New London tower
-
The more I look at it the more I like it, I do not like the palette, I'd prefer it in a raw metal finish.
In time it will be embraced by most, right now it's a little overwhelming I suppose. -
Is this April fools?
How about the setting? The setting for something like the Eiffel Tower respects and elevates people and the surroundings. If this is the intended plan, it is more like a piece from Pottery Barn set out on the porch, where people can wander around its base in the expanse of concrete like ants.
-
It will appear in an episode of 'Spooks' (MI5 for folks in the states) where Adam (if he is still alive) meets an ex KGB spy at the base of it and y'all will fall in love with it.... end of controvesy.
-
ohh I get it...
it'll appear in an episode of Doctor Who...
I mean the London Eye was in fact a Nestene Transmitter in the episode 'Rose'....
-
What's worse is that we have to pay for the feckin thing - i bet if they had to collect the money before it was built they wouldnt get enough to buy the concrete for the foundation!!!
-
Dear Solo,
Did you have weathering steel in mind?
The problem with weathering steel is the stains left on concrete after rain has washed down the oxide. Kew Gardens used weathering steel for their treetop walkway and it works really well in a rural setting.
http://www.kew.org/press/images/trees_festival.htm
I agree, the expanse of concrete (?) under the tower is not very inspirational.
Bob
-
In response to TIG's comment 'what's to like':
I think the tower offends the architect's 'mind set' because it is asymmetrical. This is not true of recent architecture (e.g. Beijing Olympics, Bird's Nest Stadium), where computing power and modern materials have allowed architects almost unlimited scope for design. Nonetheless, humans tend to find symmetry pleasing, as in faces, and are are unsettled by asymmetry. My background and experience is mainly in the field of mechanical engineering, and so I find the construction intriguing, and perhaps that's why I like it. Personally, I find the steel arcs too 'heavy', but presumably, the design will evolve with the mechanical engineering design effort.
Regards,
Bob -
Personally, I think just because something is structurally possible, doesn't mean it should actually be built...certainly not have £19 million thrown at at...although it will probably make that back in a few years if they charge for access.
In this larger picture here you can see a little clearer what is going on. There seems to be a central shaft...presumably for a lift/elevator, with what seems to be a pedestrian walkway spiraling around it. Is that going to be a restaurant at the top, an observation platform or a first-aid/cpr station for those that had a coronary on the way up. I've no idea what all the arcs are supposed to signify, but added to all the other stuff they give the impression of those tangled pieces of string you occasionally found at the bottom of your pocket when you were a kid. There just seems to be too much going on. Over-designed for my taste, it simply lacks elegance. -
Judging it from the renderings I think it looks ugly. But I think a structure like this could easily be let down by the basic rendering provided. How it appears in reality, at different times of the day, could be massively different.
That being said, I still don't think much of this sculpture. I've seen him featured in TV programmes before and I've seen his Chicago mirrored sculpture in many images. I don't really think much of his sculpures. I think his Chicago sculpture is very beautiful, but I think that cost something like 23 million pounds. Yes, I think it's beautiful, but it aint 23 million pounds worth of beautiful.
I also don't think this will be a viable, long term tourist attraction. The location will mean that after the games it barely covers the costs of keeping it open and maintained. In fact I'd guess that after 10 years of it costing a fortune to maintain, a part will fall off and it'll end up like the B of the Bang and scrapped.
-
-
I don't get how this is a Anish Kapoor.
-
See first post, BBC link.
-
@unknownuser said:
It will appear in an episode of 'Spooks' (MI5 for folks in the states) where Adam (if he is still alive) meets an ex KGB spy at the base of it and y'all will fall in love with it.... end of controvesy.
lol as if you watch spooks!! its an awesome tv show.
its like the english 24! 
-
Oliver I most certainly do, it shows on Thursday nights on our local PBS channel KERA at 9pm.
The last episode that aired was when the nuclear triggers have made their way to Iran, leaving a cliffhanger as always. (how far behind y'all are we?)
-
When Paris’s Universal Exposition opened in April 1889, insults were already bouncing off its centerpiece, Gustave Eiffel’s cast-iron tower. In many quarters it was regarded not as a wonder and marvel but as an outrage.
Today it's the pride of most Parisians, was the 'Eye of London' embraced at first? is it now? are people warming to it? -
Oh . .. I think London has enough to be proud of. Sir Norman's enormous Gerkin is symbolic enough, is it not?
-
As I have written before, I for one like the structure, but that is a subjective view as the tower is intended to be both art and structure. If you don't like it, and for whatever reason, then fine, but your opinion is also subjective. No one is saying it is 'good' (how can a work of art be good or bad - it is either liked or disliked), although a lot of people are saying that it is 'bad' from their own view point as designers. In brief, it is not what they would have designed. I think the design is interesting, although its presentation (model, rendering) pretty awful. I get the feeling the presentation was put together in a hurry for dear old Boris to talk about.
I do not know how they arrived at the winner, but one assumes that it was through some sort of opinion pole involving 'the man on the street'. If that is the case, then the British tax payer (or a significant number) favour the design.
All the comments so far can pretty much be summarised by 'it's a piece of shit'. Surely, someone can put forward a reasoned argument against its construction, but not one based solely on personal taste in buildings and structures, or is that all there is to this discussion? David_H posted an image of the Gerkin, a building I do not particularly like, but to others it's iconic.
Just a few thoughts, and not directed at anyone in particular.
Regards,
Bob -
Bob
As a man on the street and, unfortunately, a British tax payer, I can honestly say that, as usual, the majority were not given the opportunity to vote for a favourite, nor even see the alternatives for that matter. I for one, in this recession, do not think this structure should be even considered for construction on the basis of cost alone. History will prove that it will come in at least 50% over budget and as a previous poster said in this thread, ignored by people after the olympics is over. We as a nation are already diverting millions of pounds from regional sporting budgets to support the building of London based olympic venues and we as regions (N. Ireland) will not get the benefit of them after the olympics have been and gone. What will it bring to the nation / capital - arguments, mostly about its cost and why should something that cost millions generate that argument - build something from scrap iron, made by people on the dole costing a fraction and let the luvvies fight about its artistic merit.
-
personally im with bob, i think it will be a much more impressive piece of architecture when your stood underneath it rather than looking at a tiny, and rather badly done, render (although some of the material in the bbc vid looks a lot better.)
And as for the cost, what a bargain. That sort of money is pissed away left, right and center so to see it being used to build something as striking as this seems like a very good use for the money.
-
The only thing i would like to see striking it is a demolition ball - no that would it mean it would have to built so scratch that !
Advertisement