London Architecture
CmdrAtticus
United StatesPosts: 1,102MI6 Agent
As a graphic designer and an admirer of classical art and architecture, it depresses me to no end of what is happening to the skyline of London.
I recently researched recent and new developments and was horrified to see what London is turning into...as one critic put it - the "Dubai on the Thames". I can't agree more.
Now, I'm not one of those people stuck in some time warp that would never want a major city's skyline to grow and adapt to modern times. It's a necessity and needs to be done. My gripe is with the Planning Decisions Unit of the Greater London Authority who greenlights the architectural monstrosities that are turning this once charming, sophisticated and historical city into an eclectic mix of towering eyesores that is robbing the capitol of it's character all in the name of - let's face it - the almighty coin. Little consideration is given for scale and setting, make minimal contribution to public realm or street-level experience and are designed without concern for their cumulative effect and impact.
Th planning and political systems are proving inadequate to protect the valued qualities of London, or provide a coherent and positive vision for the future skyline. The official policy is that tall buildings should be 'well designed and in the right place', yet implementation of policy is fragmented and weak.
These ugly buildings do not answer the city's housing needs, but respond to a bubble of international investment in London residential property. Over 200 tall buildings, from 20 storeys to much greater heights, are currently consented or proposed. Many of them are hugely prominent and grossly insensitive to their immediate context and appearance on the skyline.
The London mayor's spokesman said that "virtually every one" of the towers had the support of local politicians and English Heritage, adding: "The mayor needs to balance an array of challenges and competing interests across a rapidly growing city. According to New London Architecture (NLA), of the buildings being planned, 189 (80%) are intended to be residential, but do not meet London's housing needs because of their price and dimensions. Many projects are funded by foreign investors seeking a safe berth – and healthy returns – for their money amid political instability in the Middle East, Russia and elsewhere.
My wife and I plan on re-visiting London together in the near future and though we are looking forward to what we forsee as the historically rich, cultural trip we envision, it looks like we will be in for a great deal of disappointment at how this once beautiful city - so much of which was dressed up by the great Sir Christopher Michael Wren - is purging the city's design of all the great architectural influences of the past.
Thank heavens EON chose to have Bond's new flat be in a classical, historical building and not in one of the Orwellian, boxy nightmares of our current times.
I recently researched recent and new developments and was horrified to see what London is turning into...as one critic put it - the "Dubai on the Thames". I can't agree more.
Now, I'm not one of those people stuck in some time warp that would never want a major city's skyline to grow and adapt to modern times. It's a necessity and needs to be done. My gripe is with the Planning Decisions Unit of the Greater London Authority who greenlights the architectural monstrosities that are turning this once charming, sophisticated and historical city into an eclectic mix of towering eyesores that is robbing the capitol of it's character all in the name of - let's face it - the almighty coin. Little consideration is given for scale and setting, make minimal contribution to public realm or street-level experience and are designed without concern for their cumulative effect and impact.
Th planning and political systems are proving inadequate to protect the valued qualities of London, or provide a coherent and positive vision for the future skyline. The official policy is that tall buildings should be 'well designed and in the right place', yet implementation of policy is fragmented and weak.
These ugly buildings do not answer the city's housing needs, but respond to a bubble of international investment in London residential property. Over 200 tall buildings, from 20 storeys to much greater heights, are currently consented or proposed. Many of them are hugely prominent and grossly insensitive to their immediate context and appearance on the skyline.
The London mayor's spokesman said that "virtually every one" of the towers had the support of local politicians and English Heritage, adding: "The mayor needs to balance an array of challenges and competing interests across a rapidly growing city. According to New London Architecture (NLA), of the buildings being planned, 189 (80%) are intended to be residential, but do not meet London's housing needs because of their price and dimensions. Many projects are funded by foreign investors seeking a safe berth – and healthy returns – for their money amid political instability in the Middle East, Russia and elsewhere.
My wife and I plan on re-visiting London together in the near future and though we are looking forward to what we forsee as the historically rich, cultural trip we envision, it looks like we will be in for a great deal of disappointment at how this once beautiful city - so much of which was dressed up by the great Sir Christopher Michael Wren - is purging the city's design of all the great architectural influences of the past.
Thank heavens EON chose to have Bond's new flat be in a classical, historical building and not in one of the Orwellian, boxy nightmares of our current times.
Comments
if you look at your bottom picture ,the odd shaped building on the left is commonly known as the walkie talkie building ?
its almost like the builders had the plans upside down ,when they erected it
'Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect.'- Benny Hill (1924-1992)
Cheers - thanks for the tip.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I always loved that quote.
Don't know if I'll ever make that trip. My wife's been there before I knew her and there are so many other places I want to visit or revisit and little time left to do it - we're both around sixty and not wealthy (though we live well enough and have no dependents), so tick-tock, tick tock...
Imo the most energetic city in the world - NYC is boring in comparison
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yep ,that's two chances London got to improve the city ,and we still cocked it up X-(
well I find NYC a great city (but then I havnt been to Honkers )
(smile your on AJB)
This is true. NYC could have turned out like that and though there are many wonderful old buildings being demolished and a few eyesores going up, it's stlll an astonishing metropolis to see. The lower end still has some of the old world atmosphere because of it's old buildings and neighborhoods, shops and streets combined with the 21st century of the commerce center (including the newly opened One World Trace Center). Even when going up to mid town on the avenues they are lined with many old buildings and in the spring and summer the sidewalks and center medians are cascaded with flowers. Then you have the old famous landmarks of the Empire State, Chrysler and Grand Central Terminal buildings before entering the wonderful Central Park with the grand Plaza Hotel at the doorstep. It's still full of immigrant owned restaurants (some of them quite old) and bakeries and small art galleries, bookshops, etc. Though the large chain retailers may have made some inroads into Manhattan, it's local businesses still hold their own and are very highly regarded. We would not think twice of living there if it were not for the out of reach housing and taxes as well as the brutal winters they suffer through. Still, we can still take our small jaunts there to see one of the great Broadway plays or snoop through the amazing museums or just meander through the Park.
you cant beat this
I went to Dubai a couple of years ago and it has the most amazing buildings and skyline but not in a good way. Very superficial and futuristic. You can tell it hasn't developed organically.
Loved the place though.
is that good or bad 8-)
There used to be a building next to the clock tower but H.K govt wouldn't listen to people so they tore it down.......