60s architecture was modern (obviously) at one stage. That's what I think most of today's modernity will be like. Awful. All glass and no privacy, no thank you.
I hate it when they insist on putting bright colours on the buildings.
Near where i am they have just put up a new building and it has bright blue splashed here and there.
The fact is that further into the City there's an estate that's been there for a while which also has alot of blue on the roofs and such and it looks absolutely awful. They may look.. OK (although i don't think it looks particularly nice to begin with) but once its been there a while and the colours start to get dirty and dull it just looks horrible.
You're wrong. There's a very high profile terrace been recently built in London that references traditional models without being a dull as tits facsimile. And it's social housing.
Get wit the program, daddio.
I think I saw this on a series about London streets (Steven Mackintosh narrated it). They rebuilt so that the new buildings would be in keeping with the existing housing. They looked lovely, but I thought they were private. Maybe this is another development?
I also remember seeing something on BBC4 about the first social housing projects in this country and a couple of the commentators said that architects generally design ugly social housing knowing they will never have to live there. Which sounds about right. There are some god-awful looking new flats going up near Lewisham station that makes me think the architect was having a laugh. Or high. Or both!! All cheap multi-coloured glass panels that will look like a ghetto in 2 years time. I have to wonder who would buy one?
It saddens me to think that architects could design and build some really attractive housing (social or otherwise) that people would actually want to live in, but instead choose to go for the 'look at me' approach. Thing is, that sort of design has no substance and no longevity. In 20 years time it will be bulldozed to make way for something else...
I think I saw this on a series about London streets (Steven Mackintosh narrated it). They rebuilt so that the new buildings would be in keeping with the existing housing. They looked lovely, but I thought they were private. Maybe this is another development?
I also remember seeing something on BBC4 about the first social housing projects in this country and a couple of the commentators said that architects generally design ugly social housing knowing they will never have to live there. Which sounds about right. There are some god-awful looking new flats going up near Lewisham station that makes me think the architect was having a laugh. Or high. Or both!! All cheap multi-coloured glass panels that will look like a ghetto in 2 years time. I have to wonder who would buy one?
It saddens me to think that architects could design and build some really attractive housing (social or otherwise) that people would actually want to live in, but instead choose to go for the 'look at me' approach. Thing is, that sort of design has no substance and no longevity. In 20 years time it will be bulldozed to make way for something else...
I think you must be referring to Cambwell Grove - I live really near there. The street is absolutely gorgeous, and the new buildings do look really good.... virtually indistinguishable from the old ones. Of course, you'll still get some modern architecture fanatic saying they are 'pastiche'...
I haven't got a gripe with modern architecture per se....
But...
In Glasgow they seem to let the beautiful old buildings rot then demolish them to place modern buildings with no thought into areas that have beautiful old architecture, that's what makes the new ones appear an eyesore.
For instance the old post office building, it has a glass modern roof extension, imo its just urgh.
Well I suppose its expected look at the square, I dread to think what they are again going to do that...hopefully they won't get away somehow with removing the monuments, as the council proposed....
I do like the lighthouse however, but that is hidden a bit
How an exceptional generation of British architects, led by Norman Foster and Richard Rogers, conquered the globe with their high-tech vision.
The first episode includes glimpses of some of their most stunning recent work, such as London's new 'Cheesegrater' skyscraper, Spaceport America and the KK100 skyscraper in China (the tallest tower ever built by a British architect), before looking in detail at some of their revolutionary projects from the 1960s and 70s.
Foster, Rogers, Nicholas Grimshaw, Michael Hopkins and Terry Farrell were born within six years of each other in the 1930s; shaped by both the opimtism of the post-war years and the sixties counterculture, these pillars of today's establishment began their careers as outsiders and radicals.
I love modern architecture. It's generally imaginative, attractive, varied and functional. The tall buildings in the City of London and Canary Wharf are spectacular, creating a vibrant, exciting skyline.
How utterly inanely boring would the world be if all architecture was uniform and identical?
The whole point of the beauty of London is the diversity, the remarkable contrasts between stupendously classical architecture evoking images of Empire, and yet they stand along side the challenging and courageous cutting edge modern buildings such as the Shard.
The beauty is the ability to contrast to pick and choose the parts you like. You don't like the Shard? Turn around and look in the other direction and see Canary Wharf in the distance. Not your cup of tea? A slight turn and you can see St Paul's Cathedral. Still nothing. Turn slightly again and you've got the Tate Modern in its imperious might of a building.
How an exceptional generation of British architects, led by Norman Foster and Richard Rogers, conquered the globe with their high-tech vision.
The first episode includes glimpses of some of their most stunning recent work, such as London's new 'Cheesegrater' skyscraper, Spaceport America and the KK100 skyscraper in China (the tallest tower ever built by a British architect), before looking in detail at some of their revolutionary projects from the 1960s and 70s.
Foster, Rogers, Nicholas Grimshaw, Michael Hopkins and Terry Farrell were born within six years of each other in the 1930s; shaped by both the opimtism of the post-war years and the sixties counterculture, these pillars of today's establishment began their careers as outsiders and radicals.
There was a documentary about Brutalism on BBC4 on Sunday evening. Sadly it was presented by that slavering goat Jonathan Meades. Probably worth watching in spite of that. Part 2 next Sunday.
There was a documentary about Brutalism on BBC4 on Sunday evening. Sadly it was presented by that slavering goat Jonathan Meades. Probably worth watching in spite of that. Part 2 next Sunday.
How utterly inanely boring would the world be if all architecture was uniform and identical?
The whole point of the beauty of London is the diversity, the remarkable contrasts between stupendously classical architecture evoking images of Empire, and yet they stand along side the challenging and courageous cutting edge modern buildings such as the Shard.
The beauty is the ability to contrast to pick and choose the parts you like. You don't like the Shard? Turn around and look in the other direction and see Canary Wharf in the distance. Not your cup of tea? A slight turn and you can see St Paul's Cathedral. Still nothing. Turn slightly again and you've got the Tate Modern in its imperious might of a building.
I accept your point, although I object to the use of 'diversity', especially in this context (it seems whenever I criticise modern architecture in London for example, the default response is 'but the diversity of all the different styles is incredible etc etc etc)
Fair enough. But for me, and I'd wager for the average person, there is nothing appealing about a street where each house is of a different style.. think about how ridiculous, and how absurd, it would be if say there was a brutalist house, followed by a Georgian house, followed by a house that resembles the monstrosity that is St George's Wharf in London. It would look horrific and it would be a sh*te place to live. And yet that is the situation in many cities in the UK - jumbles of buildings scattered around, most of which have no architectural merit whatsoever.
'Diversity' is great in some areas, like the City for example. There you have grand old period buildings sitting side by side with flashy skyscrapers that cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and were designed by the best architects. Pretty much everywhere else has to suffice with what appears to be pre-designed, mass-produced prefabricated crap. There's no consistency whatsoever. At least with prewar buildings you knew what you were getting: a pile of bricks which, while not particularly exciting, would always look attractive and (crucially) could stand the test of time.
I don't have a problem with 'modern' architecture (if I can class it as such). If the average new build were of a consistent level of quality, I'd be very happy. It just never seems to happen: we just get the same old glass towers over and over and over. That tower in Vauxhall being but one example - apart from its height, can you really say that its design is of any merit? No.. it's crap. And there seems to be a endless pipeline of similar projects on the Thames riverside in London.
Those BBC documentaries were just a sycophantic bumming session for modern architecture and the holy 'starchitects'. It's ironic that these architects (Rogers etc) were once viewed as radical - now their firms dominate the industry and keep us confined to their outdated designs. They should move over and let fresh talent in instead..
I accept your point, although I object to the use of 'diversity', especially in this context (it seems whenever I criticise modern architecture in London for example, the default response is 'but the diversity of all the different styles is incredible etc etc etc)
Fair enough. But for me, and I'd wager for the average person, there is nothing appealing about a street where each house is of a different style.. think about how ridiculous, and how absurd, it would be if say there was a brutalist house, followed by a Georgian house, followed by a house that resembles the monstrosity that is St George's Wharf in London. It would look horrific and it would be a sh*te place to live. And yet that is the situation in many cities in the UK - jumbles of buildings scattered around, most of which have no architectural merit whatsoever.
'Diversity' is great in some areas, like the City for example. There you have grand old period buildings sitting side by side with flashy skyscrapers that cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and were designed by the best architects. Pretty much everywhere else has to suffice with what appears to be pre-designed, mass-produced prefabricated crap. There's no consistency whatsoever. At least with prewar buildings you knew what you were getting: a pile of bricks which, while not particularly exciting, would always look attractive and (crucially) could stand the test of time.
I don't have a problem with 'modern' architecture (if I can class it as such). If the average new build were of a consistent level of quality, I'd be very happy. It just never seems to happen: we just get the same old glass towers over and over and over. That tower in Vauxhall being but one example - apart from its height, can you really say that its design is of any merit? No.. it's crap. And there seems to be a endless pipeline of similar projects on the Thames riverside in London.
Those BBC documentaries were just a sycophantic bumming session for modern architecture and the holy 'starchitects'. It's ironic that these architects (Rogers etc) were once viewed as radical - now their firms dominate the industry and keep us confined to their outdated designs. They should move over and let fresh talent in instead..
I agree. Modernism is an utterly moribund, tired and worn out aesthetic. It's now as much a dead-end as Neo-Gothic or Neo-Classicism were at the start of the 20th century. Unfortunately it's cheap to build. Cheap, cheap, cheap. It requires nothing more than steel girders, concrete and endless panels of glass, so we're stuck with it. The way London is busily defacing it's already compromised skyline is hilarious. One grotty, repetitive tower block is now being flung up after another. One thing's for sure about Modernism, we'll never, ever be rid of it.
There was a documentary about Brutalism on BBC4 on Sunday evening. Sadly it was presented by that slavering goat Jonathan Meades. Probably worth watching in spite of that. Part 2 next Sunday.
Comments
Near where i am they have just put up a new building and it has bright blue splashed here and there.
The fact is that further into the City there's an estate that's been there for a while which also has alot of blue on the roofs and such and it looks absolutely awful. They may look.. OK (although i don't think it looks particularly nice to begin with) but once its been there a while and the colours start to get dirty and dull it just looks horrible.
I also remember seeing something on BBC4 about the first social housing projects in this country and a couple of the commentators said that architects generally design ugly social housing knowing they will never have to live there. Which sounds about right. There are some god-awful looking new flats going up near Lewisham station that makes me think the architect was having a laugh. Or high. Or both!! All cheap multi-coloured glass panels that will look like a ghetto in 2 years time. I have to wonder who would buy one?
It saddens me to think that architects could design and build some really attractive housing (social or otherwise) that people would actually want to live in, but instead choose to go for the 'look at me' approach. Thing is, that sort of design has no substance and no longevity. In 20 years time it will be bulldozed to make way for something else...
This..
There are a few nice looking modern buildings but they don't compare with the time, money and attention that was put into many older buildings.
I think you must be referring to Cambwell Grove - I live really near there. The street is absolutely gorgeous, and the new buildings do look really good.... virtually indistinguishable from the old ones. Of course, you'll still get some modern architecture fanatic saying they are 'pastiche'...
http://images.zoopla.co.uk/95e56bcaeb9fbf67388656e55cedf88d83c69e66_645_430.jpg
Not everyone .It looks like my wife's dildo .
But...
In Glasgow they seem to let the beautiful old buildings rot then demolish them to place modern buildings with no thought into areas that have beautiful old architecture, that's what makes the new ones appear an eyesore.
For instance the old post office building, it has a glass modern roof extension, imo its just urgh.
Well I suppose its expected look at the square, I dread to think what they are again going to do that...hopefully they won't get away somehow with removing the monuments, as the council proposed....
I do like the lighthouse however, but that is hidden a bit
The Brits who Built the Modern World
Dreaming the Impossible: Unbuilt Britain: Glass Houses, was repeated too.
