# Ugliest new building award for that new tower at the Elephant



## London_Calling (Aug 12, 2010)

Strata tower wins Carbuncle Cup as Britain's ugliest new building









> It was the first skyscraper to have wind turbines build into its design, but despite this green commitment, critics today accused developers of 'environmental tokenism.'
> 
> Architecture critic Ellis Woodman said the building was a damning indictment of town planning departments, describing it as 'quite simply the worst tall building ever constructed in London'.





> 'Councils are meant to protect us from these buildings. How on earth did it win approval?' he said.
> 
> 'A skyscraper is an energy-greedy building form, both in terms of construction, and the power needed to take people to their front doors in a lift. To top one off with some wind turbines is the worst sort of greenwashing.'


oof.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 12, 2010)

I've not liked it from the start.  Looks cheap and nasty


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 12, 2010)

Which is, of course, shockingly inappropriate for South London.

Fwiw, I'm not finding it easy on the eye either.


----------



## brix (Aug 12, 2010)

*If* the Flickr link works this is a picture I took of the building, side on, from a nearby street in Kennington.  I love most modern architecture but think this building is just horribly out-of-proportion to the surrounding area.  I no like.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 12, 2010)

Brix, that makes your point very well. The Mail had this angle:


----------



## brix (Aug 12, 2010)

You just know that cladding's going to look really shit in a couple of years too, don't you?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 12, 2010)

i like it.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 12, 2010)

I don't hate it but it is rather large and I agree on the cladding.


----------



## editor (Aug 12, 2010)

I kinda like it.











http://www.urban75.org/blog/london-razor-skyscraper-packs-wind-turbines-bladerunner-style/


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 12, 2010)

It's all lit up

(I think it's The Strata that's lit up anyway)


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 13, 2010)

I don't mind the shape of it, it's the white cladding that makes it look shit.

A few years of pollution and it'll look worse unless it's cleaned regularly or it rains a lot.  

Just seen this 



> Oh dear – the Londonist is reporting that the turbines might have to be turned off at night because the toffs in the penthouses at the top are going to complain about the noise.



Were the rich bastards not aware, when buying their penthouses, that they'd be beneath three wind turbines?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 13, 2010)

editor said:


>


 Jesus, does anything in that photo without a tiled roof look other than pig ugly . . . .


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 13, 2010)

editor said:


> I kinda like it.


I think it looks better from this side - nice to see the iconic barbican towers in the background, looking relatively close in this shot. 

The one thing I do hate about the strata tower is its token wind turbines.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2010)

I think it's absolutely stunning and one of the best buildings in the city


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 13, 2010)

Crispy - You have expertise in this area, I'd be interested in why you like it?


----------



## xsunnysuex (Aug 13, 2010)

My partner says it looks like an owl lol.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 13, 2010)

I've come over all Prince Charles.


----------



## g force (Aug 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> I think it's absolutely stunning and one of the best buildings in the city


 
I'd agree if it were say in the City but it's completely out of place where it is. IT's the Canary Wharf approach to regeneration once again.

Start with a tower, regenerate around that....without actually benefitting the existing local community.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2010)

It's in Zone 1, surrounded by high-density housing and workplaces, right on top of a major transport interchange. It's the ideal place to build tall. When the redevelopment of Elephant & the Highbury estate gets underway, it'll be joined by another 3 towers, creating a cluster so it'll stand out less.

I love it because of the shape. It's futuristic and dynamic (aesthetically so). Looks like someone's parked their spaceship


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm with crispy, it looks great.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 13, 2010)

g force said:


> I'd agree if it were say in the City but it's completely out of place where it is


 
Elephant isn't an area of scenic beauty


----------



## g force (Aug 13, 2010)

It's also not an area of towering structures either. So abunch of rich people get to move in an moan about Elephant while the existing community gets bugger all. What a great development....

And I still think it looks ugly...not the proportions as such more the finishes they;ve applied.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I've come over all Prince Charles.


 I suppose it's better than coming all over Prince Charles.


----------



## Santino (Aug 13, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I suppose it's better than coming all over Prince Charles.


 
Do you value common courtesy?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2010)

g force said:


> I'd agree if it were say in the City but it's completely out of place where it is. IT's the Canary Wharf approach to regeneration once again.
> 
> Start with a tower, regenerate around that....without actually benefitting the existing local community.


 
25% of the apartments in the tower are reserved as affordable - this means a mix of housing association/shared ownership/keyworker priority housing. Also, this is a private development unconnected with the Heygate/Elephant redevelopment which will see large amounts of HA housing, a new school, new parks, a market square, refurbished train station and the replacement of the massive roundabout with a public space the size of Trafalgar Square. There are some truly shitty cases of "redevelopment" that are just shopping malls, but E&C is going to see genuine improvement, IMO.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2010)

Santino said:


> Do you value common courtesy?


 
Get the fuck off my thread.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 13, 2010)

Typical middle class appropriation.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 13, 2010)

right now I feel a deep aversion to it, but i strongly suspect it'll grow on me. also, I can'tshake the feeling that saying a new building in E & C 'an eyesore' is somewhat missing the point


----------



## alexmonty (Aug 13, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> i like it.



Me too,
Ive only just returned to London and it was a nice surprise to see it.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2010)

I would like to remind the thread of what this building replaced:






The taller one on the right is still there, and is in bad need of a clean. Otherwise it's not a terrible building.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 13, 2010)

Some have said it might be more appropriate in the City - which makes me wonder if it's okay that buildings are ambiguous; that, looking at them, they could be office space or residential . . . . for example, every other residential building in that wider shot has balconies . . . don't we want a clearer separation, maybe?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2010)

An eyesore, yesterday:


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Jesus, does anything in that photo without a tiled roof look other than pig ugly . . . .


 
Most of the stuff _with_ tiled roofs in that photo is ugly too.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 13, 2010)

brix said:


> *If* the Flickr link works this is a picture I took of the building, side on, from a nearby street in Kennington.  I love most modern architecture but think this building is just horribly out-of-proportion to the surrounding area.  I no like.



I quite like it this pic.    

I have mixed feelings about.   

Elephant looks bloody dreadful and if they're going to be changing more with more towers then I'll reserve judgement.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 13, 2010)

Apropos of not much, the Millennium wheel seems to have fallen over a few posts above ^


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2010)

Does anyone actually call it the "millenium wheel" any more?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 13, 2010)

It was the Millennium wheel in that photo cos it's just being erected.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2010)

damn you and your pedantry *shakes fist"


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> It was the Millennium wheel in that photo cos it's just being erected.


 
Yes, it's possible that when I said "yesterday", I might actually have meant "more than ten years ago."


----------



## IMR (Aug 13, 2010)

Minnie the Minx said:
			
		

> I've not liked it from the start. Looks cheap and nasty





London_Calling said:


> Which is, of course, shockingly inappropriate for South London.





Wait till they stick the giant Cash Converters neon sign on top.


----------



## Maggot (Aug 13, 2010)

xsunnysuex said:


> My partner says it looks like an owl lol.


 
I think so too. It should be called The Owl. 


I quite like it.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 13, 2010)

I think I'll cash in my chips now . . .


----------



## FunkyUK (Aug 13, 2010)

Looks like the Eye of Sauron.  I like it.


----------



## IMR (Aug 13, 2010)

More like something with three eyes:


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> 25% of the apartments in the tower are reserved as affordable


So a nice mixed community, then.



> The affordable flats share the same floorplan as their loftier neighbours, but they throng in the lower reaches of the block, and will be served by one dedicated lift, while two more lifts whisk residents in the full-price flats up to their impressive views, effectively segregating the two groups. It will be up to the building management to decide whether the 39th floor sky lounge would be open to all residents.


http://londonist.com/2010/03/a_tour_round_the_strata_tower.php

I also remember reading somewhere that most of the flats have been sold for buy to let.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2010)

Highly likely. I don't generally approve of the socio-economics of the building, but then this award is awarded purely on aesthetic terms, which is why I think they've got it so spectacularly wrong. There are so many more ugly buildings finished in the last 12 months. This one just happens to stand out and is in a run-down area of the city, so the wafty chaps over at Building Design can stare down their noses at it.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Aug 13, 2010)

Looks nasty from the front, cool from the back.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 13, 2010)

i.e. The Tracey Emin School of Architecture.


----------



## maldwyn (Aug 13, 2010)

Crispy, I totally agree with you on aesthetic grounds, it's just a little sad the afford aspect of the development seems cordoned off. 

Plus I feel but-to-let kills a community, where I live my neighbours change every 6 or 12 months so have little long-term interest in developing community spirit.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 13, 2010)

Hopefully, the rest of the E&C development will be better in that regard. Although the London population is particularly mobile, incomers, outgoers, people moving from single to shared occupancies. Especially central areas, which tend to be dormitories for young people who then move out to the suburbs when they get kids. The popularity of BTL reflects this.


----------



## bromley (Aug 13, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Jesus, does anything in that photo without a tiled roof look other than pig ugly . . . .


Someone else who doesn't like the Barbican centre?! Shame how the view of St. Pauls is spoilt by those towers and the Tate Modern.

I too like the Strata, although the rectangular south side of it looks  poor.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Aug 13, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> i.e. The Tracey Emin School of Architecture.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Aug 13, 2010)

There are alot worse buildings IMO. It's a gritty urban place E&C and this doesn't stand out. Has anyone seen the turbines actually go round yet?

What about  this monster Rogers put up on Battersea reach right next to the church where Turner would sit and paint. This is well out of place  "The vulgar imperatives of capital...."  again.


----------



## Greenfish (Aug 14, 2010)

i like it. looks impressive.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 15, 2010)

it looks... fine

kinda like a strange robot head


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 15, 2010)

I like it well enough too.  The ones on the right are 'orrible. 

I always wonder how these new buildings will age.  That's important.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 15, 2010)

xsunnysuex said:


> My partner says it looks like an owl lol.


 
yes - by day iit is an owl. But by night it is different - I like it anyway.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2010)

bromley said:


> Someone else who doesn't like the Barbican centre?! Shame how the view of St. Pauls is spoilt by those towers and the Tate Modern.
> 
> I too like the Strata, although the rectangular south side of it looks  poor.


 the barbican and tate modern are beautiful buildings - what are you like?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 15, 2010)

On further reflection, I would pay for it to be blown up, or at least chip in. Dismal piece of unimaginative, characterless, dimwit arrogance, unacceptable in any context apart from an exhibition of giant pen caps for the overprivileged.

This has been slightly but by no means totally influenced by people on the radio.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 15, 2010)

Fwiw, I've seen the Barbican from South London, from inside  both the public spaces and the flats and I start to like it from London Wall and closer. What's to like  viewing it from south of the river - at  distance it's just more brutal angular concrete?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 15, 2010)

I hope someone paints 'PHILISHAVE' at the top.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 15, 2010)

The criticisms quoted in the OP have nothing to do with the way the building looks. It does look a bit out of place right now, but that's it.


----------



## flash (Aug 15, 2010)

On a basic level unless there is some kind of mass cull in London your going to need to build tall or otherwise people will be commuting in from Birmingham or somewhere else remote like that. Taking everything to account on the current skyline though it sticks out like a sore thumb. Give it 10-15 years time when the other developments are done it probably won't look that bad and won't stick out as much.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2010)

Crispy said:


> I would like to remind the thread of what this building replaced:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeh, note pizza castello on the left hand side, one of the best pizza places in south london ime


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2010)

...


----------



## bromley (Aug 15, 2010)

Does anyone think the Heron tower will win next year? Now that's one bland building!


----------



## brix (Aug 15, 2010)

bromley said:


> Does anyone think the Heron tower will win next year? Now that's one bland building!


