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

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.



Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 10 votes, 5.00 average.
Old September 11th, 2007, 03:23 AM   #41
Jack Rabbit Slim
Divemaster!
 
Jack Rabbit Slim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The Empire
Posts: 6,442
Likes (Received): 2550

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
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.
Exactly. Although we do differ in the viewpoints of this building... I think it looks fairly decent, not half as bad as some examples like MoreLondon or the City Hall.

One thing we can all agree on though (after seeing those pics) is that knocking down such a great looking building is ******* criminal...I mean that literally, there should be laws against it...why the fuk arn't there laws against it? I'd love to hear what EH have to say about it....why exactly arn't they opposing it?
Jack Rabbit Slim no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old September 11th, 2007, 03:30 AM   #42
El_Greco
Flâneur Extraordinaire
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 17,696
Likes (Received): 1819

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Rabbit Slim View Post
I'd love to hear what EH have to say about it....why exactly arn't they opposing it?
I bet EH would say the same thing they said about Smithfield - 'Its of little architectural merit'.
__________________
My Photos : Bergen|Brussels|Fes|Lisbon|London|Madrid|Naples|Paris|Rome|Rotterdam
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2007, 02:18 PM   #43
Rational Plan
Registered User
 
Rational Plan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Slough
Posts: 3,296
Likes (Received): 286

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post

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!
Noho has been in use by property people for over a decade now. Besically it's just Soho north of Oxford Street. Media companies have been expanding North out of Soho for a long time, this is just of one of those nicknames that stick because it's a quick shorthand. It's not a strongly defined area but it's epicentre is Charlotte street in Fitzrovia near the Charlotte street Hotel and all those funky restaurants. A lot of Cable TV stations, advertising agencies and New Media are based here. Just south of the Hospital site is the Sanderson Hotel, One of Schreager's minimalist hotels, that caters for the three M's (Models, Music, Movies). Though I'm not sure if the Sanderson is still considered Hot or not.
Rational Plan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2007, 01:09 AM   #44
dom
Registered User
 
dom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SE England
Posts: 1,174
Likes (Received): 7

I ******* hate Noho. Noho is an american import. Fitzrovia is Fitzrovia and always will be.

******* Noho and bloody estate agents. Scum.
dom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2007, 08:08 PM   #45
jimbo
Registered User
 
jimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Leeds/London
Posts: 4,673
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by dom View Post
I ******* hate Noho. Noho is an american import. Fitzrovia is Fitzrovia and always will be.

******* Noho and bloody estate agents. Scum.
indeed, Fitzrovia a fine name, and across Tottenham Court Road you get into the University of London dominated Bloomsbury.

Winno and her repellant husband were holed up at the Sanderson recently, and I believe its where Hasselhoff cut his hand badly falling over drunk (so my gossip driven friends tell me ). Definitely not cool IMO. Charlotte Street on the otherhand is a lovely little enclave.
jimbo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 16th, 2007, 07:48 PM   #46
JDRS
Against ID Cards
 
JDRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 9,787
Likes (Received): 2

I cannot believe they are actually going to knock the front of that building down!? Why are they retaining the less impressive aspects of the current building. The pros are, what I presume, is a public garden of some description that looks decent. Also the proposal is so big and blocky for this site and it's a shame we can't have something a bit more fitting.
JDRS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2007, 01:55 AM   #47
Chief
Izzle Bizzle
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,494
Likes (Received): 5

Whoa. A lot of negative comments in this thread - a lot of which, I feel, are very generic and could be applied to almost any project, anywhere in the world.

The aspiration of the design team is to create something really special in terms of a redevelopment of an entire city block. There's an on-site gym, restaurant, retail space, a GP's office for Westminster PCT, a hall for All Souls primary school, luxury apartments, social housing, a site-wide basement, a site-wide energy centre and a large office building. The wide range of uses shows, in my opinion, ambition over the easy (and cheaper) route of going purely residential.

The energy centre incorporates CHP (it's tri-generation) and a biomass boiler, which combined mean the development will generate 30% less CO2 than other developments of a similar size. There's site-wide rainwater harvesting, green roofs to all buildings and a public park in the middle of the site that will incorporate play areas for children. But these facts are conveniently overlooked by the majority of posters.

