Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conservation/ development- which side are you on?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Conservation/ development- which side are you on?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/sep/08/heritage.conservation

    At least as far as London is concerned, I'm on the side of the developers this time- never though I'd say that.

    Westminster, London

    Site The Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey and St Margaret's Church were listed in 1987.

    Problem Unesco believes several new tower blocks, including the 170-metre Beetham tower in Southwark and a 144m tower at Doon Street, will affect the site. It is annoyed its demands for a buffer zone and a detailed study of the skyline have been ignored.

    Tower of London

    Site The Norman tower and its 13th-century walls were listed in 1988.

    Problem New buildings, such as the 66-storey "shard of glass" tower and a 39-floor tower at Fenchurch Street, will dominate the skyline. Unesco "regrets" the UK has failed to implement a robust buffer zone or an effective local plan. It is threatening to put the tower on its "world heritage in danger" list.
    What on earth is the logic of this? These buildings are quite some distance away from heritage sites. Parliament Square itself is such a shithole traffic island that the anti-war protestor improves it aesthetically.

    Unlike in the case of St Paul's, there is no long range view of the building to protect. Or is it that these skyscrapers take away the illusion that it's still the time of Edward The Confessor? It's not as if there aren't tall buildings around anyway.

    Yours baffled.

    #2
    Conservation/ development- which side are you on?

    The Tower of London's nothing to write home about either.

    I agree with you, I think, Tubbs, though some of the buildings going up around the South Bank are pretty horrible IMO.

    The trouble with this concentration on obvious major landmarks is that genuine atrocities - such as obscuring the fantastic Hawsksmoor church at Spitalfields with that shite identikit restaurant-and-office glass monstrosity that's gone up - slip in under the radar.

    Comment


      #3
      Conservation/ development- which side are you on?

      That last point is dead right. The City is particularly irritating in this respect. It shows itself aware that Wren's rather handy at steeples, and sometimes insists on buildings nearby being a funny shape to allow us to see the old man's handiwork. Yet there's always a couple of floors too many, which for me takes away a lot of the pleasure in being able to see the steeples.

      Comment


        #4
        Conservation/ development- which side are you on?

        I'm usually on the side of developers anyway. I think there's far too much of a silly obsession with preserving outdated, outmoded, often ugly, places just because they're old. And that somehow age trumps function in terms of value to society.

        But even by the standards of the conservation tendency, this is utterly mad. Given the state of some other UNESCO sites, it's a bit weird that they're whingeing about buildings going up several miles away. Particularly considering some of the horrors around Victoria Street.

        And don't get me started on the bloody "heritage" industry where everything must be preserved in horribly false condition but also in aspic for all eternity.

        Comment


          #5
          Conservation/ development- which side are you on?

          Yours Londoncentrically, but are there many ugly old buildings here that are unduly tiptoed around?

          The White Tower is very impressive, I think.

          Comment


            #6
            Conservation/ development- which side are you on?

            With the developers - though how many of these new skyscrapers will ever get built given recent market developments may depend on other factors than the "let's keep London's architecture stuck in the 18th century" brigade.

            I like imaginatively designed skyscrapers. Most of the current projects fall into that category, and I will breathe a huge sigh of relief when the "Britain's tallest building" status is finally taken away from that hideously unimaginative blunt pencil in Canary Wharf.

            Comment


              #7
              Conservation/ development- which side are you on?

              I think the issue is too often seen as either/or, when each case should be taken on its merits.

              The area near the Tower of London is very grotty, apart from the Tower and Bridge themselves, and I certainly wouldn't mind a couple of good additons to the upriver view. The main point is to make sure they are good.

              Comment


                #8
                Conservation/ development- which side are you on?

                "New buildings, such as the 66-storey "shard of glass" tower and a 39-floor tower at Fenchurch Street, will dominate the skyline"

                Isn't that the whole point?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Conservation/ development- which side are you on?

                  Generally conservation but not always, of course.

                  Delicatemoth's last post is exactly right - it's not just an either/or thing.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X