# Colossal structure at Elephant - Strata Tower



## hipipol (Aug 6, 2009)

Well, you can hardly miss it, the huge building with a pair of cranes on top.
It will include 3 wind turbines in the roof when its finished which will generate enough power to light the whole thing
Stuff here - if you scroll thru the pics there are some of recent progress

and here

More about the turbines here including v cool looking airflow diagram!!!


----------



## Crispy (Aug 6, 2009)

I love this building


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2009)

I attempted to take a photo of it the other day but tripped over


----------



## hipipol (Aug 6, 2009)

It looks ace, but its so HUGE!!!!!!!

In the train coming into work this morning, it just dominates the view, I come through Denmark Hill then to Blackfriars so we pass the thing, and looking up through the window to see the top.....its dizzyingly magnificent!!!


----------



## Crispy (Aug 6, 2009)

Full of expensive apartments though  - I think the two penthouses are still available for £1.5m or something.


----------



## sir.clip (Aug 6, 2009)

It seems so daft that as one colossal estate is destroyed on one side of the road, another is built on the other.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2009)

hipipol said:


> It looks ace, but its so HUGE!!!!!!!
> 
> In the train coming into work this morning, it just dominates the view, I come through Denmark Hill then to Blackfriars so we pass the thing, and looking up through the window to see the top.....its dizzyingly magnificent!!!




I can see it from b/f's flat but my camera's not got enough zoomification 

I'm sure Editor can see it from his flat.  Maybe he could take some?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2009)

You can see it in the distance here


----------



## _pH_ (Aug 6, 2009)

Do all the lights go out when there's no wind?


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 6, 2009)

I think it looks better from a distance than it does close up. The exterior panelling etc looks kind of crappy close up and it doesn't improve the quality of the environment.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 6, 2009)

A better photo:


----------



## sir.clip (Aug 6, 2009)

Its just hideous. erk. Blot on the landscape. erk erk erk.


----------



## joevsimp (Aug 6, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Do all the lights go out when there's no wind?



no, the law requires that you don't keep the energy unless you go totally off-grid.  it just goes straight into the grid, the grid pays you a certain price per kilowatt and you buy it back


----------



## hipipol (Aug 6, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Do all the lights go out when there's no wind?



I wondered about that
Perhaps they pump water to the roof when theres loads of woind, then it is plunged into some basement turbine hall when the wind dies?

Nope, that was a real crap guess/speculate fail


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2009)

just taken these two out of the window.  It's a pretty grey and hazy day so crap pictures and they are from my camcorder which I haven't really figured out yet 







Top of the Strata


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> A better photo:





very nice photo, and it is the correct way up


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I think it looks better from a distance than it does close up. The exterior panelling etc looks kind of crappy close up and it doesn't improve the quality of the environment.




yeah, I'm thinking that white panelling is going to get filthy


----------



## hipipol (Aug 6, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Top of the Strata



Oh Wow, those turbines are going to be pretty huge too

If there are £1.5m penthouses up for sale, they might find them hard to shift, on account of their being DIRECLY below these things!!!!

I cant see a 24/7 whump, whump, whump, background noise being relaxing in anyway!!!!


----------



## Crispy (Aug 6, 2009)

There's a floor of plant inbetween them and the apartments, also the ducting cuts the noise right down.


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 6, 2009)

I saw the construction team at what I guess was the topping out ceremony about a week or so ago - there was something happening anyway, the whole crew were at the bottom and there was a bit of speechifying going on, and they all looked very happy with themselves before trundling into the lifts...


----------



## sir.clip (Aug 6, 2009)

hipipol said:


> Oh Wow, those turbines are going to be pretty huge too
> 
> If there are £1.5m penthouses up for sale, they might find them hard to shift, on account of their being DIRECLY below these things!!!!
> 
> I cant see a 24/7 whump, whump, whump, background noise being relaxing in anyway!!!!



Yeh i heard Turbines cause all kinds of problems with WIFI & Phone signals.


----------



## kyser_soze (Aug 6, 2009)

So how much will be wholly private, key worker etc?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2009)

hipipol said:


> Oh Wow, those turbines are going to be pretty huge too
> 
> If there are £1.5m penthouses up for sale, they might find them hard to shift, on account of their being DIRECLY below these things!!!!
> 
> I cant see a 24/7 whump, whump, whump, background noise being relaxing in anyway!!!!




You'd probably get used to them in no time, and start getting worried when you didn't hear them


----------



## Crispy (Aug 6, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> So how much will be wholly private, key worker etc?


I should imagine the statutary 10% or whatever. This is a wholly private enterprise. Redevelopment of the surrounding estates is stuck in development hell right now - the council and their developer can't agree on a masterplan.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 6, 2009)

The turbines are just a gimmick anyway. Can't rotate to face the wind, so don't work all the time, and provide only a fraction of the building's needs. They were added in towards the end of the design process to 'sex it up' a bit.


----------



## _pH_ (Aug 6, 2009)

joevsimp said:


> no, the law requires that you don't keep the energy unless you go totally off-grid.  it just goes straight into the grid, the grid pays you a certain price per kilowatt and you buy it back



Please note: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 +  = not entirely serious post.

hth


----------



## _pH_ (Aug 6, 2009)

Crispy said:


> The turbines are just a gimmick anyway. Can't rotate to face the wind, so don't work all the time, and provide only a fraction of the building's needs. They were added in towards the end of the design process to 'sex it up' a bit.



Have they made you moist crispeh?


----------



## sir.clip (Aug 6, 2009)

The Turbines sex it up?

Thats bizarre.. 

A roof garden for Naturists would have been a bit better really.


----------



## joevsimp (Aug 6, 2009)

_pH_ said:


> Please note:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



fair nuff, but its still a valid point, there could be a gale blowing, but in the event of a blackout they're just as buggered as the rest of us


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2009)

sir.clip said:


> The Turbines sex it up?
> 
> Thats bizarre..
> 
> A roof garden for Naturists would have been a bit better really.




Great fun for pervs with cameras with plentage of zoomage


----------



## sir.clip (Aug 6, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Great fun for pervs with cameras with plentage of zoomage



Ohhh Misses.. Me in me birthday suit in Elephant & you with ya zoomage..


----------



## Mapped (Aug 6, 2009)

I’ve been watching this going up for a while, and it certainly dominates the skyline. It’s the tallest building in Southwark until the Shard goes up.



kyser_soze said:


> So how much will be wholly private, key worker etc?



I had the same thought as new developments in swanky towers often seem to have most of the affordable housing provided 'off site' making the towers nearly 100% private housing. There isn't a great deal of affordable in this tower, but it's a lot more than some I've seen.

Some affordable housing  and market facts for Strata from a planning database if people are interested:

30% affordable housing, (by habitable rooms). Of these, 25% of the habitable rooms would be on site, comprising 98 of the total 408 homes (24%). So there’s 310 Wholly private homes.

78 flats are for shared ownership, and the other 20 units for social rent to accommodate the decanting of the Heygate Estate leaseholders. 

A further affordable housing contribution of 4.5% is to be provided by means of a commuted payment of £1.3 million elsewhere in the Masterplan area (yet to be identified). The number of homes has been estimated as 16.

Average Price: £500,000 
Max Price: £2,500,000 (1,863 sq ft penthouse)
Min Price: £245,000 (378 sq ft studio)

Four flats remained unsold in May 2009 (Including the largest penthouse at £2,500,000). 95% of all sales have been for investment and 290 of the 310 private flats were sold by August 2007.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 6, 2009)

sir.clip said:


> Its just hideous. erk. Blot on the landscape. erk erk erk.



At the Elephant? How could any building be ugly enough to count as a blot on the landscape at the Elephant?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 6, 2009)

I noticed today the top is now taking shape - proper Gotham City.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2009)

sir.clip said:


> Ohhh Misses.. Me in me birthday suit in Elephant & you with ya zoomage..




looking forward to it.  Do you have one of the penthouse suites bought?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 6, 2009)

ericjarvis said:


> At the Elephant? How could any building be ugly enough to count as a blot on the landscape at the Elephant?




Quite, I can't possibly see how anything can possibly be as as ugly as the monstrosity that the whole of the Elephant is


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

This tower has kind of sneaked up on me without my noticing till recently relatively. It's very prominent looking down Brixton Hill.

I don't really like it. Looks a bit tacky to me. And the wind turbines on top seem rather gimmicky. They say they will provide 40% of the building's energy ... I wonder if that's averaged over time or just when the wind happens to be blowing in the right direction. Somehow I suspect that the money spent on building the turbines could have been put to better use paying for some energy-efficiency measures that might have been less visible but more effective per £ spent.


----------



## g force (Aug 11, 2009)

N1 Buoy said:


> Min Price: £245,000 (378 sq ft studio)
> 
> Four flats remained unsold in May 2009 (Including the largest penthouse at £2,500,000). 95% of all sales have been for investment and 290 of the 310 private flats were sold by August 2007.



Ah ha ha....that's one of the funniest things i've read in a long time - someone's living a dream world!  A studio for a quarter of a million in Elephant and Castle. It's a shit building and looking worse by the day.


----------



## Rollem (Aug 11, 2009)

it's rank - i can see it from my front room. its a blot on the skyline and already looks tacky and outdated. 

might look cooler once finished but i doubt it


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

teuchter said:


> This tower has kind of sneaked up on me without my noticing till recently relatively. It's very prominent looking down Brixton Hill.
> 
> I don't really like it. Looks a bit tacky to me. And the wind turbines on top seem rather gimmicky. They say they will provide 40% of the building's energy ... I wonder if that's averaged over time or just when the wind happens to be blowing in the right direction. Somehow I suspect that the money spent on building the turbines could have been put to better use paying for some energy-efficiency measures that might have been less visible but more effective per £ spent.


 
I think the panels would have been better off being black or just glass, or even metal, but not plastic looking white which is going to look filthy in no time  



g force said:


> Ah ha ha....that's one of the funniest things i've read in a long time - someone's living a dream world! A studio for a quarter of a million in Elephant and Castle. It's a shit building and looking worse by the day.


 
There's a lot of students with rich mummies and daddies 



Rollem said:


> it's rank - i can see it from my front room. its a blot on the skyline and already looks tacky and outdated.
> 
> might look cooler once finished but i doubt it


 
I used to think the London Eye was going to look shit, but as I saw it being built day by day and seeing the pods coming up on the River, I warmed to it.  Now, I'd be pissed off if it fell into the Thames


----------



## Rollem (Aug 11, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I used to think the London Eye was going to look shit, but as I saw it being built day by day and seeing the pods coming up on the River, I warmed to it.  Now, I'd be pissed off if it fell into the Thames


maybes, but this is not a ferris wheel. this is a shite tower whcih spoils my view


----------



## Paulie (Aug 11, 2009)

Crispy said:


> I should imagine the statutary 10% or whatever. This is a wholly private enterprise. Redevelopment of the surrounding estates is stuck in development hell right now - the council and their developer can't agree on a masterplan.



I believe the social housing quota will be filled by part-buy units - no rented social housing at all.  People seem so dazzled by the promise of Elephant's resurrection as a consumer paradise - the outrageous social cleansing is ignored.  The fact it is a private development is the problem; as a ex-Southwark officer admitted, "unaspirational" working class folk are an obstacle to private investment.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

Rollem said:


> maybes, but this is not a ferris wheel. this is a shite tower whcih spoils my view



I've been trying to remember whether you used to be able to see the Gherkin looking down Brixton Hill in which case this has blocked that view.

Or maybe it's Stockwell road I'm thinking of?

The Gherkin is visible along the line of a suspiciously large number of streets in London.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I've been trying to remember whether you used to be able to see the Gherkin looking down Brixton Hill in which case this has blocked that view.
> 
> Or maybe it's Stockwell road I'm thinking of?
> 
> The Gherkin is visible along the line of a suspiciously large number of streets in London.


 

I can see Gherkin from b/f's flat still

see Post No. 8


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 11, 2009)

You could certainly see the Gherkin if you stood in the middle of Brixton Hill, not that I'd advise you do so, or sat upstairs front on the bus. 


Can't you see it now?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I can see Gherkin from b/f's flat still
> 
> see Post No. 8



Ah OK. Then it can't be blocking the view down the hill.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> You could certainly see the Gherkin if you stood in the middle of Brixton Hill,



Oh.

But then Minnie's photo doesn't make sense.

Are you sure?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

Seems like you can but it's not directly in line with the road, so the new tower can't be blocking it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Oh.
> 
> But then Minnie's photo doesn't make sense.
> 
> Are you sure?


 

The River bends, it makes everything most confusing and seem like it's in the wrong place.

In that picture, the three biggest buildings you can see are the Strata, the Natwest and then the Gherkin


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

Maybe if Editor took a photo from his vantage point, the buildings would look in a totally different position


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 11, 2009)

Am I sure about what? 

I have pointed out the Gherkin to people whilst on the bus down brixton hill. 

It is you who says it is not visible now.  I was informing you that it used to be.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Seems like you can but it's not directly in line with the road, so the new tower can't be blocking it.


 

Was that you that took that with your fancy camera?  I remember when someone posted that I thought they had some enormous zoom


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Am I sure about what?
> 
> I have pointed out the Gherkin to people whilst on the bus down brixton hill.
> 
> It is you who says it is not visible now. I was informing you that it used to be.


 

It's quite possible that from the Hill itself, it's being hidden by the new Tower whereas from the flat you're a bit further over so maybe getting a different.... erm, I'm rambling

Please ignore


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Was that you that took that with your fancy camera?  I remember when someone posted that I thought they had some enormous zoom



No, that's just stolen off Flickr.

I don't have a fancy camera.


----------



## Rollem (Aug 11, 2009)

teuchter said:


> The Gherkin is visible along the line of a suspiciously large number of streets in London.



i can see the gherkin from my kitchen window. i like that view, i dont mind being able to see the gherkin 

for the record, i can see the wheel, st pauls, tate modern and bt tower, along with various other big buildings,  from various windows in my abode. winner!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

teuchter said:


> No, that's just stolen off Flickr.
> 
> I don't have a fancy camera.


 

yes, but I think it was someone on here who took it.  Or they took a similar one when the road was closed temporarily (maybe because of tyre centre fire or an accident on the Hill).


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

Rollem said:


> i can see the gherkin from my kitchen window. i like that view, i dont mind being able to see the gherkin
> 
> for the record, i can see the wheel, st pauls, tate modern and bt tower, along with various other big buildings, from various windows in my abode. winner!


 

I can see from Battersea to Canary Wharf.  Bigger winner


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> It's quite possible that from the Hill itself, it's being hidden by the new Tower whereas from the flat you're a bit further over so maybe getting a different.... erm, I'm rambling
> 
> Please ignore



Nah that could only be the case if the elephant tower was to the right of the gherkin when seen from your penthouse. Because your penthouse is to the best of my knowledge to the left of Brixton Hill.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Nah that could only be the case if the elephant tower was to the right of the gherkin when seen from your penthouse. Because your penthouse is to the best of my knowledge to the left of Brixton Hill.


 

You're quite right, my penthouse is indeed to the left


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 11, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> yes, but I think it was someone on here who took it.  Or they took a similar one when the road was closed temporarily (maybe because of tyre centre fire or an accident on the Hill).



I was just looking for that! 

Didn't find it.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

This one?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I was just looking for that!
> 
> Didn't find it.


 

I just found it


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

teuchter said:


> This one?


 

Yep, that's the one.  Maybe the one you posted is Billy's as well


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I was just looking for that!
> 
> Didn't find it.


 

you should have searched for tyre and fire


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 11, 2009)

So you could see the gherkin, even with the trees.  Like I said. 

So what were you on about, tweakster?  hm?


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 11, 2009)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> you should have searched for tyre and fire





tire and fire. 


I didn't get to bed til after 3am last night....


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> tire and fire.
> 
> 
> I didn't get to bed til after 3am last night....


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> So you could see the gherkin, even with the trees.  Like I said.
> 
> So what were you on about, tweakster?  hm?



I thought I had remembered that you could see it directly at the end of the road. Where you can now see the elephant one.

It turns out you can see it from the top of the hill but off to the right, not directly in line.

I think that what I was thinking of was the road from Stockwell towards Kennington. I think it appears directly at the end of that road, if you are crossing the road by Stockwell tube.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 26, 2010)

.



> The first UK skyscraper to employ fully-integrated wind turbines could see them switched off at night because they are too noisy.
> 
> The 43-storey Strata building in London’s Elephant & Castle, designed by BFLS — formerly known as Hamiltons — will be the UK’s tallest residential tower when completed this summer.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wolveryeti (Mar 26, 2010)

That building is like South London's version of the BT Tower - i.e. dead handy as a navigational tool to see if you're headed in the right direction.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Mar 26, 2010)

Wolveryeti said:


> That building is like South London's version of the BT Tower - i.e. dead handy as a navigational tool to see if you're headed in the right direction.




Doesn't the Gherkin do the same job?


----------



## zenie (Mar 26, 2010)

I thought it was gonna be 51 stories, interesting 

The mini one next to it looks really, really shit. Both look like they were made out of clip on panels.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 26, 2010)

zenie said:


> The mini one next to it looks really, really shit. Both look like they were made out of clip on panels.



The new one literally has been, near enough.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 26, 2010)

zenie said:


> I thought it was gonna be 51 stories, interesting
> 
> The mini one next to it looks really, really shit. Both look like they were made out of clip on panels.



Isn't the other one a block of council flats?

I almost cry everytime I pass that block...it is thick in dirt, windows and all...I am sure it is really horrible to live there...


----------



## Paulie (Mar 26, 2010)

sir.clip said:


> It seems so daft that as one colossal estate is destroyed on one side of the road, another is built on the other.



Not quite...the Heygate has nearly been emptied but the shiny new building will contain no public rented flats at all.  Only some part buys on the lower floors - the rest being private sales. (A part buy of a £250000 flat still isn't what I'd call 'affordable'.


----------



## Paulie (Mar 26, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> Isn't the mini one a block of council flats?
> 
> I almost cry everytime I pass that block...it is thick in dirt, windows and all...I am sure it is really horrible to live there...



With this vast block going up next to your windows, I imagine that isn't so great.  I believe the exterior will be re-clad at Strata's expense.  Nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it vanished from all the artists' impression of the new block - the people who shelled out for the strata bldg thought it was due for demolition.  But it ain't.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 26, 2010)

Paulie said:


> With this vast block going up next to your windows, I imagine that isn't so great.  I believe the exterior will be re-clad at Strata's expense.  Nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it vanished from all the artists' impression of the new block - the people who shelled out for the strata bldg thought it was due for demolition.  But it ain't.



It was grim before with the location, traffic noise and pollution.... Now those people that at least had light on that side of the building will be plunged into more gloom...


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 27, 2010)

zenie said:


> I thought it was gonna be 51 stories, interesting
> 
> The mini one next to it looks really, really shit. Both look like they were made out of clip on panels.



I think this is the thing that amazes me most about this building. They spend millions on building it and then make it look like cheapo crap by cladding it with what looks like something they found in a plastics factory junk yard.


----------



## cybertect (Mar 28, 2010)

Paulie said:


> With this vast block going up next to your windows, I imagine that isn't so great.  I believe the exterior will be re-clad at Strata's expense.  Nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it vanished from all the artists' impression of the new block - the people who shelled out for the strata bldg thought it was due for demolition.  But it ain't.



You mean Draper House?






IIRC, there's some money for a major refurbishment, starting next year, once the works for Strata are out of the way. No plans for demolition and I don't believe there have been. Apparently, it's pretty popular with its residents.

IMO, it's a very good example of a 1960s residential tower (it was completed in 1965). A world away from much of the systems built crap that appeared later in the decade and into the 70s.

As for Strata: the southern side, taken in November











and a couple of views from Guy's Hospital last Friday


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 28, 2010)

cybertect said:


>



Flipping 'eck. I approve of the use of the word _colossal_ in the thread title/OP.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 6, 2010)

cybertect said:


> You mean Draper House?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I reckon it could look pretty good with a bit of a clean-up and refurb. Possibly better than the giant electric shaver next door.


----------



## jefflightfoot (Apr 21, 2010)

for some reason i thought this (strata tower) was the shard, maybe because it looks like a shard


----------



## cybertect (Jun 25, 2010)

This is what the turbines look like real close-up


----------



## IMR (Jun 25, 2010)

'Strata' sounds like a men's aftershave.

The flats have no balconies and it doesn't look like the windows can be opened.

What's the appeal of living in a hermetically sealed cylinder?


----------



## cybertect (Jun 25, 2010)

IMR said:


> it doesn't look like the windows can be opened.



As I found out today, they can. Well, not strictly the windows, but some full height (of the room) ventilation panels either side of the windows.

I'll pop a photo up tomorrow to explain better.


----------



## IMR (Jun 25, 2010)

Sort of like baffles that swing open?

It's an odd-looking building, like a small gadget-type object that's been scaled up.


----------



## Cowley (Jun 25, 2010)

IMR said:


> 'Strata' sounds like a men's aftershave.
> 
> The flats have no balconies and it doesn't look like the windows can be opened.
> 
> What's the appeal of living in a hermetically sealed cylinder?



Only 2.2 million for a 3 bed Penthouse.  Good old Foxtons, don't you just love em, they've listed the area as Kennington!!! 

http://www.foxtons.co.uk/search?location_ids=125&property_id=710314&search_form=map&search_type=SS&submit_type=search


----------



## Maggot (Jun 25, 2010)

Has this building got a nickname yet?

I think it should be The Owl.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 25, 2010)

> What's the appeal of living in a hermetically sealed cylinder?



It's above one of the busiest traffic junctions in London. I would guess traffic noise and not having your appartment covered in diesel soot would be among the reasons for not having swing windows.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 25, 2010)

Cowley said:


> Only 2.2 million for a 3 bed Penthouse.  Good old Foxtons, don't you just love em, they've listed the area as Kennington!!!
> 
> http://www.foxtons.co.uk/search?location_ids=125&property_id=710314&search_form=map&search_type=SS&submit_type=search


They don't really understand the how the tube and trains work either!


