One Kensington Park | Kensington & Chelsea | 7 fl | Pro

[vank]

I'm a Belgian. And in Belgium it's normal to destroy historiques and beautifull buildings.
London is a very popular and nice city.

Believe me, the old building is better.
New building like that must be placed in cities before London (Like Lewisham, Wimbledon, Brockley, Peckham, etc.)

In London they must be restaurate en renovate buildings.


Kensington Road can be an idyllish place to stay.

[steppenwolf]

Originally Posted by speedtouch

This is a little off subject, but why can't we build more genuinely classy and impressive buildings in London instead of all these identikit second rate boxes. Some of our developments are so bland and lacking in artistry. It's like, "Ok, how are we going to make our glass and steel box look a little different from all the other glass and steel boxes". What about some artistry like this from Santiago :
(Borrowed from the Skylines thread)

Oh lord.... bad example to illustrate your point! I agree, lets make our buildings culturally specific/ location specific contextully responsive etc etc... but without making them look like a multistorey plastic disney mansion...
However, I really believe the elegant design of one sensitive modern architect is infinitely better than a compromised, committee designed apology of a building

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Langur

It's not the brown block that is worth preserving.

So brown block is not worth preserving now?

[Langur]

^ That building has much less individual value. It's the terrace and line of the street that are most valuable. The value of the "brown block" (whose facade on Kensington Road is actually 50% white) lies in its more successful integration with its surroundings than the proposed replacement. However you cannot separate the terrace from the "brown block". Both are threatened with destruction by the current proposal. The question is - would you rather keep the current buildings or have the new one? I would rather keep the current buildings for the reasons I have already outlined.

[El_Greco]

Id keep beautiful Victorian terrace and demolish the brown block because its of no architectural merit and looks out of place - its taller of different colour and tries to copy Victorian mansion block but fails miserably.
Current proposal whilst no masterpiece is 'lighter' of same colour (white) and is not trying to compete with the terrace nor it tries to pretend to be something it isnt.And it intergrates more successfuly with its surroundings.

[Langur]

^ I couldn't possibly agree with you about integrating with the surroundings. The proposal doesn't integrate with its surroundings at all. The current building does. It uses the same materials and has the same architectural features (eg architraves, tripartite bay windows, brick/stucco facade etc). And here you try to separate the preservation of the terrace from the end building. But you can't. Both will be destroyed equally. The new building will not merely involve demolition of a small part of that terrace. It will also break the line of that whole street. The current building doesn't interrupt the line of that street bcecasuse it's around the corner from it.

[El_Greco]

What line?

[Langur]

^ The line of the street. De Vere Gardens is one of the beautiful streets in London. The elegent streets of west London beat anything on New York's Upper East Side. I think they're better than Paris's grand streets too. In short they're some of the most beautiful and elegent streets in the world. Only a philistine would want to destroy this for some piece-of-shit rectilinear block. Oh yeah but "that's London" right? "That's greed." That's philistine." Actually London isn't about philistine greed. To assert that this is London's defining characteristic is simply ignorant. The people that developed and lived on these terraces may have been capitalists but they also had refined tastes. They appreciated beauty and were prepared to spend on it.


Now since I live just 10 minutes away I decided to pop over there and show you what I mean. For those that don't know Kensington and Chelsea is one of the most beautiful and grandest districts in London. It's the most densely populated place in Britain and is probably the most expensive neighbourhood in the world. It's absolutely dripping in fine architectural detail. This, for instance, is immediately opposite the new proposed building:




1) The new development will ruin the street line of De Vere Gardens:

Currently the street has perfect and flawless linear coherence. It has nice paving and street furniture. The proposal will break up this line by putting a great slab block of modern flats on the end that will bear no stylistic or massing continuity with the rest of it:








2) The section of terrace to be destroyed is beautiful:

Lovely details - tripartite bay windows and colonnaded doorways to die for:






This is where it meets Kensington Road. How nice is that? Enjoy the veiw while it lasts becaus it's about to be repkaced by a naff rectilinear philistine block. "Good" say the philistines on this board. This kind of philistinism is apparently part of London's "special appeal" and "defining character". This kind of brainless philistinism is apparently why people love London. My arse!! London has never been about philistinism as these lovely buidings prove only too well. Philistines are just philistines:




3) The "brown" building at the end of the terrace coheres well with its neighbours:

First of all, contrary to the opinion of El Greco, the grey/brown (beige?) brick is used widely throughout this area. This building is just a little further along De Vere Gardens:








The articulation (also criticised by the philistines on this thread) is a continuation of that on a neighbouring building (but this relationship and echo will be lost with the new building):








The materials and architectural language correspond to the neighbour on the other side too (but this relationship and echo will be lost with the new building):




The "brown" building also relates well enough to the end of the terrace. It's not as fine as the terrace itself but it employes the same architectural vocubulary and forms (ie tripartite bay windows). Both will be destroyed together under the new scheme:




Viewed from the park we can see the consistence of scale, styles, and materials among the buildings fronting the park:




4) El Greco's inconsistency, philistinism, and lack of taste:

El Greco believe that this cheap nasty brick McShit in King's Cross railwaylands is worth preserving:



.....but believes that this fine elegent west London terrace is worth sacrificing for a naff new block:






A couple of bonus shots I took on my way home. This is on the corner of my street (Queensway). I like the unusual silver domes:

[fitz44]

LOL, Langur you're a treat! I honestly thought this thread would sink like a stone immediately after I posted it. I can just imagine you marching through Kensington Gardens in high dudgeon.
As with the Kings Cross building I disagree with you I'm afraid, but after that particular (and lengthy discussion) I know better than to argue with you. I'll just go and join the philistines in the corner now!

[El_Greco]

Monkey show me where I said that its okay to destroy Victorian terrace?Its clearly a magnificent building and it really is sad that it will be demolished.However that brown block will simply not be missed.Its cheap and its nasty.Sure go ahead and call me a philistine.Call me whatever you like.I dont care.
And please stop lying and twisting my words.

Originally Posted by Langur

My eyes are immediately drawn to the brown block - it sticks out like a sore thumb.It has no elegance no nothing its just a lazy and half arsed copy of Victorian Mansion block.

PS.Saying that someone has a bad taste is really low.

[BenL]

Apparently Chipperfield is not pleased with the design. Because of sightlines it's had to go through numerous redesigns and has been dumbed down.

[fitz44]

Nice photos by the way Langur. Will you keep us updated with the demolition progress? (just kidding!)

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by BenL

Apparently Chipperfield is not pleased with the design. Because of sightlines it's had to go through numerous redesigns and has been dumbed down.

It's been dumbed down ALOT... hard to imagine what character it might of once had. It looks to me to be of the Italian Fascist style of architecture. There's a building in Mussolini's office park that has similar styling.

[DarJoLe]

Langur sounds a bit too posh for me.

[Manuel]

Originally Posted by fitz44

Nice photos by the way Langur. Will you keep us updated with the demolition progress? (just kidding!)

this thread is turning like the good old days...classes vs classes...

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by Manuel

this thread is turning like the good old days...classes vs classes...

Sure you didn't mean to quote Darjole instead?

[Manuel]

Yes, I was laughing at what Fitz wrote
And yes the classes vs classes was for other forumers here!
You see, everybody's giving its own view of aesthetics which is socially very interesting!

[Bowater]

I see, I see. Well then destroy socialism is my contribution! I was at the Magistrates court today & every defendant was in receipt of benefits, and where mentioned, so where their partners!

[wjfox]

Great post Langur. Your thorough and comprehensive demolition of El Greco and DarJoLe's arguments is much appreciated. I lived in Kensington myself for a couple of years and I know exactly what you're talking about.

[vank]

What will happen with that building?

Don't dump it, believe me. It is better than the modern apartment.