Streetlife

Mmmm some interesting comments. The only thing I wish to add is, we're in the 21st century it must be possible to have achieved something beautiful and practical too. I understand the importance of security but I think that's a poor excuse for just bad design. I do agree with the previous comment that people from the community should have been able to decide on design options given by the architects. Working together would have been the best compromise to achieve harmony.

These Richard Rogers design lookalikes, which we can not comment about lest we be regarded as ignorant Philistines, are horrid. They could be in any modern city anywhere in the world
The perceived wisdom (Emperor's new clothes) is that they are wonderful.
Glass and steel is simple and cheaper to use because proper stonemasons and carpenters are too expensive.
Thus maximum profits are made for the architects and builders.
The fact that they could be torn down again in 30 years is probably a good thing.
How useless our planners are.

Wild and mostly inacurate generalisations. As an architect I deplore the architecture but find more indigestible the rampant commercial hype that would even embarass an estate agent.

'Glass and steel is simple and cheaper to use because proper stonemasons and carpenters are too expensive.' Stonemasons do not exist any more except on English Heritage jobs. Most dressed stone used today in buildings would probably come direct from the factory. The glass and steel fitters are probably paid much more than a carpenter. 

'Thus maximum profits are made for the architects and builders.' Architects do not profit from what they specify. Fees are based on other criteria. Builders tender for work irrespective of what the materials are except that their cost and the cost of labour to work the materials into the building have to be weighed in the contract cost.

But, if they are totally out of keeping with the surrounding areas, they should not be used. I think it was a Rogers design of Chelsea Barracks that created the furore that got the design stopped. The residents of the surrounding areas felt it would dominate a mainly residential area, and absolutely did not "fit in".
Look at the monstrosity at the top of Sloane St. It's ugly, and again out of step with the local area, how it got through planning heaven knows, and Chelsea Bridge Road had some similarities. Other major cities manage to keep old and new designs. London seems hell bent on knocking down everything old and replacing it only with glass and steel.

Dear Jean H, I couldn't agree more and I was one of the local residents that apposed the intitial Chelsea Barracks Designs

Dear Andrew. Thanks for your comments and it is interesting that you, as an architect, 'deplore the architecture'.
I seem to have touched some nerves and others such as Jean H and Barnaby Hughes seem to agree with me. My remarks are not wild but heartfelt.
I remember the excitement when the ghastly tower and office blocks were appearing in the '60s yet most of us hated them and thankfully they are being torn down. No architect would ever admit that they were artistically unimaginative and dull. This may happen again to these new developments in years to come.
Certain architects seem to want to build monuments to themselves and as far as I know the only successful one was Sir Christopher Wren.  The one I mentioned was enraged when he was prevented from ruining the old 60s vintage Chelsea barrack area opposite and east of the Royal Hospital Infirmary which, by the way, has plenty of fine detail influenced by the better buildings of an earlier time. So it can be done.
Your practice looks interesting from your website and does fine work but presumably is not involved in these mega projects.
I just wish there could be some more imagination and style used. The south bank from Putney to Vauxhall has been largely spoiled with large buildings with windy canyons inside. Peope there live in little pigeon holes.
Surely they can do better and chances such as these do not occur often.
(Don't fees produce profits?)
Richard

Richard S

Please refer to my first post on this subject.

I take exception to the lay person's view that all buildings are all due to architects. The tower and office blocks so deprecated are just as much a function of economics as political. In particular the tower blocks of the 1960s in all major cities throughout the UK were part of a national political numbers game where quantity was valued by politicians more than quaiity and Council architect's departments were the slave of the committee system and politically motivated lay persons.

In more recent times developer's take the lead either in the accountant's bottom line calculation or by the beauty parade system of selection of designer which will not always be an architect. The Marco Polo building in Chelsea Bridge Road (which is now scheduled for demolition and the site redeveloped) was designed by a surveyor come developer.

Andrew H
Buildings are not designed by lay persons by which I assume you mean me, so who is responsible?
It might be better if they were.
RIBA seem to have had some pretty weird ideas in the past.
Where did 'Brutalism' come from and were  Le Corbusier and  Erno Goldfinger architects?
I agree that in certain areas after slum clearances the cheapest and simplest buildings were built under political pressure.
Did the architectural profession criticise or object?
The Piper Building in Fulham was even listed recently with the Trellick Tower. I don't think many lay people (Ignorami?) were consulted.

