SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
39,474 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
180 Piccadilly
St James's
W1


Planning application:
Westminster 21/01138/FULL

Official website:
https://www.180piccadilly-consultation.co.uk


Development Facts

Site:
180 Piccadilly & 48-50 Jermyn Street, London W1

Developer: Great Portland Estates

Architect: Make

Floors: 8

Height: 36m

Floorspace: 9,830m²
(GIA)


Existing





Proposed



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,131 Posts
This plot should require something more outstanding, considering the street and its neighbours. This replacement is hardly a worthy proposal, except increasing floor capacity. What with the rounded window frames – all a bit dated now – these were being employed in the 1970s. But, all said and one, it is a [slight] improvement on the 1960s building in situ. Something more like what is proposed at 5 Strand would work better. In fact the original proposal for the Strand site would be good here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Exactly. Great Portland should have employed Squire & Partners for this one. What they did at 5 Strand and across the road at Clarges is exactly what this site needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,131 Posts
Having looked at the Jermyn Street frontage (Alfred Dunhill), this is actually a good modernist work (better than the Piccadilly frontage); not sure if they were by the same team of architects. The Jermyn St side (and side street) is much better than the Make proposal.

It does appear that all concerned are losing momentum when it comes to high standard and original designs for Piccadilly; one only has to think of the Berkeley Street proposal (opposite the Ritz) that was dropped for something ordinary and much like what is there now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Jermyn Street frontage looks very similar to Simpsons building on Piccadilly and I agree it's much better than Make's proposal. The latter looks like a post-modernist building from the 80's. I thought we are done with postmodernism? But like the other poster mentioned, Squire and Partners should have been appointed given the quality of their works recently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,131 Posts
Not sure what you mean about post-modern unless you refer to the retro-age of the proposal or the arched window framing? To me it is a straightforward and mostly a conventional proposal. Not particularly bad but certainly not outstanding. I see the roof 'mansard' a little passé and contrived; the corner is just twee. Rectangular mansard windows (with little roofs as seen in German buildings) would look better and why have horizontal individual eaves above rounded frames? Are they trying to be original?

In many districts of London I really couldn't give a damn but this is arguably the most famous and visited street in London, certainly for foreign visitors, so they should have tried harder.
 

·
LIBERTINED
Joined
·
45,346 Posts
The new one is good for the site. Slightly postmodern, it is subtle, integrates and behaves. It is stupid to think that every building nowadays should stand out. Quite the opposite! A great design integrates seamlessly and still adds something interesting of visual appeal.

Well done, though I'd probably go for something more classical, ornate and graceful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,062 Posts
I prefer the current building, the proposed is just a lump of dull nothingness..

I agree. The current building as actually not bad. And the new proposal is absolutely bland. The only advantage is higher square footage for the owners. From the passerby perspective it is hardly an improvement. Most people won't notice any difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
I agree. The current building as actually not bad. And the new proposal is absolutely bland. The only advantage is higher square footage for the owners. From the passerby perspective it is hardly an improvement. Most people won't notice any difference.
I'm the same, I actually like both buildings but given one's there already it's best kept. It's really quite stylish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I'm not convinced of the design. I think it looks quite nice but the arches are not needed and I have to agree with the colour of the facades. It would look in Germany, for example in my hometown Nuremberg but it is not good enough for London, especially on this location.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,841 Posts
Has a naff 90's City Po-Mo office block about it which they have spent the last 5 years tearing down.

Maybe the renders don't do it justice and actual stone might be quite good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,131 Posts
The present Piccadilly frontage reminds me in its elevation of the 1960s Seifert block by London Bridge Station that was torn down for the Shard. Same era and not particularly fine I'm afraid. But the Jermyn Street frontage is good with a robust, crisp 'Art Moderne' appearance, and, as said, similar to the Simpson's block. But we can only criticise on here; nothing is going to change the situation unless Westminster Council has the balls to say 'not good enough' - which I doubt, looking at their own Victoria Street headquarters!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,841 Posts
What people don't seem to realise is this scheme, like practically all schemes has been to the planners already who will have dictated what they find acceptable. The architects have to respond to that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,364 Posts
The existing buildings are civil and respectful of the scale of Piccadilly, as is the building on Jeremyn Street, which I too find the better of the two. However, neither appear to merit listing and conservation, though perhaps the Jeremyn Street building could be considered by mid-century modernists as a "character building" which contributes to the character of the street. I doubt that many Londoners will spill a tear over the demolition and replacement of the 1962 French Railways Building.

The new design is civil too, and consistent in scale and form with the late 19th/early 20thC architecture of its surroundings. The proposed facade design is par for the course though not an outstanding building, though perfectly reasonable. At mansard roof level, the large boxy dormer windows could be refined to be less clunky. From a planning perspective, it would likely be challenging to turn down this proposal from a design perspective.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top