wouldn't worry about cabe, this will be built and then i'll hang my hat on it!
wouldn't worry about cabe, this will be built and then i'll hang my hat on it!
Doesn't matter how tall It Is, but they are approving too many souless looking modern buildings In Liverpool latley and this Is one of them.
Gididi Gididi Goo.
Originally Posted by Max
modern..
yes..all new buildings are modern
souless.. no way
Whatever the merits or otherwise of the design, I think it's a real pity that Martin Wright (Liverpool Vision) should describe it as 'ok for Liverpool'. Obviously this doesn't reflect well on the city's architectural aspirations - 'commercially appropriate' might have been more positive whilst still being realistic.
Personally I think the design is hopelessly mundane. A bit of Tower 42 (Natwest Tower, nonedescript 70s commercial) wrapped in a bit of barcoding (moribund noughties non-event). It must have taken all morning to do.
When does this go before the planners? Is it today?
I agree. This is no bland glass block.
The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click
Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
canals to view its modern museum describing
how it once was?
Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK
Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition
In so far as a lame and borrowed idea is not bland then ok it's not bland but I wouldn't be the only one to have my judgement questioned. Certainly Martin Wright doesn't seem to be tha valued as a credible critic:
Liverpool ‘not as good as Dubai’ remark sparks row
11 April 2008
By Rory Olcayto
Architects and planners have slammed as “ignorant” comments made by urban regeneration company Liverpool Vision suggesting that the city council should accept architecture below the standard of that found in Dubai.
“It’s a problem if [Martin Wright] doesn’t realise Dubai is hell on Earth”
Patrick Lynch
Commenting in last week’s BD on Cabe’s criticism of a tower scheme, development director Martin Wright, called the watchdog “naïve”, adding: “It [the tower] is not of the quality you’d find in Dubai, but what is proposed is not out of place in Liverpool.”
But leading figures have lined up to criticise this response, claiming that Liverpool should actually aim far above the standards found in the United Arab Emirates.
Patrick Lynch, a graduate of Liverpool University’s School of Architecture, the focus of an exhibition that opened last week, said he was worried by the comments.
“It’s a problem if Liverpool Vision’s director of development doesn’t realise Dubai is hell on Earth,” he said. “It’s just ignorance. How is that man in that job if he thinks that? The quality in Dubai is palpably not of a high standard.”
Lynch was backed by Bill Maynard, director of Urban Splash’s Liverpool office, who agreed that using Dubai as a benchmark was misguided.
“Dubai is a sprawling mess of hotchpotch architecture — we shouldn’t compare ourselves to it,” he said. “We should be comparing ourselves to Manhattan or Paris.”
Maynard added that while the baseline quality of new build in the city was improving, most developments were “average to mediocre”.
A Liverpool Vision spokesman said: “Liverpool Vision has consistently championed good quality design and has established a good reputation as an honest and proactive arbiter between private sector investors and the city council planning department. This relationship has resulted in may high quality buildings being delivered in Liverpool city centre..."
What we need is Iconic. Something that will be instantly recognisable and beautiful, not iconic because it is crap (cloud springs to mind). Betham tower may be a new so called 'soulless' building. But its different, its new i think it looks stunning. Same with the unity building.
Maynard, Lynch, cabe and everyone else hit the nail on the head.
“average to mediocre”. Although it is a step in the right direction, the Edwards tower could be a lot better. For the largest residential building in the uk it is unimaginative and i think cabe are right to say “confused architectural expression”. This shouldn't just be a Building for Liverpool, or even Britian. It should be a building that is recognisable across the world. It should be the standard to set the bench mark at. Not a half arsed clash of two very different architectural styles which we have two exceptional examples of in the Anglican and Catholic Cathedrals.
The two cathedrals are not clashes of two very different architectural styles. The Anglican is pure modern Gothic, the Metropolitan is pure authentic modern - totally unique, iconic and original. No city in the world has two cathedrals like them with totally conflicting styles.
The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click
Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
canals to view its modern museum describing
how it once was?
Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK
Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition
The King Edward tower was the clash i was referring to with its design being based upon both cathedrals. I totally and wholeheartedly agree that our two cathedrals totally unique, iconic and original. That was my point entirely.
I agree the scheme clashes with itself.
Personally I wouldn't have referenced the cathedrals (although now you mention it, I can see the form of the top is reminiscent of the Anglican Cathedral tower.
I think it looks like the Natwest Tower in a leopard skin kimono. A combination of the one which is itself a half-baked copy of Yamasaki's World Trade Center, the other a bit of meaningless (and rapidly going out of vogue) bar coding.
Unique? Maybe; in it's awfulness
Iconic? If it represents something, I don't know what it is
Original? See above
Rubbish? Oh yes.
iconic (adjective)
representative or characteristic of somebody or something admired as an icon
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1005
Architecturally the main feature of the building is the distinct spiral effect employed by the architects with a series of layered curves revealing different surfaces that celebrates the ecclesiastical grandeur of Liverpool. The brown stone is inspired by the Anglican Cathedral whilst the cornices and vertical lines on the curving glass take their cues from the Catholic Cathedral.
The brown stone is or should be a reddy/ black sandstone from an outcrop of Wilmslow Sandstone which has been quarried in Liverpool and used in many Liverpool buildings for more than a century. Whilst it is by no means unique to the Anglican Cathedral, I suggest the ecclesiastical reference to permanence and permanent materials is inappropriate in the dynamic and changing context of the city's business district. Also the sweeping form and the 'random' fenestration suggests movement and change - another contradiction with the chosen material.
I don't know who wrote this piece in skyscraper news but I don't see any reference in the KE tower to the Metropolitan Cathedral (which is in any event a rather 'pragmatic' version of the much better original in Brasilia by Oscar Neimeyer). The tower is much closer to the verticality of the WTC - see above post. This was largely derived from the multiple mullion cladding in the 'skin and core' ie relatively column-free construction (it was also used for the vertical cleaning system). How are they similar?
The spires and lines of the Metropolitan Cathedral i believe is refered to more, not so much the curves.
Still if we're getting confused over its style, just goes to show how confusing the building is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks