please empty your brain below
They didn't want the Gherkin to be built, because they thought it would ruin our city. In 100 years time though, they will no doubt be campaigning to preserve it. They've got a lot of power over what gets built in London and what doesn't and honestly they have not got the slightest clue what they're doing with it. They'd rather see boring and chunky groundscrapers clog up the London skyline, rather than have something amazing and inspiring built like The Shard, because they only care about preserving their precious little sight lines of St. Pauls from numerous hills in South London which nobody goes to to view St. Paul's from anyway. Someone needs to give them a good dose of reality because we are not living in the 1800's anymore.
dg writes: Some of Bow is pretty grim, but not all. Ditto Wembley, I suspect.
You have to ask "where were English Heritage when these monstrosities were being built?".
Don't be so scared to embrace new architecture just because some mistakes were made in the 50's and 60's. If we have that attitude, then we'll never build anything new or interesting again. Remember that when St. Paul's Cathedral was built, it was originally hated by many and widely criticized. The English Heritage of the time would have wanted it demolished. During construction, Wren even had to hide the dome with scaffolding to make it appear like they were building a spire.
Personally, I actually quite like a lot of East London's tower blocks and estates. Most of them are bad, but there are quite a few of considerable merit which I think should be protected. Like the Victorian Terrace, the Council Estate has become a part of our own heritage too now, and it's too late to deny or erase that. People look at the standard of life in these places and then criticize the buildings for it, when in fact they lack proper maintenance and support from local authorities. 100 years ago, the old brickhouses surrounding Brick Lane and Christ Church Spitalfields were dilapidated slums and even up to the 60's, you couldn't have given away those houses for free. They came close to being demolished because people looked at them in the same way that we now look at estates and tower blocks. Luckily they were saved and restored, and now there are people willing to pay millions to live in them.
I think that it's good to have quality control and in a way EH having a tight grip on things is supposed to achieve this, but ultimately they have got their priorities completely skewered too often. I feel that their needless worrying and lack of vision is holding London back from it's potential as the leading world city for architecture
I didn't say they would, and no, I don't believe they ever will either.
Look at Keeling House in Bethnal Green though, only recently just another squalid block of flats, it's now been renovated and is arguably one of the finest pieces of architecture in East London. People are also quite happy to pay a lot of money for a flat there too.
Stroudley Walk is a bad example, and it's painting the argument black and white. There are plenty of quality post-war and brutalist structures in London which should be protected, regardless of whether they're a "dump" or not. At the end of the day many of these structures have been in a state of neglect from the local authorities for ages, and that has taken a drastic toll on their image. It doesn't mean that they are beyond repair or that we need to demolish them to get rid of the problem.
Anyone who has ever tried to do any sympathetic work on even a Grade II house they own will know there is truth in what Blackstock says.
TridentScan | Privacy Policy