 
I think the Heron's positively elegant compared to Strata.  It sits (or rather it will sit) comfortably in it's surroundings.  I also think it'll wear much better than Strata, which I think will end up looking grimy quite quickly.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Aug 15, 2010)

The only bit I like about it is the integral wind turbines, that's quite cool.  But the rest of it is f-ugly.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2010)

what is fugly? that's the 2nd time i've encountered it today


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 15, 2010)

At a wild stab in the dark, I'd guess it's 'fucking ugly' with bits missing out.


In 10-20 years time, I wonder if there's going to be a breadcrumb trail of mental towers from Strata to the Shard. That's the thing, it already feels like an outlier, with backfilling inevitable.


----------



## IMR (Aug 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, note pizza castello on the left hand side, one of the best pizza places in south london ime


 
Yes, that was a good place. Now at 192-196 Jamaica Road, Bermondsey (it says here).


----------



## Wolveryeti (Aug 15, 2010)

It isn't the best looking building in the world, but I like having it as a landmark to navigate by in south london, and it looks good at night lit up with the coloured lights. In no way deserving of worst new building tag. That accolade must go to the faeces abomination that is Portcullis House.


----------



## Garek (Aug 15, 2010)

Crispy said:


> but E&C is going to see genuine improvement, IMO.


 
I don't mean to mean to sound sneering or nowt, but they said that 50 odd years ago. Only time will tell.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 16, 2010)

As for the Heron, I think it's well-executed genericness. If every skyscraper in London was some crazy shape (the cheesegrater! the pinnacle! the gherkin! the can of ham! (!)) then it'd look like a zoo. The heron is a blocky building that cares to take a little bit of care over its blockiness. tidy and unobtrusive. You have to have some background for the "icons" to work against

EDIT: I like portcullis house too


----------



## bromley (Aug 16, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> the barbican and tate modern are beautiful buildings - what are you like?


From South London it looks like a brick wall with a giant chimley and a concrete tower block.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 16, 2010)

Thread seems to have moved on, but I'm with Crispy on the Elephant tower. Looks great from far away, and looks really great from underneath it –*I walked past it last night to a friend who lives very near it. Even the small blocks/houses right next to it aren't overwhelmed by it. It fits in really well. Astoundingly expensive, thought – my friend had a look around the show flats: small poky rooms and they start at something like 1.5 million quid!


----------



## corporate whore (Aug 17, 2010)

I like it from a distance. Up close it's ugly, cold and out of place. 

And if you're living there, it's even worse.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23867829-residents-hit-boiling-point-at-eco-tower-where-turbines-dont-turn.do


----------



## Crispy (Aug 17, 2010)

What would you consider to be "in" place, for the location?

also, teething problems in newly finished building shocker


----------



## corporate whore (Aug 17, 2010)

Crispy said:


> What would you consider to be "in" place, for the location?
> 
> also, teething problems in newly finished building shocker



I see your first point, E&C's a clusterfuck. But I cycle through every day and the interface (hah!) at street level is rubbish. It manages to be monolithic and unsympathetic, even taking into account what else is there. It's like it's landed, with no thought to what it's landed on.

As for the whinging noise coming from inside... big claims being made and not delivered. What if they take-up rate doesn't reach optimum levels? Will it always be 27 degrees at 7am? Could be - the shiny new Guardian offices in KX are 'climate optimised' and they've been laying so many people off the aircon/heating is all out of balance.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 17, 2010)

tbf, the current streetscape is going to be totally redesigned soon, so we'll have to re-judge it then.

As for the technical faults, it's pretty much standard practice these days  - nobody can deliver a 100% functioning building, the construction industry is so d-eskilled.


----------



## corporate whore (Aug 17, 2010)

And that's a crying shame, it really is.

Yeah I'm interested to find out what's replacing the south roundabout. Some kind of light-controlled junction, no doubt. Eight months of roadworks outside the new building. Not surprised Natahn Whatsit's got a face on in the Standard.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2010)

corporate whore said:


> I see your first point, E&C's a clusterfuck. But I cycle through every day and the interface (hah!) at street level is rubbish. It manages to be monolithic and unsympathetic, even taking into account what else is there. It's like it's landed, with no thought to what it's landed on.



I'm afraid I entirely disagree with you there. My friend lives in a flat immediately to the south of it, and I think it's remarkable how little it looks like it has 'landed'. As to being sympathetic, that is a rather strange notion given the rather dreadful quality of the buildings around it. How exactly would you like it to be sympathetic to drab 1950s blocks? Rather than being sympathetic, it challenges them – and quite right too! Criminally, many of the brilliant late-19th C Paris-style apartment buildings have been torn down already.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 17, 2010)

New South junction at E&C:


----------



## corporate whore (Aug 17, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My friend lives in a flat immediately to the south of it, and I think it's remarkable how little it looks like it has 'landed'. As to being sympathetic, that is a rather strange notion given the rather dreadful quality of the buildings around it.



I don't think its done anything to improve the surrounds.

I've never seen the southerly aspect - maybe I'll sneak around and have a look.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2010)

I don't have any particular objection on "out of place" grounds.

And it's not quite terrible

I would describe it as mediocre. As it's going to become quite a South London landmark I think it's a shame we couldn't have something better. People in the City will point to it from their high-rise offices and say "look at the cheapo tower over there in south London".

It looks like the kind of thing they would build somewhere provincial like Manchester, in order to pretend they were a real city. It looks like it's been designed by some middle-of-the road provincial architects who somehow got lucky and got to design a skyscraper in central London. The cladding is the same kind of thing you see everywhere at the moment on newbuild housing blocks. It's the kind of pattern-making facade people put on a big rectangular block to try and disguise the fact that it's basically just a repetitive grid of windows - in this case scaled up to a high rise tower block and it doesn't feel right to me. To me it feels lazy and not good enough. Compare with the facade on the Gherkin which has actually got something to do with the geometry and structure of the building. 

As far as the turbines are concerned - well they are kind of fun I guess (and it makes for quite a good silhouette, especially at night) although the message they transmit to me is "gimmick" and "greenwash". That may or may not be a fair accusation. I would be interested to know how much they really generate in relation to their cost. You can say that it's better than nothing, but if they were really serious about wanting to make a "green" building then I would have expected them to look at whether the money could have been spent more productively on less visible but more effective things. 

Ken Yeang was involved in the design of it. He has been promoting the idea of the "green skyscraper" for some time, going against the grain of many "green" architects and saying that we have to accept the reality of modern cities and try and apply the notion of sustainability to high rise buildings - rather than concentrating on low rise stuff and arguing that high-rise is by its nature not environmentally friendly. I have some sympathy with that view but I went to a lecture by him a few years ago and I seem to remember finding him less than entirely convincing especially when asked some awkward questions from the audience. I think there was a lingering suspicion that he was really more interested in the aesthetics of the "green skyscraper" than the actual technical performance.

Here are some images of Ken Yeang's (unbuilt) schemes ... the reality of the Strata tower is a little blander...










I'm totally willing to become less sceptical if, in a few years' time, a review of the actual technical performance of the Strata tower shows that it does indeed function significantly more efficiently than a "standard" high-rise tower.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 17, 2010)

The turbines are just greenwash. Nothing I've seen about the design of the rest of the building shows any sort of sustainable thinking.

Agree with you on random cladding though  it's not terrible here, unlike on that student housing tower north of the City


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2010)

Aren't the flats partially naturally ventilated, or something like that? I seem to remember that being used as a justification for the cladding panels at some point.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 17, 2010)

Crispy said:


> New South junction at E&C:


 No right turn from Newington Butts to Walworth Rad . . . probably a good call.

I suppose the idea of lights rather than a roundabout helps surface level pedestrians?

I see the cycle lane going south stops at this junction.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 17, 2010)

Very much so. They're filling in the subways.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2010)

Future generations will not be able to live the experience of getting lost in the E&C subways whilst drunk and trying to find the right night bus.


----------



## brix (Aug 17, 2010)

Am I the only one who's quite quite fond of the tiling in the subways?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 17, 2010)

It's quite nice yes. But they could be made out of gold and diamonds and it would still be a miserable way to cross the road


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2010)

brix said:


> Am I the only one who's quite quite fond of the tiling in the subways?


 
No.

I'm quite fond of all of E&C.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 17, 2010)

One of the things for me is subways speak to that period when literally everything was subject to the desire of motorists, and the power of the car industry lobby; the 'freedom' of the car driver was pre-eminent. Glad to see a manifestation of ground regained.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> One of the things for me is subways speak to that period when literally everything was subject to the desire of motorists, and the power of the car industry lobby; the 'freedom' of the car driver was pre-eminent. Glad to see a manifestation of ground regained.


 
This is absolutely true, and I'd never call for something like the E&C road/subway system to be built new, but I kind of enjoy it to some extent because it's so crazy. It's almost tempting to suggest we preserve one of these planning disasters in each town just to remind people how wrong it is.

The sad thing is that we are still building stuff which is all about the car driver and a disaster for the pedestrian... it's just that it tends to be outside of town centres now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 17, 2010)

Yeah, I kind of think like that too, teuchter. The fact that Elephant was so badly thought out is the source of its perverse charm.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Aug 17, 2010)

The E&C subways make a lot more sense on acid (both visually, and navigationally)


----------



## bromley (Aug 17, 2010)

Crispy said:


> New South junction at E&C:


Pedistrian roundabout? I guess they do improve the overall look of the scheme some what. Overall it's a massive improvement on the roundabout.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah, I kind of think like that too, teuchter. The fact that Elephant was so badly thought out is the source of its perverse charm.


 
Also, I think we should be less harsh on the planners and designers of that era than we should be on those who've done similar stuff since and who should know better.

If you look at original drawings from that time you can see what the ideal was ... pedestrians segregated from noisy traffic, unobstructed roads to allow smooth traffic flow, housing blocks sitting in green and pleasant parkland. And this in the context of trying to quickly and cheaply rebuild a bombed-out London. It's easy to criticise with hindsight.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 17, 2010)

As you go towards Kennington there is a new block of flats just past the Oval on Kennington park road which appears to have wood-effect formica from the 70s cladding.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2010)

^ The block that you pass on the LH side as you come into E&C train station northbound has that stuff too. I think of it as Ikea wardrobe cladding. It looks rubbish.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 17, 2010)

The one with the 70s Formica cladding has lovely big, double-glazed windows. 

Anyone know what is the deal with, you know, bricks - too expensive or labour intensive maybe nowadays?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2010)

They are labour intensive and also they are heavy which is not what you want for non-structural cladding panels.

You can get cladding panels which are basically just a board with thin bricks glued onto the front, though. They are lighter and made in a factory.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 17, 2010)

Those kennington flats are timber framed, so you wouldn't be able to clad them in bricks anyway.


----------



## g force (Aug 17, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Also, I think we should be less harsh on the planners and designers of that era than we should be on those who've done similar stuff since and who should know better.
> 
> If you look at original drawings from that time you can see what the ideal was ... pedestrians segregated from noisy traffic, unobstructed roads to allow smooth traffic flow, housing blocks sitting in green and pleasant parkland. And this in the context of trying to quickly and cheaply rebuild a bombed-out London. It's easy to criticise with hindsight.



Agreed...subways have a weird charm and are very of their time. I kinda missed the ones they took out of Brum city centre and the great little/werid shops that took up the retail unit in the middle


----------



## iROBOT (Aug 17, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thread seems to have moved on, but I'm with Crispy on the Elephant tower. Looks great from far away, and looks really great from underneath it –*I walked past it last night to a friend who lives very near it. Even the small blocks/houses right next to it aren't overwhelmed by it. It fits in really well. Astoundingly expensive, thought – my friend had a look around the show flats: *small poky rooms and they start at something like 1.5 million quid![/*QUOTE]
> 
> Well the Arabs and Russians have to put their money somewhere. Innit?


----------



## IMR (Aug 17, 2010)

There's a story in tonight's Evening Standard about how crap the Strata tower is. "It's like an eco experiment gone wrong," says one resident.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 17, 2010)

> . A spokesman for developer Brookfield Europe said the warmer side of the building was caused by movement of the sun.



Something they couldn't possibly have hoped to foreseen...


----------



## IMR (Aug 17, 2010)

That certainly tops 'leaves on the line' and 'wrong kind of snow'.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2010)

IMR said:


> There's a story in tonight's Evening Standard about how crap the Strata tower is. "It's like an eco experiment gone wrong," says one resident.


 
It's a bit of a non-story and a pointless article - of course there are going to be teething problems. And it doesn't sound like the journalist has much understanding of what the problems actually are. Just the usual creating headlines by moaning about things. Go back and write a proper article in a few months once it's occupied and they've had time to get stuff working properly.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 17, 2010)

Please, lets try to not go down the ES route . . .


----------



## IMR (Aug 18, 2010)

teuchter said:


> It's a bit of a non-story and a pointless article - of course there are going to be teething problems. And it doesn't sound like the journalist has much understanding of what the problems actually are. Just the usual creating headlines by moaning about things. Go back and write a proper article in a few months once it's occupied and they've had time to get stuff working properly.



Some of the residents now have a Facebook group, according to a comment beneath the ES article. Ballardian horror in the humid confines of The Tower cannot be far behind.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2010)

Shard will of course be the best skyscraper in Europe when done. Fantastic building.


----------



## IMR (Aug 18, 2010)

Not forgetting the vibrantly creative shopping and dining experiences that will spring up around it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 18, 2010)

IMR said:


> There's a story in tonight's Evening Standard about how crap the Strata tower is. "It's like an eco experiment gone wrong," says one resident.


 

I read that.  He was called Nathan


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2010)

IMR said:


> Some of the residents now have a Facebook group, according to a comment beneath the ES article. Ballardian horror in the humid confines of The Tower cannot be far behind.


 
*off to join facebook group*


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 18, 2010)

I like it, purely on the grounds that it annoys people. I hope Prince Charles _really_ hates it.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 18, 2010)

This resident likes it:



> I moved in to my flat two weeks ago. It has been a 3 year wait but worth it! The place is amazing. The staff are very friendly.
> 
> There are moves every day, and one of the lifts is padded and designated the move lift. It's a 3 month completion programme so of course early days yet. Maybe 50 out of 400 occupied so far? Nobody else on my floor yet.
> 
> ...


----------



## bromley (Aug 18, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Please, lets try to not go down the ES route . . .


The comments are good, fellow residents, who love it, question why he went to the ES and not the heating engineer.


----------



## IMR (Aug 18, 2010)

This place should be renamed UrbanLoftApartment75.


----------



## bromley (Aug 18, 2010)

This picture shows how tacky the cladding is.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 18, 2010)

by "tacky" do you mean 'not straight lined' because I can't see any details of the cladding from that photo (unlike, say, the earlier Formica)?


----------



## corporate whore (Aug 18, 2010)

It's good that the staff are friendly. Are there really 400 flats in there?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2010)

Yep. 11 flats on a typical floor. Less on some floors (larger flats). 43 floors.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 18, 2010)

bromley said:


> This picture shows how tacky the cladding is.


Unconventional design, incongruous setting, dubious wonky cladding, guaranteed to offend the sensibilities of those with easily offended sensibilities... excellent stuff. I heartily approve.


----------



## Gingerman (Aug 18, 2010)

I quite like it,dos look a bit out of place though


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2010)

again, what would be "in" place for the location?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 18, 2010)

Outside of the City and Canary Wharf it is still a low rise, err,  city, and planners have spent decades resisting this kind of scale of development. People do have reservations about transforming the skyline into some North American phallic dream. Perhaps more properly, there is a wide range of views about that, not simply reservations.

