3 ms·
Images 2 and 4 are the worst - where they are trying to squeeze an extra floor in so the new facade windows dont align with the old facade windows. Images 6 an
by twelvechairs 7y ago
Images 2 and 4 are the worst - where they are trying to squeeze an extra floor in so the new facade windows dont align with the old facade windows.
Images 6 and 7 are postmodern additions - maybe its not your style but they aren't without architectural thought
The others are all standalone facades unclear what their final outcome will be. Perhaps they were never of a good standard, were beyond repair at the time or were taken away during construction. In any case just keeping the facade is probably better than 50 years ago when theyd just demolish the whole thing.
- molteanu 7y agoI wouldn't want to live on the 1st floor in that 6th building , though.
- altacc 7y agoThe mismatch in floor heights is something I also find jarring. The changes in standards mean that floor heights are reducing, leading to this. It'd have cost them more to build matching floor heights and they might have had to have one storey less to get planning permission. Something similar happened near where I lived in London. Developers got permission to build an apartment block on condition that it looked the same as its older neighbour. The result was an odd looking mini version, about 2 metres shorter than the original.
- mcv 7y agoFor #2 and #4 it's not just the floor height, it's that they built a new building while pretending the old facade wasn't there. It's just a random wall standing in front of a completely unrelated building.
- beardyw 7y agoFrom the street, number 6 (Stamford Street) looks worse than the photo. To me it looks a bit like how I imagine a Las Vegas hotel. Whatever the building had before is lost anyway.