----------



## IMR (Jun 25, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> It's above one of the busiest traffic junctions in London. I would guess traffic noise and not having your appartment covered in diesel soot would be among the reasons for not having swing windows.



Unless the air intake system has a filter like a nuclear fallout shelter, that's going to happen anyway.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jun 25, 2010)

Maggot said:


> Has this building got a nickname yet?
> 
> I think it should be The Owl.


'The Electric Razor' is the one I heard; slightly less romantic 

Do like the building though.


----------



## cybertect (Jun 27, 2010)

IMR said:


> Sort of like baffles that swing open



Yep - as seen here







And there's one either side of the window here.






One of the architects was explaining that they wanted to have opening windows, but the way the regulations work for a building this tall, you're not allowed a window opening below 1150mm above the floor, which ruled out having the full-height windows swing open, even by a small amount. The alternative was to then have a glazing bar across the window at that height, which would have ruined the view out, so they came up with the ventilation panels to solve the problem, with the bonus that you open up a lot of area for ventilation as they're full height.

They're quite effective at getting a breeze through, especially if you open them in more than one room.

How about this for a bath-time view 






For anyone that's interested, I've put up the rest of my pics here.


----------



## hipipol (Jun 29, 2010)

*Fantastic pics*

I stick with the OP word tho, colossal, and entirely out of keeping with its surroundings, but then the Queens House at Greenwich Park probably looking like it had dropped in from fairyland too at first.....

Its hideously modern wonderfulness for those with the wedge is in SUCH stark contrast to its surroundings.... having said that Southwark are embarked on a long slow process to revamp the whole area.......we shall see....


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 29, 2010)

Maggot said:


> Has this building got a nickname yet?
> 
> I think it should be The Owl.



The three eyed owl. 

That or the nose trimmer.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 29, 2010)

Those pics are awesome cyber - esp the penthouses! Incredible space.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 29, 2010)

I hear on the grapevine that they have discovered a major irregularity with the planning permission for this building.

It turns out that the whole thing has got to come down.


----------



## mango5 (Jun 29, 2010)

I heard it being called "The Knuckleduster"


----------



## cybertect (Jun 29, 2010)

hipipol said:


> Its hideously modern wonderfulness for those with the wedge



There's about a 25% of the apartments in the building (98 of them) that are affordable let.

Because of the way that the rules work with such things, they're actually bigger than the flats being sold on the open market.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2010)

cybertect said:


> One of the architects was explaining that they wanted to have opening windows, but the way the regulations work for a building this tall, you're not allowed a window opening below 1150mm above the floor, which ruled out having the full-height windows swing open, even by a small amount. The alternative was to then have a glazing bar across the window at that height, which would have ruined the view out, so they came up with the ventilation panels to solve the problem, with the bonus that you open up a lot of area for ventilation as they're full height.



That doesn't really make sense. Instead of putting a glazing bar across which would have obstructed the view a bit they've put a full height perforated panel which completely obliterates it.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jun 29, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Incredible space.



I wonder how spacey they look without the fisheye.


----------



## Cowley (Jul 1, 2010)

cybertect said:


> Yep - as seen here
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, as long as you don't look down everything looks great


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 1, 2010)

I've just realised - with that bath you could have a wank and make it look like you're cumming over the whole of London.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 2, 2010)

They turned on the lights properly last night 



fuck me, that's a bit of a surprise!


----------



## editor (Dec 8, 2011)

So over a year after opening and the 'Britain's ugliest building' prize under its belt, those turbines sure don't seem to be moving much...






http://www.urban75.org/blog/the-rarely-spinning-turbines-of-the-strata-tower-south-london/


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2011)

What proportion of the time are they actually moving then?


----------



## golightly (Dec 8, 2011)

I've seen them turning twice since they were installed. Considering that I pass them twice a day I'd say the proportion is miniscule. Sorry I couldn't give a more accurate assessment.


----------



## editor (Dec 8, 2011)

teuchter said:


> What proportion of the time are they actually moving then?


I can see them from my window and I think I've only ever seen them moving twice too.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 9, 2011)

Tis the modern way tho, green power generation is an 'aspiration'.


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 11, 2011)

cybertect said:


> There's about a 25% of the apartments in the building (98 of them) that are affordable let.
> 
> Because of the way that the rules work with such things, they're actually bigger than the flats being sold on the open market.



