# N7: a real horror of a tower block is proposed.



## editor (Dec 22, 2009)

From The Londonist:



> Denizens of N7, avert your eyes, for this hulking monstrosity could soon be blighting the view of your neighbourhood every time your gaze strays above the horizon.   Positioned just next to Arsenal's Emirates stadium, the beast is a proposed student housing block for London Metropolitan University, which you'd have thought was content with already owning just the single controversial building. With a design ethos that seems to have lifted the cladding and colour scheme from Pyongyang's unfinished Ryugyong Hotel, it seems reflective of a didactic Communist-era mindset and is hardly the ideal place for students to rest their weary heads. As people flock from around the world to take advantage of London's pedagogical prowess, it seems we're thanking them by building some of the ugliest (not to mention expensive) student accommodation imaginable.
> The architect, CZWG, earned planning permission back in June for a student development in nearby Finsbury Park, one far more pleasing to the eye. Quite why they felt the need to go all North Korean on us is a mystery.
> More on the proposal over at the Skyscraper City forums.



http://londonist.com/2009/12/another_ugly_student_tower_block_pl.php


----------



## TitanSound (Dec 22, 2009)

Have they not learnt the lesson that concrete towers are definitely not the way forward?


----------



## zenie (Dec 22, 2009)

Thank fuck it's in North London. 

That is ugly, did we go back in time somewhere?!


----------



## rennie (Dec 22, 2009)

zenie said:


> That is ugly, did we go back in time somewhere?!



my sentiment exactly.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 22, 2009)

recession, tories looking to take power, bnp.....welcome to the 1970's 

I blame Life on Mars


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

Hmmm






The cladding actually looks like that stuff that's over the posh flats overlooking the Victoria Railway Bridge.

Pretty grim tho...


----------



## trashpony (Dec 22, 2009)

How many students are there FFS? 

I've come over all Prince Charles


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Hmmm



It's the colour that's the problem, the design's fine. Imagine it in white or steel and glass and it's a different proposition altogether, imo.


----------



## IC3D (Dec 22, 2009)

dunno what I dislike more the design or the students, they'll be able to watch woolwich games from the top floors it seems from the angle of the bottom pic


----------



## 8115 (Dec 22, 2009)

I don't mind it too much.  It'll probably weather well.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 22, 2009)

> Conflict
> There is abundant evidence to show that high buildings make people crazy.
> 
> Resolution
> In any urban area, no matter how dense, keep the majority of buildings four stories high or less. It is possible that certain buildings should exceed this limit, but they should never be buildings for human habitation.



Pattern Language - 21, Four Story Limit


----------



## zenie (Dec 22, 2009)

Living in a high rise I'm inclined to agree Bernie, I don't think people were meant to live like this.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 22, 2009)

> THE JEELY PIECE SONG
> by Adam McNaughton
> 
> I'm a skyscraper wean, I live on the nineteenth flair,
> ...



http://vasarhelyi.eu/books/A_pattern_language_book/apl21/apl21.htm


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

Hmm, where is this evidence of high buildings making people crazy? There is abundant evidence that _badly maintained and secured_ tall buildings, or too high concentrations of tall residential buildings, have negative effects...that book looks interesting tho...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 22, 2009)

A bunch of it is quoted in the second link, the one with the poem.


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 22, 2009)

zenie said:


> Living in a high rise I'm inclined to agree Bernie, I don't think people were meant to live like this.



It's OK. It's just for students. Not for people.

Seriously. I'm not keen on the idea of residential high rises for social housing, but students will all be living there temporarily, which is kind of different.

I rather like the design, but I'm not sure about the colour.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

If there was anything from the last 10 years I'd be willing to say 'OK, there's a point' but all that has everything to do with the design of 70s tower blocks. Looking around at a great many 70s (and later) designed low-rise housing the same problems arise. Not being deliberately obtuse here either...

I mean if there was something showing madness creeping in at say, The Landmark at North Quay, I'd maybe be more inclined to listen...


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Dec 22, 2009)

I though london met was on the verge of financial ruin?


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

Nah, nothing like it. 2 of Europe's tallest buildings are under construction:






The Pinnacle






The Shard


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 22, 2009)

N7?  *shrug*


----------



## quimcunx (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Hmm, where is this evidence of high buildings making people crazy? There is abundant evidence that _badly maintained and secured_ tall buildings, or too high concentrations of tall residential buildings, have negative effects...that book looks interesting tho...



Did you not read the post about piece-flinging?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Hmmm
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This view makes it look more interesting, quite quirky even, and I don't dislike the design but is just seems so out of place with the rest of its surroundings


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Did you not read the post about piece-flinging?



Yes, our shared culture is lessened by mothers not being able to throw out jam butties.

Altho hi-rise didn't stop that woman throwing shitty nappies at someone from 7 floors up in that telly docco. Good on her! Keeping old traditions alive!


----------



## Cid (Dec 22, 2009)

Well the article is shit, it's nothing like the hotel and anyone describing Libeskind's building on Holloway road as 'controversial' is clearly a nob. I'm sure it'll be by the numbers CZWG post modern stuff and not as offensive or dominating as they're making it out to be...


----------



## Cid (Dec 22, 2009)

zenie said:


> Living in a high rise I'm inclined to agree Bernie, I don't think people were meant to live like this.



Are you sure this isn't just because you live in a shit high rise rather than a well designed and maintained one?


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 22, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Hmmm
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It'll be Rainscreen cladding, concrete is very expensive and looks shit so is never used as an over-cladding on new buildings.

Rainscreen can look ok, but the colour needs to be right, I agree though, this one looks grim.


----------



## zenie (Dec 22, 2009)

Cid said:


> Are you sure this isn't just because you live in a shit high rise rather than a well designed and maintained one?


 
No I live in a well designed and maintained one. I still think you have a better quality of life in a house, that many people on top of one another even though you can't hear each other does make you feel weird.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 22, 2009)

Teaboy said:


> It'll be Rainscreen cladding, concrete is very expensive and looks shit so is never used as an over-cladding on new buildings.
> 
> Rainscreen can look ok, but the colour needs to be right, I agree though, this one looks grim.



If they use the gold-ish colour they've used on the place next to Victoria it'll be alright. That looks like a good colour for survival in London too...


----------



## Chz (Dec 22, 2009)

hah. I saw "horror" and "N7" and thought "London Metropolitain's at it again".  That thing just outside the tube station is horror enough. Those student flats don't look half bad compared to it.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 22, 2009)

Ir's a cheese grater.


----------



## girasol (Dec 22, 2009)

I lived in N7 for many years, glad I left 

But I think that building looks quite interesting!


----------



## girasol (Dec 22, 2009)

Chz said:


> hah. I saw "horror" and "N7" and thought "London Metropolitain's at it again".  That thing just outside the tube station is horror enough. Those student flats don't look half bad compared to it.



That 'thing' outside the tube station is great! (assuming you mean the metal building)  The only problem with it is the setting, it should be surrounded by grass and space, not concrete and cars.

No wonder architecture in this country isn't very innovative or adventurous...


----------



## wtfftw (Dec 22, 2009)

trashpony said:


> How many students are there FFS?
> 
> I've come over all Prince Charles


There's loads of students at london met. Some of them don't attend lectures but the university still claimed funding for them... Times article



So is this london met accommodation? They've only got 3 buildings for the north london campus (unless they've built more without me noticing).
There's a Unite building on holloway road. No idea what that will look like (linky) and that says it has "views over the emirates stadium".  I was at london met when the stadium was being built and you can't see inside from the 15th floor.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 22, 2009)

Student hall of residences are usually just brick built low-rise/self-contained - 5 floors at the maximum.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Dec 22, 2009)

They might've been low rise in the past, but not now.

We've just got new Unite student halls in Tottenham Hale - it's mingin' and according to student forums I looked at, really expensive too, at £148-£208 per week.
I feel sorry for them, most of them are students of the Arts, Tottenham Hale is not really the place for a St Martins fashion student.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 22, 2009)

pinkmonkey said:


> it's mingin' and according to student forums I looked at, really expensive too, at* £148-£208 per week*.


----------



## spawnofsatan (Dec 22, 2009)

Yay! an excuse to post one of my favourite Hawkwind tracks.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 22, 2009)

I like living up high. I'm only on the fifth floor but would love to be higher and quite fancy the idea of the coin street tower at Waterloo as a place to live.

Towers as council housing were poor due to lack of supervision of who was housed, good maintenance and poverty of political ambition to actually deliver good housing. A few years ago I had the labour mayor in my block and he expressed his surprise that it was the only block in Southwark that the lifts didn't stink of piss. He didn't think it was that wrong and that he should be tackling the problem. This really pissed me off. I've been in a tower in Depford recently and frankly the interior hasn't been painted anytime recently and frankly the towers still seem neglected. 

So as social housing with the current set up they are a disaster but don't knock high living just because Britain can't maintain anything. As student housing it might be ok as the universities often seem quite strick with their tenants.


----------



## girasol (Dec 22, 2009)

In Rio living high up is a symbol of status, and it's also seen as safer than living in a house...  The buildings there are well kept though, as they are privately owned.


----------



## Cloo (Dec 23, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Nah, nothing like it. 2 of Europe's tallest buildings are under construction:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Ah! _That's_ what I can see going up by the gherkin as I walk to work from Angel in the morning!


----------



## Yelkcub (Dec 23, 2009)

trashpony said:


> I've come over all Prince Charles



"I say, one really enjoyed that you filthy cow!"


----------



## subversplat (Dec 23, 2009)

That tower does look a bit _Horrorshow_, but I'd live in it


----------



## trashpony (Dec 23, 2009)

Yelkcub said:


> "I say, one really enjoyed that you filthy cow!"



That's the second time I've been called a filthy cow in the last 24 hours


----------



## Cloo (Dec 23, 2009)

I like the Daniel Liebeskind building, I must say... but the block in the OP is *eeeuuh!*


----------



## SW9 (Dec 28, 2009)

I'm looking down on London 
But there's little I can see 
Cos I'm living so high up 
And it looks so small to me 
And I'm feeling so frustrated 
Cos the lifts are out once more 
And when I get home from work tonight 
I gotta climb 14 floors, I tell you mate... 

14th floor 
Oh no, my face don't fit 
14th floor Just a number on the council list 
14th floor 
Oh no, there's nothing to do 
14th floor 
It's got a roof, it hasn't got a view 

I've lived here for seven years now 
But I don't know anyone 
I think the bloke next door is a Jamaican 
But he could be an Irishman 
And life's no fun in a tower block 
When you're locked behind your door 
I think I must have had enough 
Of living on the 14th floor, I tell you mate...


----------



## Reno (Dec 28, 2009)

Iemanja said:


> In Rio living high up is a symbol of status, and it's also seen as safer than living in a house...  The buildings there are well kept though, as they are privately owned.



That's the case in most countries. It's only in the UK where there is this prejudice against and resistance to high rises and as 19sixtysix has rightly pointed out, people can't distinguish between the actual architecture and the how local councils made many high rises unlivable due to shoddy building work and poor maintenance. 

I love high rises. To me New York is the most beautiful city in the world and I'm always struck by how boring London's skyline looks and that's because of the lack of interesting tall buildings.

Mind, the building discussed in this thread is very ugly. It's beyond me why anybody would come up with something like it.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 28, 2009)

London's skyline is boring?  You what? London is beautiful!


----------



## Reno (Dec 28, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> London's skyline is boring?  You what? London is beautiful!



I think London is beautiful, but its skyline looks boring. I'm always reminded of that when I look down from Primrose Hill.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 28, 2009)

So what? 

It's only Holloway, where pretty much everything is grotty, and it's next to the Woolwich Nakheel Snoozedrome.

A monstrous carbuncle, perhaps, but certainly not on the face of a much loved friend.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 28, 2009)

Reno said:


> I think London is beautiful, but its skyline looks boring. I'm always reminded of that when I look down from Primrose Hill.



I disagree.  I think it's amazing.


----------



## behemoth (Dec 28, 2009)

From memory, N7 is pretty crowded, and if you want to pack lots of students in you are going to have to go up.  It would be lovely if they could all have bungalows and gardens.  From what else I remember of N7, even scummy students will raise the tone of the area.  A lighter cladding and it would probably look OK.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 28, 2009)

Reno said:


> I think London is beautiful, but its skyline looks boring. I'm always reminded of that when I look down from Primrose Hill.



I'd struggle to describe London as 'beautiful', skyline or otherwise. English people don't really understand the concept of 'city' - they just build scaled-up villages. With popular architectural preferences skewed accordingly.


----------



## Reno (Dec 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I'd struggle to describe London as 'beautiful', skyline or otherwise. English people don't really understand the concept of 'city' - they just build scaled-up villages. With popular architectural preferences skewed accordingly.



London can be beautiful, but essentially I agree. The British don't really understand architecture and they don't understand that cities have to keep ever evolving, rather than keeping them as monuments to the past.


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2009)

Parts of London are most certainly  beautiful, and there's some stunning architecture here too.


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2009)

Reno said:


> London can be beautiful, but essentially I agree. The British don't really understand architecture and they don't understand that cities have to keep ever evolving, rather than having to be kept like monuments to the past.


I find that a very strange comment seeing as compared to, say, Paris, London has a very progressive attitude towards new buildings, new architecture, parks and public spaces. That's not to say that there's not some awful stuff here too, of course.


----------



## Reno (Dec 28, 2009)

editor said:


> Parts of London are most certainly  beautiful, and there's some stunning architecture here too.



It's gotten better since the 90s and since then London has gained some great contemporary buildings. Most new residential housing is appalling though and a lot of people are still stuck with the same old attitudes to modern architecture as any thread on high rises in London has shown here. 

I live in a listed 70s modernist concrete building. Nearly every plumber/locksmith/etc. who comes round can't comprehend why I would choose to live there, even though the interiors are light and spacious and I'm often told the building should be pulled down. 

I grew up in Germany where attitudes to modernist architecture are much less narrow minded.


----------



## IC3D (Dec 28, 2009)

Reno said:


> It's gotten better since the 90s and since then London has gained some great contemporary buildings. Most new residential housing is appalling though and a lot of people are still stuck with the same old attitudes to modern architecture as any thread on high rises in London has shown here.
> 
> I live in a listed 70s modernist concrete building. Nearly every plumber/locksmith/etc. who comes round can't comprehend why I would choose to live there, even though the interiors are light and spacious and I'm often told the building should be pulled down.
> 
> I grew up in Germany where attitudes to modernist architecture are much less narrow minded.



that series about Berlin showed some pretty good examples of contemporary design and I like Bauhaus, the problem with N7 area is that its got great buildings with loads of shit postwar flats built into the holes the German bombs made, they should send over some of their architects to make amends and do something about the skid mark that is Holloway rd


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 28, 2009)

editor said:


> From The Londonist:
> 
> http://londonist.com/2009/12/another_ugly_student_tower_block_pl.php


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 28, 2009)

Reno said:


> London can be beautiful, but essentially I agree. The British don't really understand architecture and they don't understand that cities have to keep ever evolving, rather than keeping them as monuments to the past.


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 28, 2009)

editor said:


> I find that a very strange comment seeing as compared to, say, Paris, London has a very progressive attitude towards new buildings, new architecture, parks and public spaces. That's not to say that there's not some awful stuff here too, of course.



Agreed, but (speaking as as someone who's visited both) Paris wins hands down in the urban beauty stakes unless you count La Defense which is a bit of Manhattan transferred to the suburbs. Paris isn't progressive because it's got a lot to lose from change.

I can feel a thread or a poll coming on here.


----------



## Reno (Dec 28, 2009)

Blagsta said:


>



Never seen it, where is that ? 

A couple of nice buildings don't make for a great skyline. I've also already said that since the 90s things have improved...


...but not enough.


----------



## IC3D (Dec 28, 2009)

Meltingpot said:


> Agreed, but (speaking as as someone who's visited both) Paris wins hands down in the urban beauty stakes unless you count La Defense which is a bit of Manhattan transferred to the suburbs. Paris isn't progressive because it's got a lot to lose from change.
> 
> I can feel a thread or a poll coming on here.



seriously Paris is way more beautiful cos it benefited from a consistent design planning, though you have to cope with Les Parisiens who in some ways are the living embodiment of their environment by being snooty twats

..actually the same is said about Londoners


----------



## Meltingpot (Dec 28, 2009)

IC3D said:


> seriously Paris is way more beautiful cos it benefited from a consistent design planning, though you have to cope with Les Parisiens who in some ways are the living embodiment of their environment by being snooty twats
> 
> ..actually the same is said about Londoners



Agreed, though I didn't really notice the snootiness because I was only on a short package trip it's been commented on in the past. For example, Keith Richards, who used to live in Paris and knows the city well, said that Paris would be lovely without the Parisians.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 28, 2009)

editor said:


> Parts of London are most certainly  beautiful, and there's some stunning architecture here too.



I can't think of many parts of London that could be called 'beautiful' in comparison to other cities in the world of similar (or even lesser) status.
The only instance I can think of off hand is crossing the Thames at night. And maybe some of the royal parks.
And (again, compared to other large cities) there isn't a great deal of 'stunning' architecture either - most of the interesting architecture is fairly small scale, or messing about with existing buildings. Or, from forty or fifty years ago and disliked by the masses.


----------



## dweller (Dec 29, 2009)

we've already got tonnes of fugly new blocks built near the emirates stadium.
One more won't make much difference tbh


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I can't think of many parts of London that could be called 'beautiful' in comparison to other cities in the world of similar (or even lesser) status.


You clearly have a different definition of beauty than me or just aren't looking in the right places.

London is full of stunning views, from its ancient city streets and old shop fronts, the spires of St Pancras, the Gherkin at night, parts of the south bank, Primrose Hill, Greenwich... I could go on and on!


----------



## dweller (Dec 29, 2009)

IC3D said:


> that series about Berlin showed some pretty good examples of contemporary design and I like Bauhaus, the problem with N7 area is that its got great buildings with loads of shit postwar flats built into the holes the German bombs made, they should send over some of their architects to make amends and do something about the skid mark that is Holloway rd



I used to hate Holloway Road until I lived here. 
It is a cultural fenomenonmeonon.
They should demolish Upper Street instead


----------



## scifisam (Dec 29, 2009)

Primrose Hill isn't exactly central London, is it? If you went that far out from the centre of paris, would you really see lots of beautiful modernist buildings in the skyline? 

Docklands is hardly 'one or two buildings,' either.


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2009)

scifisam said:


> Primrose Hill isn't exactly central London, is it? If you went that far out from the centre of paris, would you really see lots of beautiful modernist buildings in the skyline? .


It's about a mile from several main line stations, and less then two miles from the British Museum.  I'd call that pretty central myself. London is gifted with many large central parks - far more than most other major cities.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 29, 2009)

Reno said:


> London can be beautiful, but essentially I agree. The British don't really understand architecture and they don't understand that cities have to keep ever evolving, rather than keeping them as monuments to the past.



1. I 'd agree that the British by and large don't 'understand' architecture, in the sense that as a whole nation we vaguely like high Georgian/Victorian terraces in cities and country cottage pastiche in suburban/rural areas, but then the British invented Brutalism, and far from 'not getting' modernism, simply had lots of _very_ bad examples of it foisted on us in the 1970s

2. I've travelled all over Europe, and the one thing that sets the UK, and London, apart from most European capitals is the hotch-potch mix of old, new, sort of new, really ancient and a complete lack of any kind of central planning authority. The idea that London isn't an evolving city is beyond laughable - it's changed beyond recognition in some places since I moved here only 19 years ago, and continues to evolve - and I don't just mean the bIg office developments either. There is a vast array of local community projects, small to medium sized local regeneration happening all over London.

If you want to lay the 'monuments to the past' label at a city, try looking to Paris or Vienna.



> I grew up in Germany where attitudes to modernist architecture are much less narrow minded.



Indeed, at the expense of building anything that _isn't_ Internationalist in style. Which is a different kind of narrow-mindedness.

Re: London's beauty. Like most things in London, it doesn't hand you it's beauty on a plate, it makes you work for it. There are easy bits (South Bank, the Parks (more green space than _any_ other European city), the Thames past Hammersmith, more recently the Isle of Dogs at night), but then there are the bits like The Mitre pub off Hatton Garden - stuff you might not even _see_ but when you find it, even as a long term resident, you think 'This is why I live here.'


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> If you want to lay the 'monuments to the past' label at a city, try looking to Paris or Vienna.


Both those cities are stiflingly old-fashioned. Pretty for a while, but then the lack of anything new or challenging starts to do your head in.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 29, 2009)

> The idea that London isn't an evolving city is beyond laughable - it's changed beyond recognition in some places since I moved here only 19 years ago, and continues to evolve - and I don't just mean the bog office developments either. There is a vast array of local community projects, small to medium sized local regeneration happening all over London.



This.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 29, 2009)

ed - I have a 3 day limit on Paris, after that I just need to see variety in architecture. It's not even the age, it's the uniformity of it all that gets to me. 

Vienna is basically a city sized museum. Again, it's not the _age_ of the buildings, it's the uniformity.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 29, 2009)

editor said:


> It's about a mile from several main line stations, and less then two miles from the British Museum.  I'd call that pretty central myself. London is gifted with many large central parks - far more than most other major cities.



It's hardly in the centre of things, though, is it? In any other park that far from the very centre, you wouldn't expect a skyline full of modernist buildings, so we shouldn't in London. Though you can if you venture out to, say, Beckton. Hardly central (not suburbs either, but not central in the tourist sense), definitely has views of modernist buildings. Or, for another hill, stand on top of the hill by the Royal Observatory in Greenwich - lots of old and new together.

Basically, not being able to see many modern buildings from Primrose Hill doesn't tell you much.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 20, 2012)

Steven Hunt said:


> Looks so nice
> I want make spam on new building by expert engineer's. could you help me?



Corrected for you.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 20, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> Have they not learnt the lesson that concrete towers are definitely not the way forward?


So the Barbican is a failed design concept/estate yeah? I think not. Tower blocks are a pain often because the design was subject to cuts and they were built on the cheap. Make them properly and they can be great.

I don't see how a tower block blights anyone's view. How does one decide that any change to a view is blighting it? Pretty subjective I would have thought.


----------



## TitanSound (Jan 20, 2012)

TopCat said:


> So the Barbican is a failed design concept/estate yeah? I think not. Tower blocks are a pain often because the design was subject to cuts and they were built on the cheap. Make them properly and they can be great.
> 
> I don't see how a tower block blights anyone's view. How does one decide that any change to a view is blighting it? Pretty subjective I would have thought.



I've got nothing against tower blocks. But massive blocks of oppressive looking concrete don't happen to do it for me


----------



## TopCat (Jan 20, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> I've got nothing against tower blocks. But massive blocks of oppressive looking concrete don't happen to do it for me


Mock Tudor houses, "Greek" themed columns, bungalows, they all leave me cold.


----------



## maldwyn (Jan 20, 2012)

Has there been an over-estimation on the number of student blocks needed, i'm seeing them being put up practically everywhere.


----------



## TitanSound (Jan 20, 2012)

TopCat said:


> Mock Tudor houses, "Greek" themed columns, bungalows, they all leave me cold.



Same mate


----------



## TitanSound (Jan 20, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Has there been an over-estimation on the number of student blocks needed, i'm seeing them being put up practically everywhere.



My housemate works for a student accommodation firm who manage these type of projects and the demand is sky high. Not just in London either. She was recently up in Nottingham for a big meeting regarding building more accommodation up there.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 20, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> Same mate


I like big Victorian places with a decent cellar.


----------



## TitanSound (Jan 20, 2012)

TopCat said:


> I like big Victorian places with a decent cellar.



I just like decent cellars. With good sound proofing


----------



## TopCat (Jan 20, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> I just like decent cellars. With good sound proofing


Oh no Fred's back!!!


----------



## TitanSound (Jan 20, 2012)

TopCat said:


> Oh no Fred's back!!!



I've no idea what you're talking about.

I meant for my drums.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 20, 2012)

Sorry!


----------



## TitanSound (Jan 20, 2012)

TopCat said:


> Sorry!



_Or did I?_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2012)

TopCat said:


> So the Barbican is a failed design concept/estate yeah? I think not. Tower blocks are a pain often because the design was subject to cuts and they were built on the cheap. Make them properly and they can be great.



For the couple of years I worked in Moorgate, I *loved* looking at the Barbican, wandering around it (and getting lost!), taking pictures, enjoying the sheer wealth of detail. It was and is an exemplar for what all tower blocks should have been, and should be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2012)

TitanSound said:


> _Or did I?_



Tits the torturer!!


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> For the couple of years I worked in Moorgate, I *loved* looking at the Barbican, wandering around it (and getting lost!), taking pictures, enjoying the sheer wealth of detail. It was and is an exemplar for what all tower blocks should have been, and should be.



Apart from its disastrous "integration" with the surrounding streets, I agree.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Apart from its disastrous "integration" with the surrounding streets, I agree.



True, but from what I remember, the original plan was more expansive than what got built, which may explain the jarring contrasts (and, to some extent, some slightly odd geography).


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> True, but from what I remember, the original plan was more expansive than what got built, which may explain the jarring contrasts (and, to some extent, some slightly odd geography).


Even allowing for that, there are some glaring mistakes. The most obvious being the complete lack of integration with the tube station. The lake's major axis points directly at it, yet they put one of the towers at the end of the axis, and a row of little houses too just to be sure. It could be a grand pedestrian plaza, making sense of the "front" doors of the arts center.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Even allowing for that, there are some glaring mistakes. The most obvious being the complete lack of integration with the tube station. The lake's major axis points directly at it, yet they put one of the towers at the end of the axis, and a row of little houses too just to be sure. It could be a grand pedestrian plaza, making sense of the "front" doors of the arts center.



I'm sure I read something about that recently. Excuse me while I go have a rummage.

Nope, can't find it. Was sure I read something about the tube having to be re-oriented from the original design because of a mixture of Walbrook and necessary track curvature. Hopefully the source will spring to mind.


----------



## paolo (Jan 20, 2012)

At ground level it's absolutely bizarro-wtf-eh?

There's bits in it where you can clearly see where you want to walk to, but the route to get there has been squirrelled away into the labyrinth.

As a structure though, it's outstanding. The rendering of the concrete, and the curves, really work. Even when it's stained, oddly.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2012)

The concrete was poured into smooth molds like normal, but then hammered by hand to reveal the rough texture of the aggregate. It's designed to last 200 years, so they say.


