5 ms·

Liverpool Street, Kings Cross, Holloway - all places once warm and familiar to me are now cold, oppressive masses of dense, synthetic development. London's neve

Liverpool Street, Kings Cross, Holloway - all places once warm and familiar to me are now cold, oppressive masses of dense, synthetic development. London's never really stood still - certainly not in the 20 years I've lived here or the near 40 years I've had experience of it - but the rates of development over the past decade and a bit are astonishing and somewhat saddening to me. All seems a bit 'too much, too quick'.

foldr 7y ago
>Kings Cross Come on, Kings Cross was a dump 15 years ago. It's much nicer now. There are lots of generic-looking glass buildings, sure. But they've also removed the horrible 60s/70s concrete structures covering Kings Cross station and restored St Pancras Station and the associated hotel. If you don't think that the area has improved overall, I'd have to say that there's no pleasing you!
- arethuza 7y ago
  I think "dump" makes it sound rather nicer than it actually was!
Quarrelsome 7y ago
oh come on, this is somewhat a nostalgia trip. I would assert that you're as equally annoyed that your definition of what it was is now inaccurate as you are about the changes. For those without that prior frame of reference what is now will just be what it was and they'll add their own complaints next decade. And thus time marches on and we cannot change it.
- detritus 7y ago
  Sure, KX is somewhat 'better' in some ways than it was a while back, and I'm not against development per se (I used to note your observation when I worked in Camden and realised each generation down there would rue the loss of whatever version of 'old Camden' it was they held dear) - what I'm concerned about is the sudden comprehensive change of an entire area. I'm generally suspicious of inorganic large developments as they tend to crowd out smaller businesses and encourage more chains of widespread consumer outlets, as they're the only ones who can afford to sign up 'off plan'. Coal drops yard and the new St Martins are very pretty, and certainly striking and elegant but I do worry that they're quite synthetic and sterile and what impact that will have on the students. Whether or not the future students of St Martins will be any better or more successful than the ones who studied at that cold building in Holborn, I don't know. - ed typos
  - foldr 7y ago
    >Sure, KX is somewhat 'better' in some ways than it was a while back I really think you must not be familiar with Kings Cross at all to say this. I mean, can you name any specific business or building that you miss? It astonishes me sometimes what a bunch of whiners us Londoners are when it comes to new developments. It's a city, not a museum.
    - detritus 7y ago
      Whereas I'm still astonished when I try and couch my opinions on the internet in non-absolutist terms and they're invariably taken as blunt, literal weapons. I even stated in my first response here that "London doesn't sit still" and that it's "a bit 'too much, too quick'" that concerns me. I wonder if we forgot certain lessons from 60s architectural adventures. As for an answer to your question - Bagleys and The Cross spring to mind.
      - foldr 7y ago
        Aren't those both clubs? Not a very impressive response. Clubs often open in run-down or otherwise unattractive areas. They move when the area changes. I don't think we want to keep Kings Cross as a complete poohole just to keep a couple of clubs open. I say this as someone who used to live there. It might be fun for you to go to the run down part of town to go to a trendy club, but it's not so great for people who are in the area on a day-to-day basis. I can see what you're saying in general, but to use Kings Cross as an example is borderline trolling. No-one misses the old Kings Cross.
    - pmlnr 7y ago
      > It's a city, not a museum. Cities like Budapest, Prague, Vienna have quite strict regulations when it comes to buildings. Eg. Budapest still doesn't have anything taller, than 30 tiers. Respecting and maintaining a certain look doesn't mean it'll become a museum, rather that it has a personality and everyone agreed to keep that personality. London, at this point, is the other end of this spectrum: no personality, no regulations on look/height/etc based on values. (Sometimes I wonder about regulations at all, knowing the case of the melted Jaguar with the Walkie Talkie: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-23930675 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-23930675 )
SirHound 7y ago
Kings Cross used to be a humungous shithole so I don't personally see this as a loss.
jmkd 7y ago
Holloway has an astonishing - largely untold - 750 year (at least) history of transient development. The name comes from horse-carts digging such deep ruts in the mud by 1300 it became known as the hollow way. I love that Joe Meek wrote 'Telstar'[1] from a tiny flat in Holloway. It sounded like the future in 1962, and sounds like the past now. It's the same with the built environment. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B7ypA1fSwU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B7ypA1fSwU

