SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 138 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,080 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
On February 16th 2009 the cancellation of the proposed Tyne Bridge Tower (former HM Revenue & Customs building) was discussed on the Projects Thread.

CURRENT


RECENT PROPOSAL


This site will HAVE to be developed soon, as part of the 'gentrification' of the Gateshead Quays.

Does anyone know the latest position?
 

·
actual gherkin
Joined
·
13,933 Posts
The new "tower" looked dreadful - good decision by the council. And what an awful render - it doesn't sell the tower at all. Badly proportioned, characterless and (I bet) cheap materials.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
It reminds me of ECHO 24 on the Sunderland river side.....awful!!!
Now that is a brutal building on the surrounding land scape if I ever seen one!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
What is it with curved office buildings? The Gosforth Tower, the proposed Strawberry Place building, now this. It is becoming as much a cliche as the 'wavy roofs' that blighted the 1990s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,315 Posts
What is it with curved office buildings? The Gosforth Tower, the proposed Strawberry Place building, now this. It is becoming as much a cliche as the 'wavy roofs' that blighted the 1990s.
Thank You, someone else has noticed! those god awful wavy rooves on the quayside are already looking dated, in the case of Trinity Gardens only 3 years after completion!

Tyne Bridge Tower is already back on the market for short term leases BTW, so dont expect anything monumental soon....
 

·
Architect
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
Sadly enough, a friend of mine was telling me how he designed a building recently with a wavy roof because (as is usually the case with these wavy-roofed buildings) "it's beside the sea, so it links to the concept of waves and water".

I didn't just bite my tongue, I nearly bit it off...
 

·
Urban Environmentalist
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
^^^ When you see it from the back I can sort of understand why it was knocked back, it stops being a tower and starts being a wall or barrier with that big extension on. I also think it could interfere with future development behind the tower. So it would have been a short-term gain I imagine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I thought that the Tyne Bridge Tower was planned for demolition?

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/02/14/it-s-big-it-s-tall-and-it-has-to-go-61634-22925735/

I think it’s a shame to be honest as its has the potential to echo 55 degress on the other side of the bridge. I know brutalist concrete architecture isn’t very popular but its important to maintain part of the history from the sixties.

The dilemma is summed up perfectly by the architect Owen Luder, "The question is, do you update the building, or spend an enormous amount of money to knock it down and rebuild?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
970 Posts
I dont like it at all - they should knock it down and build something smaller in its place if possible. It just gets in the way when your coming from Gateshead towards the bridge
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,269 Posts
I would be happy with them to knock it down. It's not the best example of 60's architecture, let's face it. The proposal wouldn't have been much better as it would have added even more bulk to it. It would have been preferable if they'd just reclad the existing building.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I would definitely prefer to see it reused rather than demolished. It just seems a waste of a building, which isn’t really very old.

On the other point about 60’s architecture, this isn’t the best example but it is a landmark on the sky line. My point is that we are unable to really know which buildings will be appreciated in the future and we should avoid the mistakes of the past by demolishing anything that we think is out of date.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Yeah, I get your point, however I would bet everything I will ever own that at no point in the future will anyone think that Tyne Bridge Tower is an attractive building.
I'm no big fan of some other 60s/70s buildings in the area, such as the car park and the Dunston Rocket, by Mr. Luder who you mention earlier, but those two at least are showing brutalism at its 'best', and I can understand (if not agree with) arguments to keep them. For the Tyne Bridge Tower, I agree that demolishing it to leave a bit of wasteland is pointless, if there's a market, tart it up and re-let it, but even better would be to demolish it and build something stunning there. On the subject of Owen Luder, I would be careful quoting anything by someone who is so pompous and self-important as to go on and on about how great his buildings are despite the fact that they have failed, and now serve no purpose other than to blight the skyline. Sorry for the rant, but read a few interviews with him on the subject of his buildings, and he really winds me up. I think I dislike him more than his buildings!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,080 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Yeah, I get your point, however I would bet everything I will ever own that at no point in the future will anyone think that Tyne Bridge Tower is an attractive building.
I'm no big fan of some other 60s/70s buildings in the area, such as the car park and the Dunston Rocket, by Mr. Luder who you mention earlier, but those two at least are showing brutalism at its 'best', and I can understand (if not agree with) arguments to keep them. For the Tyne Bridge Tower, I agree that demolishing it to leave a bit of wasteland is pointless, if there's a market, tart it up and re-let it, but even better would be to demolish it and build something stunning there. On the subject of Owen Luder, I would be careful quoting anything by someone who is so pompous and self-important as to go on and on about how great his buildings are despite the fact that they have failed, and now serve no purpose other than to blight the skyline. Sorry for the rant, but read a few interviews with him on the subject of his buildings, and he really winds me up. I think I dislike him more than his buildings!
I think you are correct there, though a good quality re-clad/re-furb should go 'some way towards it', but where TBT really scores as a building is FROM the inside, looking out.

It would make excellent flats, as the views (particularly north-facing, as I said in an earlier post on this thread) are WITHOUT COMPARISON. It's not just the marvellous City Centre view, it is the City Centre looking down the spine of the Tyne Bridge itself - irreplaceable!! So it really is worth trying to save it, in my view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Fair enough Historian, you can do pretty amazing things with a re-clad, however a new building in the same place would have the same views.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,080 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Fair enough Historian, you can do pretty amazing things with a re-clad, however a new building in the same place would have the same views.
A tad more expensive . . and (as I do not disagree that this would be better) how great would it be to have a REAL new landmark building at the premier entrance point to our great City? There are few places (if any) in this region, where a landmark building is more desirable, than right there!

I'm just not certain how economically viable that would be, especially when stacked up against a re-clad, financially.

My main point is though, I do not think that JUST demolition, without a replacement or only with a very low-rise (NO views) replacement, is a good option at all.
 
1 - 20 of 138 Posts
Top