Quote:
Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc
I love London... One thing that has always struck me about it though, it that it's not a place of harmony. The historic buildings seem to have been designed as individual units with no thought to their neighbors, with each building trying to impress, dominate, and intimidate on its own, with the end result being that the old city had a sort of scowling grandeur. I can only imagine how much more pronounced that aspect of things was back when the entire city was coated in a black layer of coal smoke grime. Meanwhile the newer buildings were, one, designed by the thousands at the nadir of urban design in the 1950's and 1960's, and, two, designed not to merely clash with each other and their historic counterparts, but to openly brawl with them. The trend toward novelty architecture, such as with that one building that looks like a giant walkie-talkie, only exacerbated that aspect of things. The total result of it all, to me, is that London is vibrant, refreshing, vital... but God almighty is it ugly.
But, oh, how I do love her so...
|
Hey cmaawn that isn't ugly in my book. The jostling of styles to outdo one another makes for such a tapestry everywhere, and so much attention is paid to the public realm in fitting in the space, from the elevations and colours of the materials to blend in or beautifully offset (even though the styles are different), and the retro fitting of the public spaces to marry the built realm, from the choice of trees (such as birch with black and white stucco for example) to the recent creation of thousands of squares, oases and courtyards between buildings.
For example: a newish style building offsets the older neighbour but blends in - note the employ of elevation and striation:
www.dsdha.co.uk
another insert marries two very different styles:
www.theconstructionindex.co.uk
while another new build had to stipulate a neoclassical style to define the famous art deco neighbour next door (the flagship Waterstones store):
www.intbau.org
and another does the opposite (they also added an extra floor to the old building on the right to marry the elevations).
www.mecserve.com
https://assets.savills.com
^all of those examples are on the same street.
Look again at the OP's pics and you'll see there is planning and intent and collaboration in the plonking of new styles into the fabric.
This is what makes building in London such a nightmare for developers - the absolute gamut of the heritage societies, community groups and design councils.
This was infamously built last year and despite its high spec design and expense, it won the Carbuncle Cup as the country's worst new building for its insensitivity. I rather like the contrast that you do see dotted around but the contemporary architectural community thinks otherwise (Thankyou summersm343):
Personally I love the juxtaposition of new and old, especially in The City financial district, ruled by Peter Rees' design council that protects the heritage but aso ensures the new builds are as striking a contrast as they can make it, in contrast to West London rules, but keeping to strict regulations on interplaying with the street:
It's the winning card by the financial district to redefine itself like no other.
Across from The City is Southwark, which doesn't fall under Rees administration, and has come under criticism. Much like across the river there's a use of contrast - but the lack of cohesion with the surrounding streets at ground llevel has drawn much criticism:
^In The City the developers would have had to interplay a new courtyard and public space with the street, and bottom floors be stuffed with shops and access.
Such as so, where the lobby has been entirey replaced with escalators leading to shops and an indoor market: