Tweet
Originally posted by George Hutchinson
View Post
Rob
-
LL was published in partwork between 1901 and 1902, which is how I have it and PotA is 1903 according to my edition. Not bad considering I was going by memory
Rob -
I donīt really understand why we should worry about this development. After all, this, in my opinion rather cool looking building, is replacing what was one of the most horrible 70s monstrosities in the area.
Itīs not like history is being lost here. For all I care they should pull down every single post-war building in the East End and reaplce them with modern building. These new buildings provide more room for pedestrians, new homes, offices, bars, cafes, they repair broken streetscape and will also give London the skyline she so desperately needs.
As long as nothing of the old stuff goes Iīm all for it.Comment
-
Hi Normy,Originally posted by Normy View Post
I expect you can guess from my first paragraph on that post what my real thoughts are. Personally I would like to see Spitalfields stay the way it is but I suppose some would say I am an old lady and should make way for the young and the bright.Comment
-
^ Agreed with M_2 in this instance, although we all know some great old stuff has gone in the area recently. The new building looks totally out of place but it nevertheless looks impressive and better than what was there before (I have a photo of its demolition if people have forgotten). Still, this is going on all over the place in the area right now; it's not just this huge thing in Bell Lane. There's a new block being built on top of Aldgate East tube, a huge building about to go up on the other side of the road (for which some fine old 1800s buildings came down), and something vast behind St Botolph's Church. Too big for their surroundings although the design is better than their modern predecessors.
PHILIPTour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd.Comment
-
Can I ask you chaps, especially Rob and Phillip, what you think of 'the gerkin'?
I saw it close up a few months ago, from an angle where it towered over that lovely little church (I don't know what road it was but I was standing across the street and on the corner was a lovely old chuch and towering above it was 'the gerkin'.) I thought that it looked hideous. It actually made me think that a computer-generated image had been inserted behind the church. From the river, against a varied skyline of old and new buildings, it doen't look so bad but close up it's horrible.
Incidently, the architect, Norman Foster, has designed a new school here in Peterborough, right next door to where I work. Across the road from it is a beautiful old Victorian town park and it is surrounded by beautiful Edwardian and 1930s houses with large gardens. The school itself is so out of place and from the air looks like a glass and wood teddy bear.Comment
-
Hi Limehouse
'I expect you can guess from my first paragraph on that post what my real thoughts are. Personally I would like to see Spitalfields stay the way it is but I suppose some would say I am an old lady and should make way for the young and the bright.'
Well then we're a couple of old ladies and if that means no more cold emotionless structures replacing characterful stone quaint erections I'm happy to be an old lady!
And on the subject of erections, I was walking a rather nice young Japanese lady through London one fine afternoon not so long ago.
We chanced upon the Norman Foster building and I said 'My dear, do you know what they call this building? Well it's known as the Cucumber!'
What was I thinking?
NormyComment
-
Hi Limehouse,
When I first saw the Gherkin I never liked it very much, but I suppose I'm getting used to it now and don't mind it as much. There's a lot worse out there.
RobComment
-
I was in London this summer (excellent city I must say). And I think the Gherkin looks quite cool. Not all new buildings are great (Aldgate, London wall), but how can you not like the gherkin? Itīs thin and elegant (i.e. not a glass box) and the cladding is top notch.
I visited the East End and I think it still feels very victorian. What makes some places there ugly has more to do with failure in planning, unnecessary street furniture and post-war buildings. If anything the gherkin adds to the richness and diversity of London.
Anyway, if you canīt stand it the shard will be a hard thing to melt
Comment
-
I do have fairly strong opinions on The Gherkin (or the Swiss Re building to give it its boring real name for its boring real purpose).
When it first went up, like Rob, I loathed it (erm... concurring with Rob's opinion, not loathing it like I loathe Rob). I quickly decided that it wasn't the building that I hated, it was the size of it and it's location. If it had been 2/3 of the size and on the bank of The Thames, I would have liked it a lot more. I remained in disgust at it for some time until finally a couple of years ago I actually saw it up close whilst in St Mary Axe itself.
My idea became the opposite of Limehouse's; when I saw it by itself and not in the context of other buildings, I started to appreciate it more. I would still sooner it wasn't there at all but, again I agree with Rob that there's worse out there.
One thing I always tell American tourists who ask about it is that Norman Foster was one of the architects shortlisted for the rebuild at Ground Zero after 9/11 and they should be relieved he didn't win or they might have two Gherkins.
The one high-rise in London I DO really like is the NatWest Tower. THAT'S what one should look like!
PHILIPTour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd.Comment
-
There was a young fellow named PerkinOriginally posted by Normy View Post
Who was always jerkin' his gherkin
His mother said "Perkin,
Stop jerkin' your gherkin -
You gherkin's for ferkin' not jerkin'"
...I thanggyow!Kind regards, Sam Flynn
"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)Comment
-
Uh, thanks for that, Sam. I guess.
My initial reaction to the Gherkin was the same: I hated it. Yet another example of the complete and utter decline of London's architecture over the last forty years, I said to myself. Then a friend told me that people had reacted in exactly the same way when the OXO Tower went up. It was then seen as an abomination, yet I'm very fond of that building. The same friend told me that older people only dislike the Gherkin because they remember when it wasn't there. Younger people, who have known it all their lives, will view it with affection as a distinctive landmark. Sounds right to me.Comment
-
Thanks for your views chaps - especially the comparison with the Oxo building, which I like very much. I guess that as I have been living out of London for 20 years, the changes smack you in the face a bit when you do visit.Comment
-
When St Paulīs Cathedral was built Wren actually hid it behind scaffolding because he feared people would hate it and demand him to stop the construction. When the scaffolding came down lots of people did hate it. Nowadays itīs regarded as one of the best buildings in London.
The same happened with the Eiffel Tower. The Parisians didnīt want a 300m iron tower in their beatiful city. They hated it. Today itīs the symbol of Paris and even France.
People are afraid of change.Comment
-
The Natwest Tower is also my favourite high rise in London. There's something quite stately and elegant in its simplicity - the Gherkin (and many of these other new builds) seem a bit gimmicky to me.Originally posted by George Hutchinson View Post
Ironically, the NatWest tower was designed by Seifert who was responsible for Rodwell House (1959), the horrible building that has recently been demolished to make way for - you guessed it - 100 Middlesex Street.Comment
-
Here is a set on Flickr showing several old London Locales, there is one of a shop on Artillery Lane.
Regards Mike
Comment
Comment