----------



## hipipol (Jan 20, 2012)

The Holloway Rd is like the long trail left by a dog with the shits being dragged by an owner with placcy bags but no gloves
This can only be good for the revolting nothingness of life there


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2012)

Crispy said:


> The concrete was poured into smooth molds like normal, but then hammered by hand to reveal the rough texture of the aggregate. It's designed to last 200 years, so they say.


there's at least one zero too many there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2012)

hipipol said:


> The Holloway Rd is like the long trail left by a dog with the shits being dragged by an owner with placcy bags but no gloves
> This can only be good for the revolting nothingness of life there


after the cock turned into nambucca's, the closure of the victoria and the more recent loss of the king's head / the head / the gaff, and the opening of the coronet and the highbury wetherspoons, holloway road's no longer place it used to be - and in a bad way. the only proper bookshop on it's gone - the much missed fantasy centre - and it's entering that soulless state of other high streets undergoing gentrification.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jan 20, 2012)

trashpony said:


> How many students are there FFS?
> 
> I've come over all Prince Charles



You've done what all over Prince Charles?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 20, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> You've done what all over Prince Charles?


Did he swallow~?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 21, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> For the couple of years I worked in Moorgate, I *loved* looking at the Barbican, wandering around it (and getting lost!), taking pictures, enjoying the sheer wealth of detail. It was and is an exemplar for what all tower blocks should have been, and should be.



On a summer's day with the foliage trailing from pot plants on people's balconies (instead of abandoned washing machines etc) and well-dressed folk enjoying a pre-theatre drink on the terrace by the lake, it actually looks like the early perspective drawings of tower block schemes - drawn before the scaled-back and badly maintained built reality came into existence and created a concrete phobia in at least two generations of people that's still proving hard to shake off.


----------



## Sir Belchalot (Jan 23, 2012)

Another eyesore planned for Dalston too:

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...y_skyscraper_in_dalston_town_centre_1_1183403


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2012)

What's so eyesorey about that?
Right next door to a station is exactly the right place for high-density housing.


----------



## TitanSound (Jan 23, 2012)

Crispy said:


> What's so eyesorey about that?
> Right next door to a station is exactly the right place for high-density housing.



Because it will



> permanently eclipsing the sun that warms our homes and nourishes our gardens



First world problem right there.


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 23, 2012)

The vertical city might have been looked daring and visionary in Fritz Lang's _Metropolis_, but nowadays building very tall towers is better left to tacky try-hards like Dubai.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2012)

Permanently eclipse, my arse. I just knocked up a quick 3d model of the scheme and the surroundings. At the equinoxes, Mr. Whiney's house falls in the shadow of the tower for 2 hours - 10am to noon. At the Winter solstice, his house already gets shadowed in the morning by the buildings on the other side of the railway. At the summer solstice, the tower's' shadow doesn't come anywhere near his house. He'll be fine.

18 storeys is not "very tall"


----------



## TitanSound (Jan 23, 2012)

Crispy said:


> I just knocked up a quick 3d model of the scheme and the surroundings.



Modern technology, gotta love it


----------



## Spud Murfy (Jan 23, 2012)

Crispy said:


> 18 storeys is not "very tall"



Tall enough! But they can build anything they like near Walt Disney's Amazing Family Stadium of Soccer as per the OP, that whole area's a lost cause.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 23, 2012)

Crispy said:


> What's so eyesorey about that?
> Right next door to a station is exactly the right place for high-density housing.



Large footprint *plus* the height means it's likely to dominate the eyeline of everyone within a mil radius, if not more.


----------



## ChrisD (Jan 23, 2012)

when I was a student I enjoyed living in a tower block..... except for carrying a tandem up 6 flights of stairs.

Always live in the ugliest house in the road - then you don't have to look out on it......


----------

