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

London Metro Area London Calling...



Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 22 votes, 5.00 average.
Old July 9th, 2008, 05:47 PM   #81
fitz44
Registered User
 
fitz44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,200
Likes (Received): 12

Thanks h&h good find. Shows the first images of the affordable AHMM buildings on the Ebury Road side of the site.

Both sets of buildings Rogers and AHMM are using gradated colours to inject a bit of variety across the facades. Firstly Roger's;









Most of the drawings of the central spaces on Roger's plot, not surprisingly look the same!



At least the AHMM buildings introduce the different heights so obviously missing in the Roger's proposal;





They too are introducing a bright colour pallette similar to the one they used on their Westminster Academy building;





I love this render! How to hide a huge development;



Lots more info on the site, but does anyone really believe this?

"The existing Chapel creates a physical and visual obstruction to the continuity of the primary routes through the site and following largely negative feedback from the community in respect of its re-use for a community use, has been proposed for removal".
__________________
London Random and Unseen Photos; http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=637985
fitz44 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old July 9th, 2008, 07:30 PM   #82
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,703
Likes (Received): 1646

that last render is hilarious
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2008, 07:36 PM   #83
Manuel
Registered User
 
Manuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,952
Likes (Received): 15

Lol, you don't get it, it's Surrey in London!

This first batch of renders show some very neat buildings of the highest order, but I still don't appreciate the layout of the buildings. It's very modernist in a way.
__________________
>>>>>>>>>> Mon album Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/manuel69/<<<<<<<<<<
Manuel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2008, 11:38 PM   #84
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 243

I think the Rogers buildings look ok except for the staircases, and the AHMM buildings look terrible. Need more trees.
Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2008, 11:52 PM   #85
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,074
Likes (Received): 151

I wish AHMM would stop building these multi coloured buildings everywhere, They look out of place and contextually look wrong in such an historic area such as this. Also Rogers should stop trying to liven up its facades with simplistic rainbow colours, they are dull no matter what you do to them. This was an opportunity to do something special and this just looks like a buisness park.
delores está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2008, 01:45 PM   #86
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 16,906
Likes (Received): 1555

Blow to Candy brothers as residents back rival Chelsea Barracks scheme
Mira Bar-Hillel, Property Correspondent
11.07.08
Evening Standard

The Candy brothers' plan for the redevelopment of Chelsea Barracks has hit a major hurdle.

Members of the Barracks Opposition Group, made up of residents' associations, have presented a rival scheme to Westminster council.

And at a meeting this week, council planners admitted to having serious reservations about the original Lord Rogers-designed proposals. The residents want Candy & Candy to take on the approach adopted by P&O, which withdrew its bid for the site.



This scheme shows buildings which its backers say are much more in keeping with the style and scale of the area, and with the council's brief for the site. Residents want the council to suggest to the Candy brothers that their design should be altered to more closely resemble P&O's one.

With Qatari partners, Nick and Christian Candy paid £1 billion for the site last year. In their scheme, half the homes would be private flats designed by Lord Rogers facing Chelsea Bridge Road. The other half would be "affordable" units designed by architects AHMM facing Ebury Bridge Road. The two sides will be separated by a "linear park".

Critics complain the design is "more akin to office complexes". They say the proposed private blocks would overlook streets and rob them of daylight.

Objectors met councillors and Westminster's planning team this week to express their concerns. They favour the P&O design because it has new houses built alongside existing ones, and would minimise loss of light. In the P&O scheme both private and affordable flats have shared gardens while the Candy design segregates the two elements. It also creates a pedestrian walkway linking Chelsea Bridge Road, Grosvenor Basin, Pimlico Road and Ebury Bridge Road.

James Wright, the Eaton Square resident and businessman who chairs Belgravia Residents' Association, said: "We would love the Candy brothers to take on the essence of this scheme. However, if the developers want to browbeat us they will have a fight on their hands."

Architect Paul Davis, who worked on the P&O plans, said: "We believe that value is created by making places and spaces that people can enjoy and choose to inhabit and visit."

Candy & Candy insist its project is "of the highest architectural quality".

Chris Candy said: "Our design has been honed over the last 12 months after extensive and continuing consultation with all local stakeholders and Westminster council officers, who have been supportive. We're confident we'll deliver a 21st-century development sensitive to the needs of the local community."
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2008, 02:53 PM   #87
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,690
Likes (Received): 429

Classic- The local nimbys demand that the developers choose a failed rivals plan as they don't like the current one.

Perhaps if they spent hundreds of millions on the site then they might have a case for demanding what gets built.
london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2008, 11:12 PM   #88
delores
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,074
Likes (Received): 151

That rival scheme looks a bit worrying. I take it all back the Rogers scheme is a modern neo hi tech gothic masterpiece! still hate the AHMM scheme though.
delores está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2008, 12:10 AM   #89
NothingBetterToDo
Better To Do Nothing
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 10,494
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by london lad View Post
Classic- The local nimbys demand that the developers choose a failed rivals plan as they don't like the current one.

Perhaps if they spent hundreds of millions on the site then they might have a case for demanding what gets built.
Who wants to bet that if the other scheme had been approved they would be crying for Rogers design to be implemented?

NIMBYS will be NIMBYS
__________________
My Pictures:
London - Amsterdam - Copenhagen - Berlin - Oslo - Bergen - Prague - Dublin
NothingBetterToDo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2008, 01:44 AM   #90
philb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London / Shanghai
Posts: 217
Likes (Received): 1

I am opposed to Nimbyism as much as most people on here but I do genuinely believe than when a development of this scale is being proposed the local residents are entitled to reasonable degree of input, this will have a significant impact on the local area, both in terms of impact on infrastructure as well as aesthetically.
philb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2008, 02:17 PM   #91
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,703
Likes (Received): 1646

yes but as long as the input makes sense. How can the Candy scheme cause any more shadows than the P&O one? Why should one line of houses ruin the chance for hundreds of people to have a house just because they will get the same sort of shadowing that everyone else in Kensington and Chelsea puts up with? In fact looking at the models I cant quite see where the shadowing will actually come from.

In terms of Urban Design, that P&O scheme is an utter mess and in fact ACTUALLY echos the failed estates of the past. Look how readable the Candy scheme is from the ground in comparison, imagine wandering around the edge of the P&O scheme wondering how to get across.

I bet all they looked at was the proportion of terracotta in the render and deemed it more in their taste.
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2008, 04:15 PM   #92
Octoman
Just Relax
 
Octoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,506
Likes (Received): 2323

I agree that the layout of the Rogers design is better but other than that it is mediocre shite. For such a high calibre location as this its unbelievable that what are basically look like bog standard council houses is the best that anyone can come up with. Is a slight variation of the colour of the tacky cheapo looking cladding really the only way they can think of injecting some variety into the various blocks of the project?!!? My three year old has worked out that coluring his toy blocks make them look different. How about some variation in the blocks themselves?

Low quality crap that will no doubt be sold for an utter fortune.
Octoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2008, 09:38 PM   #93
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,690
Likes (Received): 429

Another of Boris's ex Westminster councillors who is now a deputy Mayor has an opinion on this, as reported in Egi.

Kit Malthouse says this scheme "monotonous, repetitive & totally out of scale & context". Followed by saying the design as "anodyne, commonplace & potentially a plutocratic slum".

He doesn't stop there , he says the plans are "the worst aspects of housing design over the past 50 years".

Classic comment as well...."I'm all for high density but these silo buildings look like a cross between the pods of a nuclear power plant and a glass & steel office complex."

On a final note ...."There's nothing on a human scale, and the affordable homes look like the worst East European blocks."