A bit late for the example in question, as I'm sure all the flats have been snapped up, but the fact that you were able to come away with this message shows how easily the nonsense of what is now referred to as affordable housing is being sold. 

The affordable flats in Strata - 'Esprit' - most of which, afaik, are in the polyp adjacent to the main structure, all fit into the 'shared ownership' category of affordable housing. So you only need to find 25% of the asking price, and you pay 'subsidised' rent (80% of market level iirc) on the remainder. 

The starting price for a 1 bed is £210k, which means that the 80% market rent you'd be paying would be on £157,500 worth of flat - to my reckoning, around £700pcm. If you'd managed to save £25k for a deposit, you'd then need a mortgage for the other £27,500 of the share you're buying. If you want to actually own this thing before you retire, you'll need to take out a 10 year mortgage at the longest, which will cost you about another £300pcm (while interest rates hold). 

So, this deal, if you take it up with 25k of your own capital at the age of 30, will have you your very own 1 bed flat in Elephant and Castle fully paid off by the time you're 70, for just ~£1000pcm (ex bill, ct and service charge).

This is affordable.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 11, 2011)

I went out to the Coronet last night, and went for a drink in a local before hand and got talking to the landlord: he was saying that the redevelopment of Elephant has completely stalled, the private money has disappeared, the shopping centre is losing money and squeezing its tenants with higher and higher rents, and even the new blue paint job  failed as it started raining whilst they were painting it leaving huge drip marks all over it . Then with South Bank University being on the front line to close since fees went up, and some problems with the Heygate rebuild (cant remember what he said about that now), it looks like Elephant will have to be content with its redevelopment consisting of having Britains Ugliest Building... to go with its other ugly buildings.


----------



## Chz (Dec 12, 2011)

Pity about the turbines, it was an interesting idea but at least we'll know why no-one else does it in future.

I still like the look of it, and calling skyscrapers "an energy-greedy building form" is pure ignorance (I'd normally expect better out of the Telegraph, but everyone's going down the tubes these days).


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2011)

Chz said:


> calling skyscrapers "an energy-greedy building form" is pure ignorance



How so?


----------



## Chz (Dec 12, 2011)

Because they're not. A single block of 400 dwellings should be more efficient in space, power, materials, and more sustainable in general than standard low rise housing _provided it's designed properly_. This is the key - it's much harder to design a proper high-rise just to keep it energy efficient, let alone prevent it from being a soulless waste. Mainly because few have bothered to before, whereas you can pick up plans for any variety of low-density housing that will fit the bill easily enough.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2011)

Chz said:


> A single block of 400 dwellings should be more efficient in space, power, materials, and more sustainable in general than standard low rise housing _provided it's designed properly_.



I don't think this is true. 400 dwellings in a 5/6 storey block maybe, but not in a skyscraper. How can a skyscraper be more efficient in terms of materials?


----------



## Crispy (Dec 12, 2011)

I swear I remember reading about a study into that sort of thing that found 4-6 storeys was the most energy efficient housing. Can't remember where or when


----------



## Chz (Dec 12, 2011)

They're more cost-efficient. Above that height, you need to start using different construction methods. The most cost-efficient building is not going to be the most efficient overall though. Obviously when you start getting to Shard height there's some significant engineering costs in the background, but 30-story towers aren't unduly expensive. I used to rather like living on the 22nd floor. 

I don't think high-rise residential buildings will ever take off here due to the psychological impact they have. British people, for the most part, just don't like them. Full stop. Maybe that will change, but it's going to be some time.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2011)

The taller you build, the greater proportion of the building's fabric needs to be devoted to structural support, and the greater proportion of each floor area needs to be devoted to lifts, fire escapes, services and so on. And the more energy is needed to get people and water and everything else from the bottom to the top. Lifts can represent something like 10% of a tall building's energy requirement, I believe.

Seems to me that there are lots of reasons for tall buildings to be more energy intensive - so for them to better or equal the energy use of lower buildings, there would have to be quite a few significant advantages of building tall to balance the equation out. What are they?

All I can think of are efficiencies of scale - but that applies to big buildings, not tall ones specifically.

I'd be interested to see evidence of the energy advantages of building tall.


----------



## Chz (Dec 12, 2011)

> Lifts can represent something like 10% of a tall building's energy requirement, I believe.


Only in an office block. Residential usage is lower, there are fewer lifts, and they move slower. In addition, any new 6-story block will have lifts and you'll need more blocks and more lifts to cover them. Lifts do not require more energy to travel above a certain height - a dozen lifts moving 6 floors will use the same energy as 3 lifts travelling 24 floors (within a reasonable fudge factor). The main excess is having to keep water pressure at the top, but this is more than offset by the increased thermal efficiency.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 12, 2011)

Increased thermal efficiency?


