New Labour - New Eyesores for our Cities.

#2
His Royal Hippines was right about monstrous carbuncles on a friends face.
 
#3
Hazel Blears is now in charge of planning decisions and has just
passed these two in London :cry:

20 Fenchurch Street (Aka The Walkie Talkie)




The Beetham Tower - London
 
#4
What sort of assclown would ruin the classic archetecture and look of London with buildings that don't match their environs?
 
#5
The Labour party have done more to destroy Londons skyline than the Luftwaffe did, come to that the Labour party have destroyed Great Britain far more effectively that Adolf could have.
 
#6
I actually quite like the Shard



And people were moaning about the Gherkin before they built it... now it's an icon.

Yeah, they're gaudy and bombastic, but so's London in the 21st C..

I think it would be worse not leaving behind iconic, grandiose buildings for posterity. They're symbolic of a period of wealth and wordly success for London.
 
#7
Candidates for a large ammount of PE4 come the revolution.

They will not be content until they have f**ked every institution of this country and now it's skyline.

Can someone please order a coup so we can get rid of these cnuts.
 
#8
Rumpelstiltskin said:
I think it would be worse not leaving behind iconic, grandiose buildings for posterity. They're symbolic of a period of wealth and wordly success for London.
True, but the problem is that they seem determined to destroy some great (or at least pretty good) earlier 'statements' to build some of this stuff. As far as I'm concerned, if you can give it a nickname based on its shape - don't grant it permission.

However, I don't doubt that most planners are beavering away inside 'the helmet' with Blears and Red Ken standing over them with baseball bats.
 
#9
Actually, the planning permission for these buildings was extremely hard fought. Red Ken originally wanted more than this and in different positions but the Corporation of London defended well to maintain the 6 views of St Paul's.

Basically, there are 6 unimpeded views of the cross and dome of St Paul's (eg from Epping Forest IIRC) that can not be blocked by any new construction. Ken, needless to say, thought this was rubbish but was forced to capitulate.
 
#10
Turret_Monster said:
True, but the problem is that they seem determined to destroy some great (or at least pretty good) earlier 'statements' to build some of this stuff. As far as I'm concerned, if you can give it a nickname based on its shape - don't grant it permission.
To build the 'walkie-talkie', they're knocking down this piece of 60's sh1t:



And re St Pauls, that was considered pretty controversial at the time, what with being taller than Westminster Abbey, and having a new-fangled 'Catholic' dome...
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#11
Are you all saying that London shouldn't move with the times?

At the moment it is a city strangulated by a road system that was designed when even horse and trap was a novelty. It cost's a fortune to rent office space in buildings that are actually unsuitable for purpose. But they're old and architecturally significant.

Yes, there are some beautiful old buildings. There are also some hideous ugly buildings that have been there donkey's years. I'm not saying that they should all be torn down and replaced with glass skyscrapers, but it might be time to catch up and put London back on the world map. As long as it's private finance paying for it, I can't see a problem.
 
#13
Legs said:
Are you all saying that London shouldn't move with the times?

At the moment it is a city strangulated by a road system that was designed when even horse and trap was a novelty. It cost's a fortune to rent office space in buildings that are actually unsuitable for purpose. But they're old and architecturally significant.

Yes, there are some beautiful old buildings. There are also some hideous ugly buildings that have been there donkey's years. I'm not saying that they should all be torn down and replaced with glass skyscrapers, but it might be time to catch up and put London back on the world map. As long as it's private finance paying for it, I can't see a problem.


Delightful right across from The Tower of London, even the United Nations has condemed the crap which will surround important international sites such as The Tower of London.
 
#14
Legs said:
Are you all saying that London shouldn't move with the times?

At the moment it is a city strangulated by a road system that was designed when even horse and trap was a novelty. It cost's a fortune to rent office space in buildings that are actually unsuitable for purpose. But they're old and architecturally significant.
After the Great Fire of London in 1666, Sir Christopher Wren wanted to redesign London so that there were wide boulevards in keeping with the Baroque Era. Landed interests successfully opposed this so we have inherited essentially a mediaeval street plan.
 
#15
Trendy architects who are desperate to get noticed, care not if their creations are crap, they won't have to look at them everyday. The more controversy, the more column inches and hence the more fame and 'celebrity'. That the price is the destruction of a world famous skyline doesn't concern them.

Their argument is invariably (yawn) that architecture has never stood still, that people have always complained about progress. Where that argument very quickly falls flat on it's arrse is that buildings have almost aways been made of stone. Although they are a thousand years apart, Edwardian and Norman buildings can sit side by side and compliment each other beautifully. Over the years the stone slowly softens and long before the stone actually dissolves back into the soil, the buildings take on the appearence of having grown out from the ground.

It doesn't quite work with plastic.
 
#16
Weissbier said:
After the Great Fire of London in 1666, Sir Christopher Wren wanted to redesign London so that there were wide boulevards in keeping with the Baroque Era. Landed interests successfully opposed this so we have inherited essentially a mediaeval street plan.
The same mentality exists to this day in Grays Lane, Ashtead.
 
#17
Apologies Rumpelstiltskin. I was generalising rather than refering to the specific case in hand. And anyway, it's not so much the quality of what they demolish that I object to, it's the replacements that they seem to think are so much better. As Awol pointed out, previous generations built for eternity, we, however, seem to build for a design life of 30 years or so.

Once they've fcuked up the skylines and streetscapes of our major cities they'll be back in 30 years with the excuse that as it's all modern carp they can build what they want where they want it.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top