I agree that the massing could be better. In an ideal world architects wouldn't be forced to push the heights of the buildings as far as the planning envelope allows across the entire site, but London is a commercial city and developers demand big returns on their investments. They have to incorporate the floor space that makes a scheme like this stack up financially, while considering rights of light issues and integration with the surrounding area. The façades are still being developed; bronze-framed windows and light pink sandstone walls are likely. The façade design will be heavily informed by our solar gain analyses to reduce energy consumption – no greenhouses here.

As for retaining the 'grand' H-block apparently beloved of so many here (how many knew of its existence before hand) and the other facades on site – speak to a structural engineer and will tell you the reality of dealing with such structures. The site is a complete mess at present, with buildings of all sorts of ages, in different conditions, sitting on different levels, and filled with asbestos and hidden medical nasties. The architecture and engineering involved would be horrendous – as mentioned by someone else, the current building is a warren of corridors and dingy internal ‘courtyards’.

Instead, you get a 100m long retained façade along Nassau Street – apparently not enough for some. The building on the corner of Mortimer street is also being retained in its entirety and the ugly hospital loading bay and entrances will be removed and the building returned to its former state. The chapel in the centre of the site is also being retained and completely refurbished – no mean feat considering the heavy civil engineering that will be going on around it within a few years’ time. It will be retained as a prayer space, complete with vestry.

There is much else I could say about this scheme but I’ve prattled on long enough. I think it’s received an overly harsh knee-jerk response here. I’m sure it won’t take long for everyone to jump in with their objections to my post!
__________________
"What's the difference between Mexico and New Mexico?"

Last edited by Chief; November 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 PM.
Chief no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2007, 03:45 AM   #48
Bones
Ex-Pat
 
Bones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,558
Likes (Received): 1

Surprising quality debate on this thread, the best I have seen on the whole site.
Bones no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2007, 09:35 AM   #49
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,124
Likes (Received): 172

Ok but whats happening is maybe too big? a whole block being redeveloped with one architect? The problem I have is this part of London is made of many smaller buildings that make up a ' block'. Just looking at the rendering shows this too full effect. If this building was a grand example of amazing architecture and planning, I would agree its the right choice for this area. But what we see here will completely destroy what makes this part of London interesting. And in regard to dingy courtyards. The courtyard in this development will be equally dingy. I doubt any light will enter this space for most of the day. I am also seeing that leaving the small chapel there is in some ways rather insulting to the building. Just demolish it, they will be demolishing everything else there that gave it any relevance.
delores no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2007, 10:53 AM   #50
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,317
Likes (Received): 256

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief View Post
Whoa. A lot of negative comments in this thread - a lot of which, I feel, are very generic and could be applied to almost any project, anywhere in the world.

I'm quite heavily involved in the mechanical side of this project, and to be honest am really enjoying working on it. The aspiration of the design team is to create something really special in terms of a redevelopment of an entire city block. There's an on-site gym, restaurant, retail space, a GP's office for Westminster PCT, a hall for All Souls primary school, luxury apartments, social housing, a site-wide basement, a site-wide energy centre and a large office building. The wide range of uses shows, in my opinion, ambition over the easy (and cheaper) route of going purely residential.

The energy centre incorporates CHP (it's tri-generation) and a biomass boiler, which combined mean the development will generate 30% less CO2 than other developments of a similar size. There's site-wide rainwater harvesting, green roofs to all buildings and a public park in the middle of the site that will incorporate play areas for children. But these facts are conveniently overlooked by the majority of posters.

I agree that the massing could be better. In an ideal world architects wouldn't be forced to push the heights of the buildings as far as the planning envelope allows across the entire site, but London is a commercial city and developers demand big returns on their investments. They have to incorporate the floor space that makes a scheme like this stack up financially, while considering rights of light issues and integration with the surrounding area. The façades are still being developed; bronze-framed windows and light pink sandstone walls are likely. The façade design will be heavily informed by our solar gain analyses to reduce energy consumption – no greenhouses here.