----------



## Crispy (Dec 13, 2011)

The ideal shape for thermal efficiency is a sphere. The more spherical, the better. Towers are not spherical at all.


----------



## cybertect (Dec 14, 2011)

For reasons of practicality, there are Not many spherical buildings in the architectural canon. Though there is Etienne Louis Boullee's unrealised project for mausoleum for Isaac Newton.







Other than that, you're pretty much limited to Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes


----------



## Crispy (Dec 14, 2011)

I never noticed before, but are there hundreds of holes drilled through the newton-sphere to create "stars" in the apparent night sky? Neat.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2011)

Similar thing at Corbusier church in Firminy -


----------



## Chz (Dec 15, 2011)

Crispy said:


> The ideal shape for thermal efficiency is a sphere. The more spherical, the better. Towers are not spherical at all.


That would only be true if the ground and the air had the same heat capacity. The ideal shape for a building is a pyramid (traditional ones - inverted ones look cool, but there's nothing efficient about the shape), but you face a real problem with ground space and natural light at the lower floors. The tower is a compromise. It's a pity the New York style stepped tower never caught on, but real estate costs have tended to dictate against wasted ground space.


----------



## Random (Dec 15, 2011)

Thi is one of those Mega City 1 / Arcology things, isn't it? I hate living in the future.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 15, 2011)

Chz said:


> That would only be true if the ground and the air had the same heat capacity. The ideal shape for a building is a pyramid (traditional ones - inverted ones look cool, but there's nothing efficient about the shape), but you face a real problem with ground space and natural light at the lower floors. The tower is a compromise. It's a pity the New York style stepped tower never caught on, but real estate costs have tended to dictate against wasted ground space.



I still want to know why a tower has "increased thermal efficiency" vs a lower block.

Let's say a tower that is 90m high x 15m wide x 10m deep, vs a block that is 90m long x 15m high x 10m deep. Both have the same volume, but the tower has 4 long sides exposed to the outside, whereas the lower block has 2 long sides and 2 short sides. The lower block has a larger roof area, but it is easy to heavily insulate a roof, and if you do it say with a green roof, you can make it useable, unlike the top of the skyscraper.

A significantly higher proportion of the skyscraper's volume will be taken up with structure to support all the floors above.

I don't think a long, low block would need any more lifts than the tower really, and they would have less height to travel. In addition, a higher proportion of the accommodation in the lower block would be at ground/first floor level, meaning that a good proportion of its occupants wouldn't need to use the lifts anyway.


----------



## Chz (Dec 15, 2011)

Sorry, crispy. I'm a bit seasonally drunk and editing my aggressive response. You're right, we need to go and quote the studies.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 15, 2011)

This is an argument that can be settled with emperical data or good modelling.


----------



## cybertect (Dec 15, 2011)

Well, given that cooling is usually more of a problem than heating the place with office buildings (typical use for tall buildings in the UK) I suggest that whether a reduced surface area is desirable is a moot point. 

IIRC from my tour of the place, Strata faces similar challenges, though it uses the mass of the concrete core to help moderate thermal change both on a daily and annual cycle.

Besides, a tower of any kind is going to have less surface area than a collection of small, semi-detached houses.

See also Crispy's last post.


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2021)

New pics here









						The totally pointless, rarely-spinning turbines of the Strata Tower in south London
					

Voted ‘Britain’s ugliest new building’ by readers of  Building Design magazine and swiftly securing the 2010 Carbuncle Cup, the 43-storey Strata tower in south London presents a d…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 25, 2021)

My 21 year old nephew's just moved in there with his gf, got the rent half price for a year as the plague means there are very few takers for central London places, or so he claims anyway, I reckon he's knocking out gear on the side, but it's his life...


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 25, 2021)

I'm saddened that the carbuncle awards don't seem to be running anymore and at a time we need them more than ever.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2021)

editor said:


> New pics here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm disgusted by the broken promises and outright lies and theft that building represents, but a friend of mine lives on the estate next door and I don't think it looks bad, really, either from her flat or from further away. It's far from the worst building in Elephant.

Totally agree about the 'greenwashing' bullshit of the turbines though. I've never seen them turning.


----------



## Doodler (Feb 25, 2021)

It's shit and if someone wants to pay ££££s to live among traffic fumes right next to some busy roads and a noisy railway line more fool them.


----------

