4 ms·

I think the Cally Road one won worst building of the year. ah yes - https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/29/carbuncle-cup-student-housing-ucl http

I think the Cally Road one won worst building of the year. ah yes - https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/29/carbuncle-cup-student-housing-ucl https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/aug/29/carbunc...

close04 7y ago
These should only be legal if that facade is integrated into the new building, not just a mask in front it. Yes, it's more work for the architects but otherwise it defeats the whole point of the exercise.
- Reason077 7y ago
  As a Londoner, I agree. Generally, I don't have any problem with historic facades being integrated into modern buildings so long as it's done well. Some of these examples, where the building was built behind the historic facade with no attempt to integrate it at all, are apppaling and should never have been allowed. The developers of these projects took advantage of loopholes in planning laws. In other examples from the article, like the College East, Wentworth Street (Spitalfields E1) example, the historic facade has now been perfectly integrated into the new development. In fact, it is a huge improvement on what it looked like before: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5170618,-0.0722792,3a,75y,131.01h,104.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIJJrCtUYxcnZWeTHbicNkQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5170618,-0.0722792,3a,75y,13... (I cycle along this street every day!)
piffey 7y ago
Funny. They did this with a building on Broadway in Seattle, but set it back far enough that the section from the facade to the building is a patio. Ended up making it really cool and they get light (when it isn't raining) that makes some interesting shadows. Feel like if they use the facade as more than just "we have to keep it so put the new behind it" look then it's fine.
- cookingrobot 7y ago
  Those patios are next door and above Dick’s hamburgers. The patios are beautiful but the smell must be incredible.

close04 7y ago

These should only be legal if that facade is integrated into the new building, not just a mask in front it. Yes, it's more work for the architects but otherwise it defeats the whole point of the exercise.

Reason077 7y ago
As a Londoner, I agree. Generally, I don't have any problem with historic facades being integrated into modern buildings so long as it's done well. Some of these examples, where the building was built behind the historic facade with no attempt to integrate it at all, are apppaling and should never have been allowed. The developers of these projects took advantage of loopholes in planning laws. In other examples from the article, like the College East, Wentworth Street (Spitalfields E1) example, the historic facade has now been perfectly integrated into the new development. In fact, it is a huge improvement on what it looked like before: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5170618,-0.0722792,3a,75y,131.01h,104.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIJJrCtUYxcnZWeTHbicNkQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5170618,-0.0722792,3a,75y,13... (I cycle along this street every day!)

piffey 7y ago

Funny. They did this with a building on Broadway in Seattle, but set it back far enough that the section from the facade to the building is a patio. Ended up making it really cool and they get light (when it isn't raining) that makes some interesting shadows. Feel like if they use the facade as more than just "we have to keep it so put the new behind it" look then it's fine.

cookingrobot 7y ago
Those patios are next door and above Dick’s hamburgers. The patios are beautiful but the smell must be incredible.