As for retaining the 'grand' H-block apparently beloved of so many here (how many knew of its existence before hand) and the other facades on site – speak to a structural engineer and will tell you the reality of dealing with such structures. The site is a complete mess at present, with buildings of all sorts of ages, in different conditions, sitting on different levels, and filled with asbestos and hidden medical nasties. The architecture and engineering involved would be horrendous – as mentioned by someone else, the current building is a warren of corridors and dingy internal ‘courtyards’.

Instead, you get a 100m long retained façade along Nassau Street – apparently not enough for some. The building on the corner of Mortimer street is also being retained in its entirety and the ugly hospital loading bay and entrances will be removed and the building returned to its former state. The chapel in the centre of the site is also being retained and completely refurbished – no mean feat considering the heavy civil engineering that will be going on around it within a few years’ time. It will be retained as a prayer space, complete with vestry.

There is much else I could say about this scheme but I’ve prattled on long enough. I think it’s received an overly harsh knee-jerk response here. I’m sure it won’t take long for everyone to jump in with their objections to my post!
Thank you for posting this, Chief. I like this scheme personally, and am glad someone has stepped up to defend it who's in a position to do so knowledgeably.
__________________
dibble music
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2007, 05:20 PM   #51
fitz44
Registered User
 
fitz44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,200
Likes (Received): 16

Thanks Chief you have added a lot of additional info about this scheme that wasn't being considered, it looks like it will have a positive benefit to the local community. Will the central courtyard be open to the public? I hope so.

It does seem that the demolition of any classical building is met with howls of protest on this site irrespective of the buildings actual individual merits. We have seen similar protests against the demolition of a quite frankly rubbish design recently on Gracechurch St.
I am surprised when people use the term “glass” in a pejorative way, like they do with “concrete”. As if the material was in some way responsible for poor design.

I don't think the old hospital’s main entrance facade is particularly good, the Georgian scale windows are out of proportion with the overall giant beaux-arts styling of the block – too many small windows running around the facade. But it does look to me like the MAKE scheme is suffering from exactly the same problem on its facades.

I’m glad to hear that the street frontages are still being worked on as IMO this looks weak and compromised.



The design aesthetic reminds me of Foster’s Wood St building;



The Wood St building is almost a prototype fragment of the NOHO building with its stone-side on one street and glass-side on Staining Lane. It’s not one of the firm’s better designs I think. The application and framing of the stone elements could be handled much more imaginatively. We shall see!
__________________
London Random and Unseen Photos; http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=637985
fitz44 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 23rd, 2007, 03:36 PM   #52
Dothog
On the bog
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Posts: 393
Likes (Received): 17

I have been following this site for some while because I work nearby. I have found the discussion here very interesting. I’m not particularly outraged by the architecture but the silly name and Candy and Candy’s track record of developments that are expensive even by Central London standards may be putting people off.
Dothog no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 06:51 PM   #53
Chief
Izzle Bizzle
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,494
Likes (Received): 5

A Candy & Candy flat is much like a Rolex watch, a Rolls Royce car or a Gucci handbag. They've created a brand, and their product is the 'Candy & Candy flat'. People will pay way over the odds for a piece of that brand/lifestyle.

I'm an engineer so I'd be the first to say that's all mumbo jumbo marketing crap, but at the end of the day we all know it's basically true. I'm not sure people resent Candy & Candy because of that though?

The name I agree is woeful - apparently it's just a working title for now. here's hoping they come up with something better.
__________________
"What's the difference between Mexico and New Mexico?"
Chief no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 09:15 PM   #54
JGG
LONDON - Westminster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,841
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief View Post
A Candy & Candy flat is much like a Rolex watch, a Rolls Royce car or a Gucci handbag. They've created a brand, and their product is the 'Candy & Candy flat'. People will pay way over the odds for a piece of that brand/lifestyle.

I'm an engineer so I'd be the first to say that's all mumbo jumbo marketing crap, but at the end of the day we all know it's basically true. I'm not sure people resent Candy & Candy because of that though?

The name I agree is woeful - apparently it's just a working title for now. here's hoping they come up with something better.
Yet talking to some guys in the residential segment there is some scepsis about this project. There is one thing to sell at a huge premium a Rogers landmark next to a 5* hotel and opposite to the world's most favourite shop compared to a rather bland development (at least from what everybody sees on the same renders) in a less attractive area of Central London. Maybe this is going to be the Candy & Candy entry product? Like the Mercedes A-class?