Not sure whether he's for or against as the way I see it he's sitting on the fence
london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2008, 10:01 PM   #94
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 16,906
Likes (Received): 1555

He sounds like the kind of positive thinking chap we need running London really, doesn't he.
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2008, 10:07 PM   #95
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,690
Likes (Received): 429

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarJoLe View Post
He sounds like the kind of positive thinking chap we need running London really, doesn't he.
Its too late. Mr Milton beat him to the plum planning job. What a loss for London.
london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2008, 10:42 AM   #96
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,703
Likes (Received): 1646

looks like we had a near miss there.

The trouble is with these people is that even if they had something worth saying it is instantly submerged under a barrage of phlegm. Worse housing design in 50 years? I would love to see even a tenth of the detailing shown in those Rogers renders on any usual residential build. What planet is this guy on?! I cant really tell what is going on with the affordable housing bits though, the only realistic render is full of trees. He made a valid point about it being plutocratic but Im guessing that if it was all Victorian Mansion flats then he wouldnt mind a 'plutocratic ghetto'.

Completely of of scale and context?! Hardly! And there was me thinking it needed a couple of tall towers The diagrams show clearly that they step up in level with the rest of the surrounding. Cant wait for Vinloys chimney to appear in the background!
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2008, 10:56 AM   #97
Octoman
Just Relax
 
Octoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,506
Likes (Received): 2323

Other than his comments on the aesthetic I agree with you Potto. His point is lost in all the other guff. I dont know how these can be described as inhuman in scale. I think the massing is very constrained given the location of the site and the profit potential for going tall. Also, of course it will become a plutocratic ghetto. It is being built in one of the biggest of the lot - Chelsea - so what does he expect.

Must admit I agree with him on the appearance though. Its very disappointing. Need more detailed renders.
Octoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2008, 11:01 AM   #98
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 16,906
Likes (Received): 1555

Maybe a nice faux Georgian terrace like Richmond Riverside is more what he was thought Richard Rogers was designing.
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2008, 06:48 PM   #99
Officer Dibble
cartoon policeman
 
Officer Dibble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Londres
Posts: 3,302
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by london lad View Post
Another of Boris's ex Westminster councillors who is now a deputy Mayor has an opinion on this, as reported in Egi.

Kit Malthouse says this scheme "monotonous, repetitive & totally out of scale & context". Followed by saying the design as "anodyne, commonplace & potentially a plutocratic slum".

He doesn't stop there , he says the plans are "the worst aspects of housing design over the past 50 years".

Classic comment as well...."I'm all for high density but these silo buildings look like a cross between the pods of a nuclear power plant and a glass & steel office complex."

On a final note ...."There's nothing on a human scale, and the affordable homes look like the worst East European blocks."

Not sure whether he's for or against as the way I see it he's sitting on the fence
I don't like the look of the "affordable" bit either. I'm not persuaded the whole "affordable" homes policy works - in fact I think it may well be largely counter-productive, but at the very least I think the "affordable" elements should be indistinguishable from the rest of developments. Otherwise you're just building more ugly, cheap council estates by another name.

Apart from that, however, the guy is talking drivel. Where to start?

- It's not out of scale; arguably the scale is irresponsibly small for such a central site.

- Yes, it's repetitive. So are the Georgian and early Victorian terraces that I imagine he likes (I certainly do).

- A "plutocratic slum" is an oxymoron, and as such, makes no sense.

- A pod at a nuclear power plant usually looks something like this



which bears no relation I can see to the designs for the Chelsea site.

What an idiot.

Officer Dibble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2008, 07:54 PM   #100
fitz44
Registered User
 
fitz44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,200
Likes (Received): 12

I've copied over H&H's photos which he posted in another thread showing that demolition has now begun!

Quote:
Originally Posted by herington&herington View Post
10ft black hoardings have now been erected around the perimeter of the former Chelsea Barracks and demolition of the existing buildings by Balfour Beatty is now well under way.





__________________
London Random and Unseen Photos; http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=637985
fitz44 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 12:49 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