foldr 7y ago

>Kings Cross Come on, Kings Cross was a dump 15 years ago. It's much nicer now. There are lots of generic-looking glass buildings, sure. But they've also removed the horrible 60s/70s concrete structures covering Kings Cross station and restored St Pancras Station and the associated hotel. If you don't think that the area has improved overall, I'd have to say that there's no pleasing you!

arethuza 7y ago
I think "dump" makes it sound rather nicer than it actually was!

Quarrelsome 7y ago

oh come on, this is somewhat a nostalgia trip. I would assert that you're as equally annoyed that your definition of what it was is now inaccurate as you are about the changes. For those without that prior frame of reference what is now will just be what it was and they'll add their own complaints next decade. And thus time marches on and we cannot change it.

detritus 7y ago
Sure, KX is somewhat 'better' in some ways than it was a while back, and I'm not against development per se (I used to note your observation when I worked in Camden and realised each generation down there would rue the loss of whatever version of 'old Camden' it was they held dear) - what I'm concerned about is the sudden comprehensive change of an entire area. I'm generally suspicious of inorganic large developments as they tend to crowd out smaller businesses and encourage more chains of widespread consumer outlets, as they're the only ones who can afford to sign up 'off plan'. Coal drops yard and the new St Martins are very pretty, and certainly striking and elegant but I do worry that they're quite synthetic and sterile and what impact that will have on the students. Whether or not the future students of St Martins will be any better or more successful than the ones who studied at that cold building in Holborn, I don't know. - ed typos
- foldr 7y ago
  >Sure, KX is somewhat 'better' in some ways than it was a while back I really think you must not be familiar with Kings Cross at all to say this. I mean, can you name any specific business or building that you miss? It astonishes me sometimes what a bunch of whiners us Londoners are when it comes to new developments. It's a city, not a museum.
  - detritus 7y ago
    Whereas I'm still astonished when I try and couch my opinions on the internet in non-absolutist terms and they're invariably taken as blunt, literal weapons. I even stated in my first response here that "London doesn't sit still" and that it's "a bit 'too much, too quick'" that concerns me. I wonder if we forgot certain lessons from 60s architectural adventures. As for an answer to your question - Bagleys and The Cross spring to mind.
    - foldr 7y ago
      Aren't those both clubs? Not a very impressive response. Clubs often open in run-down or otherwise unattractive areas. They move when the area changes. I don't think we want to keep Kings Cross as a complete poohole just to keep a couple of clubs open. I say this as someone who used to live there. It might be fun for you to go to the run down part of town to go to a trendy club, but it's not so great for people who are in the area on a day-to-day basis. I can see what you're saying in general, but to use Kings Cross as an example is borderline trolling. No-one misses the old Kings Cross.
  - pmlnr 7y ago
    > It's a city, not a museum. Cities like Budapest, Prague, Vienna have quite strict regulations when it comes to buildings. Eg. Budapest still doesn't have anything taller, than 30 tiers. Respecting and maintaining a certain look doesn't mean it'll become a museum, rather that it has a personality and everyone agreed to keep that personality. London, at this point, is the other end of this spectrum: no personality, no regulations on look/height/etc based on values. (Sometimes I wonder about regulations at all, knowing the case of the melted Jaguar with the Walkie Talkie: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-23930675 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-23930675 )

SirHound 7y ago

Kings Cross used to be a humungous shithole so I don't personally see this as a loss.

jmkd 7y ago

Holloway has an astonishing - largely untold - 750 year (at least) history of transient development. The name comes from horse-carts digging such deep ruts in the mud by 1300 it became known as the hollow way. I love that Joe Meek wrote 'Telstar'[1] from a tiny flat in Holloway. It sounded like the future in 1962, and sounds like the past now. It's the same with the built environment. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B7ypA1fSwU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B7ypA1fSwU