Anyway, I don't understand why they cannot keep the big monumental facade. What are the engineering problems keeping that facade? I would have expected their target clients to be more impressed with an impressive drive and entrance than some public garden which everybody in the area can walk through.
JGG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 09:25 PM   #55
El_Greco
Flâneur Extraordinaire
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 17,696
Likes (Received): 1819

Altolusso in Cardiff.





Would love to hear what are those 'engineering problems'.
__________________
My Photos : Bergen|Brussels|Fes|Lisbon|London|Madrid|Naples|Paris|Rome|Rotterdam
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 24th, 2007, 11:02 PM   #56
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 17,035
Likes (Received): 1699

Good grief that's just...wrong.

Why on earth did they keep that facade when it painfully has nothing to do with what's behind it?
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2007, 12:04 AM   #57
Chief
Izzle Bizzle
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,494
Likes (Received): 5

I'm not here to defend C&C or Make, just giving my private views on the project. I can think of several problems with keeping the facade of the H-block, not least of which is what you do with the rest of the site once that's retained. It's a very big and very imposing structure - to get adequate massing (i.e. enough floor space) on to the site whilst retaining that would have been nigh on impossible.

Also, just because a façade looks fine on the outside does not mean it is fine on the inside. The NHS isn't exactly known for maintaining its buildings to an impeccable standard, and I suspect the risk involved in keeping the entire façade would have been extremely high. Thirdly, creating desirable flats, enough cores, avoiding long internal corridors etc. and providing flexible internal layouts is all very difficult in such a narrow-plan building.

There is also the issue of the need for a site-wide basement for car parking and central plant. I'm not a structural engineer but can't imagine how they would dig all around and beneath such a large retained façade.

As for its positioning in the market, the whole development is a world of 'firsts' for C&C. They're not stupid - they do recognise that £/m^2 here will be nowhere near Kensington standards, and that the market calls for something a bit different. They're doing their fist studio and small flats, their first office building, the first development in Westminster to be approved on less than 1:1 car parking. The Times mentioned recently, however, that penthouses would go for about £10 million pounds. The entire scheme is expected to sell for about £1 billion once complete.
__________________
"What's the difference between Mexico and New Mexico?"
Chief no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2007, 12:44 AM   #58
JGG
LONDON - Westminster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,841
Likes (Received): 2

Thanks, chief. Yet I am sure they could have retained that facade if they really wanted; these days they even dig cellars under existing houses in London to gain space. I remember a similar project in Little Venice where one of these large residential blocks dating from the 30s had a large garage constructed under it.

Anyway, I fail to understand who is going to put down £10 mio for a penthouse from which you barely will have a view to be proud of, on a site surrounded by rather busy roads, when you can buy a period townhouse with garden next to Regent's Park for about half that price. I would have expected a more prestigious building exterior if they really wanted to fetch those prices. To me it looks very much like an updated version of some of those tired 70s apartment blocks littering the same area.

Sure, the M&E description sounds impressive, and I am convinced the interior design will be top notch as one would expect of C&C, but I am really at a loss how something of such unaspirational architecture in a rather poor location is going to attract top money.

From the renders I have seen, to my European eyes the architecture reminds me more of council housing than of a prestige development. Sorry.
JGG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2007, 03:00 AM   #59
El_Greco
Flâneur Extraordinaire
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 17,696
Likes (Received): 1819

I hope a portion of the units in the building will go to affordable housing.Or am I talking rubbish?
__________________
My Photos : Bergen|Brussels|Fes|Lisbon|London|Madrid|Naples|Paris|Rome|Rotterdam
El_Greco no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 25th, 2007, 01:17 PM   #60
Chief
Izzle Bizzle
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,494
Likes (Received): 5

30% of the apartments are for 'affordable housing' - built to Code for Sustainable Homes 3* rating and Secure by Design. Some are for rent, most are for purchase I think.

At Chelsea Barracks (also being done by my office), the provision will be 50% affordable housing.
__________________
"What's the difference between Mexico and New Mexico?"
Chief 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 02:43 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