How an exceptional generation of British architects, led by Norman Foster and Richard Rogers, conquered the globe with their high-tech vision.
The first episode includes glimpses of some of their most stunning recent work, such as London's new 'Cheesegrater' skyscraper, Spaceport America and the KK100 skyscraper in China (the tallest tower ever built by a British architect), before looking in detail at some of their revolutionary projects from the 1960s and 70s.
Foster, Rogers, Nicholas Grimshaw, Michael Hopkins and Terry Farrell were born within six years of each other in the 1930s; shaped by both the opimtism of the post-war years and the sixties counterculture, these pillars of today's establishment began their careers as outsiders and radicals.
A new collection of stuff from the BBC archive too.
BBC Four collections:Post-War Architecture
The whole point of the beauty of London is the diversity, the remarkable contrasts between stupendously classical architecture evoking images of Empire, and yet they stand along side the challenging and courageous cutting edge modern buildings such as the Shard.
The beauty is the ability to contrast to pick and choose the parts you like. You don't like the Shard? Turn around and look in the other direction and see Canary Wharf in the distance. Not your cup of tea? A slight turn and you can see St Paul's Cathedral. Still nothing. Turn slightly again and you've got the Tate Modern in its imperious might of a building.
I made a point of watching that film and it was worth it. That said, I didn't agree with some of the architectural solutions that were on offer.
I much prefer Art Deco architecture which is modern and more humane and not harsh or brutalist as we can see here: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=art+deco+buildings&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ycv_UsPMNeuX0AWfhYDoDw&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=610
Watch Part 1 here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03vrphc/Bunkers_Brutalism_and_Bloodymindedness_Concrete_Poetry_with_Jonathan_Meades_Episode_1/
Oh I noticed that, didn't bother bumping or linking, I swear I've discussed Meades on here before, very little interest these days.
I accept your point, although I object to the use of 'diversity', especially in this context (it seems whenever I criticise modern architecture in London for example, the default response is 'but the diversity of all the different styles is incredible etc etc etc)
Fair enough. But for me, and I'd wager for the average person, there is nothing appealing about a street where each house is of a different style.. think about how ridiculous, and how absurd, it would be if say there was a brutalist house, followed by a Georgian house, followed by a house that resembles the monstrosity that is St George's Wharf in London. It would look horrific and it would be a sh*te place to live. And yet that is the situation in many cities in the UK - jumbles of buildings scattered around, most of which have no architectural merit whatsoever.
'Diversity' is great in some areas, like the City for example. There you have grand old period buildings sitting side by side with flashy skyscrapers that cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and were designed by the best architects. Pretty much everywhere else has to suffice with what appears to be pre-designed, mass-produced prefabricated crap. There's no consistency whatsoever. At least with prewar buildings you knew what you were getting: a pile of bricks which, while not particularly exciting, would always look attractive and (crucially) could stand the test of time.
I don't have a problem with 'modern' architecture (if I can class it as such). If the average new build were of a consistent level of quality, I'd be very happy. It just never seems to happen: we just get the same old glass towers over and over and over. That tower in Vauxhall being but one example - apart from its height, can you really say that its design is of any merit? No.. it's crap. And there seems to be a endless pipeline of similar projects on the Thames riverside in London.
Those BBC documentaries were just a sycophantic bumming session for modern architecture and the holy 'starchitects'. It's ironic that these architects (Rogers etc) were once viewed as radical - now their firms dominate the industry and keep us confined to their outdated designs. They should move over and let fresh talent in instead..
I agree. Modernism is an utterly moribund, tired and worn out aesthetic. It's now as much a dead-end as Neo-Gothic or Neo-Classicism were at the start of the 20th century. Unfortunately it's cheap to build. Cheap, cheap, cheap. It requires nothing more than steel girders, concrete and endless panels of glass, so we're stuck with it. The way London is busily defacing it's already compromised skyline is hilarious. One grotty, repetitive tower block is now being flung up after another. One thing's for sure about Modernism, we'll never, ever be rid of it.
Nothing much to add except LOL