 PM   #31
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 17,206
Likes (Received): 1943

I think there's a fundamental rationale running through a lot of these London projects which I think is another discussion topic in itself - density.

We are always told that London needs to think dense and increase density in its new builds to stop urban sprawl; but is this simply a case of developers bloating plots to their fullest? Is the rush for ever increasing density simply creating massive overbearing projects in areas that should be maintained as low density?

Look at the More Londons, Tower Places, Minerva Wallbrooks, St Giles Courts and St Botolphs from the air; they are massive buildings compared to what is around them. Is it a case that the modern day office has become too large for London to cope with?
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 07:26 PM   #32
fitz44
Registered User
 
fitz44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,201
Likes (Received): 20

It's hard to make a proper judgement on the renders so far. The MAKE proposal looks like a typical compromise to please the planners - pitched roofs, stone facades, all the architectural interest limited to the inside of the design. I don't think we'll achieve true excellence untill "contextual" restrictions like this are lifted and large sites like the Middlesex Hospital go to competition. In fact - what has happened to architectural competitions? They were all the rage a few years ago but nowadays we just seem to get a single proposal and then watch it slowly strangled by planners who helpfully "improve" it.
__________________
London Random and Unseen Photos; http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=637985
fitz44 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 07:43 PM   #33
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 15,068
Likes (Received): 2083

It isn’t the density as such, it is the aesthetic that is being employed. Every generation was able to plonk massive buildings in the middle of developed areas and bulk things up, juxtaposing different scales. They were forced to use 100% human input from crafting the building materials to the timeline for hammering out the design, this all meant that the creation more than often ended up with detail and proportions that felt integral to the human spirit, it was literally created in our image.

Now we don’t need to waste time on that (warning to anyone longing for the past, forget about it! It is over, gone, but maybe we can learn from it though?). Now is a time of off-the-shelf cladding, cost cutting on the aesthetic… after all architecture is about purity, about the engineering right?

The Kings Place development for example being finished off as we speak and quite a high profile building with a regeneration agenda it just appears very awkward and unattracive. The vastness which makes it feel clumsy rather than impressive when compared to the surrounding buildings is primarily caused by the fact that huge swathes of the side are covered in repetitive panels of cladding... there is nothing there, it is dead space to the eye, sure there is lovely texture in the stone cladding but you have to get up close and dirty to appreciate it.

There is also a curvy glass facade but it is so feeble and seemingly disjointed from the rest of the development that it comes across as a mere token gesture a bit like the crass moments of exuberance seen on most modern skyscrapers! Oh look it has a hole in the middle of the top, another with a spiky crown roof!

The other feature apart from the clumsy cladding is the roof line! How many modern buildings have I seen that just do not play with the skyline! Not one jot! This one failure single handedly causes chaos with surrounding buildings if they are of older stock. Every old building of a mainly horizontal proportion is split up with details containing heavily vertical emphasis.

There are 2 threads that I see causing this problem, there is a the notion of modern architecture being just about internal space and the ideology of architectural purity is failing to link with the vital external aesthetic, thus giving developers an easy way out on their route to cost-cutting heaven... something which RIBA recently hinted at it was hoping to address.

The other tragedy looking to seal the coffin lid on attractive buildings is the terrifying height limit and the fear of seeing buildings. Lets face it big buildings are going to need more verticality to play with to get the proportions right. In the example here, the route through the building looks great, the cladding possibly too repetitive along the horizontal, but the worse part is the skyline is flat, just flat, why? The developers want to make money; let them make money AND let us force them to create an aesthetically pleasing celebration on the skyline. Instead of the building above picture instead a Tate modern extension or the Bucklersbury house redevelopment!
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 09:31 PM   #34
randolph
Registered User
 
randolph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 1,828
Likes (Received): 89

I can't believe that the old buildings can't be coverted into flats, offices etc. Leave it alone! Bit by bit we will chip away at our city, taking down buildings we should preserve and too often replacing them with poor and unispiring architecture! Where are EH when they are needed?
__________________
Hear My songs at
https://lexbrenandtheprettyboys.bandcamp.com
randolph no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 09:41 PM   #35
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,806
Likes (Received): 508

johmmy its not a lack of imagination but a dose of realism.

As I said this site is not as simply as keeping the perimeter facades as there are a number of buildings on this site. I quite like the present building but will not dismiss the MAkE proposal out of hand just from a couple of not very good renderings. You might not get the courtayrd but it opens up the sie a lot more than the present building.Until we see more detailed drawings & renderings I will make a judgement then

london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 09:56 PM   #36
PresidentBjork
Naturally hairy.
 
PresidentBjork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,850
Likes (Received): 1290

To be honest, the renderings aren't comprehensive, but they're enough to get the jist of this building. My previous exaltations against this proposal weren't simply because it's one potential mistake, it's because the proposal is a reminder of all those other utterly uninspired buildings going up around the city. There are so many devoid of architectural merit, but accepted due to the fact they don't break that precious height restriction barrier. You can't expect wonders on every doorstep I know, but there is clear evidence around London that buildings and their styles can be congruous with their neighbors, yet remain interesting in themselves. Of course, there are many buildings that make up this block which makes it harder to renovate, but the fact is when other cities sell of an entire block, amalgamating the floorspace into one, they build a skyscraper. The buildings in London strive to have generous square footage, but are limited by often not being able to go up. The results are dull buildings externally as most of the effort put into the design has gone into making the floorspace within as large as possible. This is only worse when that new building looks worse, and is less congruous to its surroundings, then it's predecessor.
__________________
Free kdwęd.
PresidentBjork no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 10:32 PM   #37
jimbo
Registered User
 
jimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Leeds/London
Posts: 4,673
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by london lad View Post
Slight problem with this is its an old NHS hospital not particularly suited to conversion & is a hox potch mix of buildings from a few era's ,as are most NHS hospitals. I posted an overhead image of this site when the same discussion came up in the London thread way back which showed it was a bit of a mess. I can't say i'm particularly impressed with certain aspects of this MAKE scheme . The renderings are not very good so its difficult to judge it. Until we can get a design & access statement (has anybody go on the westminster website to get it??) i'll reserve judgment until then.
almost like a re run of the One New Change debate. The Middlesex site is slightly older, but very much in the same style as One New Change was. As londonlad rightly alludes to, conversion of these building with their narrow corridors and no doubt rabbit warren layout is always going to be difficult. At least they are retaining what appears to be 1/4 of the facade - but I'm actually rather keen on this scheme - the internal courtyard looks most funky.

What narks me is the ridiculous adoption of another New York name. Noho is North of Houston Street in NYC, not sure what's the reference is here. Its north of Berners Street, Oxford Street and Mortimer Street, but that's yer lot!
jimbo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 12:12 AM   #38
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,190
Likes (Received): 190

also can candy and candy stop saying its ' world class architecture'?? what does that really mean anyway. To me it says we have no history or architectual heritage and need some big name to make the scheme viable. Make are hardly well known and to be honest havent exactly built much either also I personally believe that what they have come up with is pretty poor architectually and is no masterpiece by any standards.
delores no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 12:18 AM   #39
CaptainJason
Registered User
 
CaptainJason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 837
Likes (Received): 0

why are they demolishing that building to build that crap?
the inner courtyard is ok looking, rest is abit naff looking. its this sort of crap getting build opposed to the odd skyscraper getting built that does the most damage. EH really should thing about what there actual aim is, because as it is it isnt protecting the architectural heritage.

and the fact they are reatining some of the origional facade shows that it can be done if they really wanted to take the time and effort
__________________
Visit my city :D

http://smithdown.myminicity.com/

Last edited by CaptainJason; September 11th, 2007 at 12:31 AM.
CaptainJason no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 12:27 AM   #40
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 17,206
Likes (Received): 1943

Quote:
Originally Posted by delores View Post
Make are hardly well known and to be honest havent exactly built much either also I personally believe that what they have come up with is pretty poor architectually and is no masterpiece by any standards.
To be fair they've only been around for four years and it's only now there first batch of projects are being completed. From what I've seen though they seem to be very well crafted and a lot more exciting than what many other similar practices are building.
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 07:17 AM.


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