Your points:

1 That is not what I said: econimists, developers, politicians since they are the prime movers.
2 It wouldn't be.
3 Agreed.
4 Yes, in a post war, post rationing glut of freedom of use of new and plentiful materials from the late 1950s and during a period of radical rebuilding following nearly 20 years of virtually no building. Context is always of import.
5 Good.
6 Yes.
7 Not sure of your point. Re Trellick Tower I was apalled to see a TV programme some years ago about Erno Goldfinger living in a flat in the tower for a week, or was it two, and then concluding the scheme a success. With a different society with different values he might not have been short of a point except, as a rule of thumb, high rise disenfranchises people from place which is the vital ingredient of humanity.

Again, I would refer you to my original post which still does not seem to have been understood.

Can I now leave this discussion of architecture to others of the profession as I know several do post here and I do not think I have anything of merit to add.

I struggle with this issue that buildings must be "in total keeping" with their surroundings. That means a real danger of never moving on and never taking advantage of new materials and processes.
I'm more of a - let it be distinctive, well built, long lasting and comfortable for its users - person.
My biggest issue is with new build buildings that quickly deteriorate with age - those using bright colours that fade with the sun and streak with the rain. Those that use natural wood but never seem to get a coat of varnish.

Rant over!

I'm all for moving with the times, but when I think of what Chelsea barracks might have been! The surrounding area is brick built low rise residential. the design would have over shadowed the whole area and completely out of place. there is nothing wrong with keeping designs in line with the buildings around it. the Royal Hospital managed to do it, and knocked down the 60s built horror and built a beautiful building which fits in with other buildings in the hospital and the area

And the Corbusian idyll of concrete architecture exemplorised by the South Bank QEH, Haywood and even NT are wrong headed since the idyll requires an idealistic climate of dryness and sunlight. I visited Chandigarh in the early 1970s to see a Corbusian idyll a total failure of idea and actuality.

Andrew. Thanks for an interesting exchange of views and we are not that far apart really.
My rant over also (until the next time!)
Richard

Am afraid that last Thursday the Planning Applications Committee passed another giant application for 200 metre (660 feet) giants right next to the Tower currently going up. If built as planned one of them will be higher than the Tower and the other just lower.

I and fellow Councillor Billi Randall were the only two opposed to the application largely because it had (and has) nothing to do with any known housing need in Wandsworth. We all know that the flats will be expensive and be part of an elite metropolitan London scene that excludes most of us.

There are very few "affordable flats" planned and in any case they will not be very affordable - in ordinary language. We also are not keen on Nine Elms becoming a mini-Manhattan but I am afraid that is where the money is.

that's a real shame. When the Chelsea Barracks plan was first publicised there was a huge campaign against it, including a mass demonstration at the planning meeting. There was almost a riot when we were told we couldn't attend the meeting (these are public). In the end they opened up lots of rooms where we could hear, but not see, the planning meeting. Prince Charles intervention may have helped, but it was definitely the huge backlash against the plan that bought about it's demise. Is there no way, you could galvanise local opposition to the plans, in the way we did with CB?

Jeez,  you guys! 

Did any of you actually go and see the plans, etc for the building?  We did, and were very impressed.  I think the building will be amazing. 

That's all I have to say. 

Dear Judy,

Every thing looks good when it's a model. Even a model turd would look good, given the right rendering and on va background that suggests it's built in the
middle of a field

Dear Jean H, The trouble is that it isn't a predominantly residential area so there's not a lot of people in the locale who can kick up a stink unfoutunately.

Dear Tony B, There soon won't be any affordable accomodation in Central London and only Merchant bankers and rats will be able to dwell here, lol

Oh, of course the mayor and prime minister as well.

Why knock the rich? I think it's great that  Americans with money are moving into our area.

It will create employment in bars, restaurants and other businesses. That's what many local people need.

I think the rats have already left!

What the local people need is jobs, agreed, but with decent wages. The people working in bars and restaurants are on such low wages, they can't afford to live in London, neither can they afford to live within travelling distance as transport is so expensive when you live on minimum wage. When that is sorted out, then I will be happy for rich Americans to live in London.  As someone who was born and have lived in London all my life, but worked in retail on low wages, I hate to see what is happening to my city. People like myself are gradually being forced out of London. when we are all gone, who then will serve you in bars and restaurants and shops? Or clean your streets

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2012/june12/210612/210612_5

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/11268/market_and_one_nine_elms_schemes_approved

Hmm. Very little about affordable (misnomer) housing