By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

Your browser seems to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser.

Close

Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Close

Robert Wakeham's Comments

  • Comment on: Steel chief warns Cheesegrater bolt costs may top £6m

    Robert Wakeham's comment 31-Jul-2015 11:43 am

    If the steel used in the Cheesegrater bolts had all of the correct certification, but the bolts were substandard, does this mean that the certification is unfit for purpose, or the bolt manufacturing process unexpectedly modified the steel characteristics post-certification, or the certification was falsified? Does this affair have wider implications for structural engineering?

  • Comment on: Julia Park: 'We have to end this schizophrenic approach to housing'

    Robert Wakeham's comment 31-Jul-2015 11:33 am

    Perhaps George Osborne will issue an edict 'repealing' Julia Park.

  • Comment on: Conservationists object to Chipperfield's plans for Emin

    Robert Wakeham's comment 30-Jul-2015 7:19 pm

    For Paul Finch - It's not a question of 'trying to punish' - but I don't see that it is more interesting, and for Chris Dyson, are you sure that the replacement building is a thoughtful and sensitive design? It might well be much better than the previously approved design for the site, but does 'an honest reflection of the interior spatial requirements' have to result in quite such a severe exterior? 'Form follows function', I suppose, but if this results in something rather too hostile for its own good? Fortress Spitalfields? It certainly says something of today - beautiful? - a new cultural landmark?

  • Comment on: Conservationists object to Chipperfield's plans for Emin

    Robert Wakeham's comment 30-Jul-2015 1:05 pm

    It's a pity that there are no images of the existing building, because - if you look on Google Streetview - its listing is clearly understandable, and it's 'holding the fort' against a really crude multi storey car park on the opposite side of White's Row, and a nasty sub-Jim Stirling office block on the other side of Bell Lane.. Regardless of the undoubted care that would be taken in the detailing and workmanship of the new proposal, it's bland and cold in comparison to the character of the other, older buildings in the neighbourhood, and as such certainly isn't 'very high quality design'. Maybe this is a bit like the 'garden bridge' proposal, with people being 'dazzled' by well known names into thinking that their ideas automatically deserve approval?

  • Comment on: Emmott: 'Londoners overwhelmingly want the Garden Bridge'

    Robert Wakeham's comment 29-Jul-2015 11:12 am

    I'm sure that Hans Christian Andersen would be smiling quietly to himself at such a classic example of 'The Emperor's new clothes'. Just how far will this project run, where is 'the point of no return' after which London - and national - politicians will be stuck with responsibility for the imposition of a colossal monument to their vanity? - and drain on a much abused public purse.

  • Comment on: RCKa wins planning for Lewisham Pocket homes conversion

    Robert Wakeham's comment 27-Jul-2015 2:40 pm

    No interior images of what 'pocket living' might be like.

  • Comment on: Ian Ritchie: 'What problem does the Garden Bridge solve?'

    Robert Wakeham's comment 27-Jul-2015 2:25 pm

    An excellent statement of the facts - and surely the planning approvals from both north and south of the river are inadequate, given the massive impact of this development on an important part of the character of the centre of what is still the capital of Britain, not just a Singapore-style city state where dissent is kept firmly on the leash. Viewed from a virtually Tory-free Scotland, this 'wonderful exercise in celebrity hype and hubris' could all too easily be used as another nail in the coffin of the UK.

  • Comment on: Campaigners halt British Land's Norton Folgate plans

    Robert Wakeham's comment 22-Jul-2015 12:47 pm

    'Too greedy and too destructive' , and maybe a classic example of the rising tendency to 'overstuff' sites in London with out of scale buildings - property assets being made to sweat beyond reasonable limits. The comments of the council's planning officers - and of Historic England, in favour of this redevelopment - look rather hollow.

  • Comment on: Revealed: Nine Elms bridge finalists’ latest designs

    Robert Wakeham's comment 21-Jul-2015 2:27 pm

    How on earth can any Westminster councillors object to this - Westminster having recently rubber stamped the Garden Bridge (just downstream from Waterloo Bridge), far more disruptive to Thames vistas but far less useful than this public pedestrian & cycle link at Nine Elms. It's a shame (and surely bad planning) that the bridge alignment will result in the northern landing biting into the Pimlico Gardens & Shrubbery - is the Nine Elms redevelopment masterplan that inflexible? It's surely no coincidence that in the AJ's online poll the most intrusive bridge design is the least popular. Compared with that the mass of the postmodern Garden Bridge design is far more intrusive..

  • Comment on: Shigeru Ban to make UK debut with timber scheme

    Robert Wakeham's comment 20-Jul-2015 1:46 pm

    So the council - the planning authority - sells a plot with 'oversail rights' to the developer to allow building over Potters Field Park? Is this a new way for councils to raise money?

  • Comment on: Hopkins submits plans for new Hyde Park Corner hotel

    Robert Wakeham's comment 20-Jul-2015 12:18 pm

    I wonder at the definition of 'carefully curated' when you look at the elevation of the existing building on this site.

  • Comment on: Those seeking to list Number One Poultry are playing a dangerous game

    Robert Wakeham's comment 17-Jul-2015 12:50 pm

    It's easy to sympathise with both sides of the argument - an Iconic building needing to pay its way - and surely one good move would be for two of the most prominent objectors to the proposed alterations to 'stand up and be counted'. Both Norman Foster and Richard Rogers have plenty of experience in the art of designing efficient office buildings. Their last 'joint venture' as Team Four, the Reliance Controls factory in Swindon, fell victim to changing times and was (very regrettably) flattened, and Foster's Renault Distribution Centre in Swindon has survived by change of use. What would they do, if landed with the challenge of improving the viability of Number One Poultry? Or can they suggest a new, perhaps more fitting , use for the building?

  • Comment on: Work begins on Libeskind’s Berlin apartments

    Robert Wakeham's comment 17-Jul-2015 11:53 am

    The 'trademark angles' seem rather superficial, compared for example with the trademark angles & curves of Zaha Hadid's work. And the quote about its holistic character etc etc could qualify for inclusion in 'Pseuds Corner' in Private Eye. It's surely got as much in common with Dali's 'Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War) as with a saphire - with the analogy being that of buildings, rather than humans (or a country) being torn apart.

  • Comment on: Kerslake mulls legal action to stop Right to Buy extension

    Robert Wakeham's comment 17-Jul-2015 11:35 am

    There's surely a case for concerted legal action by a whole range of affordable housing providers who are going to be shafted in the populist (read selfish) interests of one political party.

  • Comment on: IBI wins go-ahead for £50m revamp of Barnsley town centre

    Robert Wakeham's comment 14-Jul-2015 2:12 pm

    It would be interesting to compare the latest proposals with the abandoned efforts of Holder Matthias / CZWG / Will Alsop.

  • Comment on: Government scraps zero-carbon homes amid industry uproar

    Robert Wakeham's comment 13-Jul-2015 10:33 am

    People don't seem to understand that George Osborne's short-term trajectory through the firmament is way more important than setting any long-term trajectory for national energy conservation policy and legislation.

  • Comment on: More homes: Osborne tears up planning rules for brownfield land

    Robert Wakeham's comment 10-Jul-2015 10:08 am

    The government's finance minister seems to be morphing into Minister of Social Engineering - as well as Minister for Silly Bridges. Perhaps he'd like to be Minister for Everything?

  • Comment on: Urban Splash to redevelop Plymouth’s listed Civic Centre

    Robert Wakeham's comment 10-Jul-2015 9:55 am

    Really good news for this building, and Plymouth - which got a phenomenal battering in the early years of WW2, with the city centre looking like Coventry, Dresden or Hiroshima, and this building signalled the substantial completion of reconstruction, to a masterplan drawn up in 1943/4, while the bombing continued. Only two buildings in the city centre remain from before WW2 - the shell of Charles Church, now a memorial to the civilian dead, and a 'misaligned' shop (now Argos) in New George Street.

  • Comment on: Wilkinson Eyre wins Copenhagen bridge contest

    Robert Wakeham's comment 8-Jul-2015 10:54 am

    It would appear that in Copenhagen - rather than in the London of Osborne & Johnson - they have no difficulty in assessing bridge designers on merit. But then, in Denmark they're creating an elegant, ingenious and above all useful structure that respects its setting

  • Comment on: Moxon brought in on Garden Bridge project

    Robert Wakeham's comment 8-Jul-2015 10:35 am

    The recruitment of Moxon, with their ex-Wilkinson & Eyre partner - and Flint & Neill - will certainly help make up for the blatant skewing of the 'ranking' process that was applied to Heatherwick Studios, but it will do absolutely nothing to legitimise the sheer arrogance of imposing this development on the Thames in the centre of our capital city - and the outrageous diversion of substantial sums of public money to a vanity project by the very person who is driving through a policy of severe and increasing austerity in public spending.