Robert Wakeham's Comments
An ingenious design for an 'interesting' site - but why, oh why, such a dark brick skin - 'dark' seems to have become the signature feature of so much contemporary work.
Thank goodness it hasn't suffered the fate of the soon-to-have-been-listed Carlton Tavern in Maida Vale, suddenly and illegally demolished the day after Easter Monday in a manner reminiscent of the outrageous destruction of the Firestone Building in Brentford in 1980.
If I was going to rank - on a scale of 1 to 10 - the Thames Baths project, and the 'green bridge', in terms of appropriate interventions on the river, these baths would be up there at 1 and the 'green bridge' would be an also-ran.
A notable attribute of the existing range of buildings, apart from architectural variety, and interest, is that they're not drab - more than can be said of their replacement, which seems to be following the current widespread trend in London for dark and rather dismal buildings. Does the level of atmospheric pollution justify this, or is it just fashionable?
Comment on: Euston Arch rebuild efforts move forward
Boris would surely be better advised to have TfL contribute to this inspired project than to pursue the elitist and dysfunctional garden bridge folly.
If only the judicial review could also examine Transport for London's use of public money to help fund a bridge that has no provision for cyclists - the clue is in the word 'transport'. Boris would be better advised to put the money into reconstructing the historic Euston Arch
So I wonder what changed Historic England's mind?
Comment on: Contentious Hall McKnight plans set for approval
This reminds me of the bad old days in Edinburgh, when the university did so much damage to the character of George Square - assisted by the clout of big-name architects - but I thought that we'd moved on from the attitudes that prevailed in the 1960s. Maybe not.
I've always thought that being a pedestrian is a basic human right, whereas being a motorist is a privilege - but I can't decide where being a cyclist should be, between these two extremes, and I can't help feeling that the daft behaviour of a minority of cyclists encourages some drivers to treat them with contempt, and some pedestrians to have no sympathy for them - despite the obvious hazards that they face in most British city streets.
Joe Morris mentions cyclists jumping red lights and riding on pavements, and while these people are clearly a small minority they're very visible, and I - as a pedestrian - despise them for their utter irresponsibility. I suspect that they do enormous damage to the reputation of cyclists in central London amongst not just pedestrians but - more critically - taxi drivers and all the other drivers who spend their working lives in this area. My early morning bus journeys from Euston down to Southampton Row, and short walk east along Theobald's Road, were a real eye-opener - both for the conflict between cyclists and frequently stopping buses, and for the tidal wave of cycles on Theobald's Road, frequently ignoring pedestrian lights and frequently on the pavement at the junction with Southampton Row. These were clearly experienced cyclists, but deserved to be banned, and I wonder whether there's a need for some form of licensing, with heavy penalties for dangerous cyclists as well as dangerous drivers?
At least Foster's design respected the scale of the place, and that statement in the planning documents is an interesting interpretation of evolution - is it my imagination, or would Mussolini and the Ceausescus have recognised the qualities in this impressive pile?
Comment on: Elips completes ‘Italian-style’ pasta café
I can just about understand the concept of keeping everything white - except the entrance door.
I apologise for getting Jane Merrick's name wrong (no edit facility) and add that Transport for London want to invest public money in a new Thames crossing closed to cyclists? Really? - after the tragedy last week that so clearly demonstrated the need for safer cycling routes in London, and destroyed the life of someone who really did know what good design is all about?.
Merrick is absolutely right in criticising this silly vanity project, which so clearly symbolises what happens when privilege, power and patronage get out of hand.
You could almost believe that it isn't 1st April - I just wish that the Joanna/Thomas/Boris project for their garden bridge over the Thames had been a 1st April affair.
Hooray - but now let's see if whichever minister - and government - is landed with taking the decision manages to avoid being bent to the will of the building owners.
Comment on: Copper Lane by Henley Halebrown Rorrison
A beautifully crafted group - and, for someone living far from London, it's refreshing to note that none of the reviews that I've read have made any reference to the absence of provision for parking.
This is one 'impartial punter' who isn't impressed by someone on David Cameron's shortlist of nominated successors spouting guff about criticism of the garden bridge - but then Boris spouts rather a lot of guff, so perhaps this is an essential qualification for a potential Prime Minister.
A lesson learnt from the criticism of the quality of the architecture of the Crossrail project, in comparison to the fine work done on the Jubilee Line extension, under the direction of the late Roland Paoletti?
Comment on: MIPIM: 10 things we learned
Lesson number three - the London stand - intrigues me greatly; if it was twice as busy as the Paris stand, with its transport masterplan involving the creation of 72 new stations, I wonder why? For many decades the Paris authorities seem to have been far ahead of those in London when it comes to developing essential transport infrastructure, and this should surely be reflected in the health of the property market. Are the Paris developers and financiers that much less adroit than those in London, or are there other factors at play, under the surface? Is there more awareness in Paris of the provenance of the wealth looking for a safe home, perhaps? Is the case of the foreign billionaire spiv with a criminal record who's acquired ownership of a large chunk of the Camden Lock market area the exception that proves the rule, or is a substantial proportion of the London development gravy train fuelled by grubby money and even grubbier people?