This represents major change.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2010)

Saying that any phallic monument is out of place in E&C is a different thing from saying that this particular phallic monument is out of place in E&C, though.

In other words it's more of an objection to planning policy than this particular design.


----------



## PacificOcean (Aug 18, 2010)

Crispy said:


> New South junction at E&C:


 
What are they going to do with that giant silver tube ventilation thing for the tube?  Tube's need ventilation.

Or am looking at it from the wrong angle?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2010)

Wrong roundabout  This is the southern one - The Tabernacle is on the right, shopping centre on the left (or at least, that's where it is - in this image it's been replaced with a taller building)


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 18, 2010)

brix said:


> Am I the only one who's quite quite fond of the tiling in the subways?


 
I think the tiling is rather good, but most of the murals are an abomination!

Edited to add:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose


----------



## lang rabbie (Aug 18, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> What are they going to do with that giant silver tube ventilation thing for the tube?  Tube's need ventilation.


 
The Faraday Memorial hides a substation not a ventilation shaft.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 18, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> The Faraday Memorial hides a substation not a ventilation shaft.


 
there was an urban myth going around a while back that it was the aphex twin's house


----------



## bromley (Sep 8, 2010)

I (think) saw the fans spinning yesterday.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> there was an urban myth going around a while back that it was the aphex twin's house


 
This is actually the truth, but there's been a busy disinformation campaign waged, because fans kept knocking on his door.

e2a: I've quite fancied knocking up a "_The Aphex Twin lived here, 2005-2009_" blue plaque for it for a while.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Wrong roundabout  This is the southern one - The Tabernacle is on the right, shopping centre on the left (or at least, that's where it is - in this image it's been replaced with a taller building)


 
I prefer the tunnels my self - sod crossing a busy roundabout in South London, with all those bored mini cab drivers and bus drivers.  Like they are going to wait.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2010)

Damn that I'm late to the thread, but does anyone think that a group calling itself 'The Georgian Group' would award _anything_ positive to a high-rise?

I really like Strata - have done for ages, and even the cladding is working for me now...

Couple of other points...

I really love the Ikea block by the E&C. Not so keen on the Mint Wedge, the Purple Square and the Choclate Orange box on the opposite side of the tracks tho.

The Heron Tower looks great - the simplicity of the shapes are emphasised by the nice range of material finishes on each of the columns (altho I dread to think how much money they spent on glass bricks!), and I still think it's pretty  to be able to see servicey stuff like the fire escape stairs and stuff through the walls.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 9, 2010)

fogbat said:


> e2a: I've quite fancied knocking up a "_The Aphex Twin lived here, 2005-2009_" blue plaque for it for a while.


 
Really I think you should deal with the ones for my previous addresses first, as a matter of priority.


----------



## ringo (Sep 9, 2010)

bromley said:


> I (think) saw the fans spinning yesterday.


 
One was spinning this morning when I cycled in.

I like it, and compared to how Elephant has looked for many years all the changes are good.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 9, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> I really love the Ikea block by the E&C.


 
There is going to be an IKEA in South London? 

I know there is one in Purley Way, but that is Surrey - not South London.  

However, there is already a huge thread on what is London and isn't, so I won't start that off here.


----------



## kyser_soze (Sep 9, 2010)

PacificOcean said:


> There is going to be an IKEA in South London?
> 
> I know there is one in Purley Way, but that is Surrey - not South London.
> 
> However, there is already a huge thread on what is London and isn't, so I won't start that off here.


 
Sadly there isn't. I was referring to 83 Crampton Street:


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 9, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Sadly there isn't. I was referring to 83 Crampton Street:


 
Looks more like Lego to me. 

However, same part of the world isn't it Denmark/Sweden- it's all Scandinavia?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 9, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Sadly there isn't. I was referring to 83 Crampton Street:


 
Looks like the new development near me...Hackney-On-Canal.


----------

