Greenwich Pier
I'm having a grumpy time with Blogger this morning; it's refusing to upload any pictures - and I have some great ones for you. So I'm writing a equally grumpy post about something Dazza's brought to my attention.
Let's create a context for this. We have a World Heritage Site here, that people get so sensitive about that they moan when someone wants to place Ferris wheel in the grounds of the ORNC for a few months in the summer. A world heritage site based on the area's history.
Arguably the most important part of a WHS is the way people first see it. And for many - the romantics among our visitors - that's the view as they arrive by boat.
Now. We're all agreed that what we currently have is a mess. And a bloomin' confusing mess at that - trying to work out where to get a boat from must be a minefield for a visitor (well- it certainly was for a Phantom.) A once-grand pier (I would show you a pic if I could upload any) has deteriorated to a building site. But let's just look at what Greenwich's powers-that-be have got Conran & Partners to design for us - click here to see it.
Is this the finished product? Is this what we're getting? Are they proud of that?
Conran boasts:
"Over the past 20 years our buildings have made a significant difference to their surroundings."
They fail to mention whether this difference is actually a positive one or just a 'difference' in the same way that we use 'interesting' to describe First Base's plans for The Heart of East Greenwich. So will it make a 'significant difference' to Greenwich? You're darn tootin'.
It's apparently based on traditional "palette" of boat-building materials - copper, glass and wood - but to me it looks more like a bunch of the rusty old containers that clutter boat yards today.
Copper? Copper? I'm a big fan of copper - it keeps the slugs off my hostas - but apart from the sheer cost of the stuff these days pushing this project into overspend-freefall, large areas of copper weather really badly. They patinate to a mellow bluey-green, yes, but that's after long years of streaky browny-green gunk, though at least we could plant some giant hostas around it to cover it up in the meanwhile. Do architects never think about what will happen to their projects in ten year's time? Presumably not - they just move onto the next cash cow.
And the language:
"The amorphous shape of the buildings is moulded between these view axes." What the bloody hell does that mean? "Three new pavillions..." What do YOU think of when the word 'Pavillion' is bandied about? I'll wager it's not this.
Now I'm not suggesting we go for some dreadful faux-Victorian pastiche (even though we have a REAL Victorian waiting room there that is considered 'too old' to renovate - so we're sending it to the West Indies where - wait for it - they'll be renovating it) but please - can't we have something that doesn't look like a giant brown cardboard box? Modern architecture doesn't have to be awful - there's some great stuff around. It's just not in Greenwich (though I confess to being a bit of a fan of Will Alsop's (thanks Deb) stingray-shaped tube station on the Peninsula.)
Some might argue that I haven't studied the plans - I don't seem to be able to find any more to look at. But this is Impact Architecture. It's to be viewed from a distance, like Sir Christopher Wren's iconic Hospital. Indeed alongside Wren's masterpiece. And in my opinion it just doesn't hold up as a vista - as a building to be enjoyed by The World as part of its Heritage.
Thanks Dazza, for sending me the link - but you just depressed the hell out of me.
Let's create a context for this. We have a World Heritage Site here, that people get so sensitive about that they moan when someone wants to place Ferris wheel in the grounds of the ORNC for a few months in the summer. A world heritage site based on the area's history.
Arguably the most important part of a WHS is the way people first see it. And for many - the romantics among our visitors - that's the view as they arrive by boat.
Now. We're all agreed that what we currently have is a mess. And a bloomin' confusing mess at that - trying to work out where to get a boat from must be a minefield for a visitor (well- it certainly was for a Phantom.) A once-grand pier (I would show you a pic if I could upload any) has deteriorated to a building site. But let's just look at what Greenwich's powers-that-be have got Conran & Partners to design for us - click here to see it.
Is this the finished product? Is this what we're getting? Are they proud of that?
Conran boasts:
"Over the past 20 years our buildings have made a significant difference to their surroundings."
They fail to mention whether this difference is actually a positive one or just a 'difference' in the same way that we use 'interesting' to describe First Base's plans for The Heart of East Greenwich. So will it make a 'significant difference' to Greenwich? You're darn tootin'.
It's apparently based on traditional "palette" of boat-building materials - copper, glass and wood - but to me it looks more like a bunch of the rusty old containers that clutter boat yards today.
Copper? Copper? I'm a big fan of copper - it keeps the slugs off my hostas - but apart from the sheer cost of the stuff these days pushing this project into overspend-freefall, large areas of copper weather really badly. They patinate to a mellow bluey-green, yes, but that's after long years of streaky browny-green gunk, though at least we could plant some giant hostas around it to cover it up in the meanwhile. Do architects never think about what will happen to their projects in ten year's time? Presumably not - they just move onto the next cash cow.
And the language:
"The amorphous shape of the buildings is moulded between these view axes." What the bloody hell does that mean? "Three new pavillions..." What do YOU think of when the word 'Pavillion' is bandied about? I'll wager it's not this.
Now I'm not suggesting we go for some dreadful faux-Victorian pastiche (even though we have a REAL Victorian waiting room there that is considered 'too old' to renovate - so we're sending it to the West Indies where - wait for it - they'll be renovating it) but please - can't we have something that doesn't look like a giant brown cardboard box? Modern architecture doesn't have to be awful - there's some great stuff around. It's just not in Greenwich (though I confess to being a bit of a fan of Will Alsop's (thanks Deb) stingray-shaped tube station on the Peninsula.)
Some might argue that I haven't studied the plans - I don't seem to be able to find any more to look at. But this is Impact Architecture. It's to be viewed from a distance, like Sir Christopher Wren's iconic Hospital. Indeed alongside Wren's masterpiece. And in my opinion it just doesn't hold up as a vista - as a building to be enjoyed by The World as part of its Heritage.
Thanks Dazza, for sending me the link - but you just depressed the hell out of me.
Labels: Debates
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
09:24
21 Comments:
That looks bloomin dreadful! I was under the impression that the new buildings would actually be on the river, so as not to obscure the veiw of ORNC, but that is just abismal. They should have a look at the Barrier Park cafe for some inspiration. Someone try and convince me that will look good after weathering please, its just too sad.
Blub blub blub boo hoo.
I also find it heartbreaking that the Victorian ticket office is being shipped off, and share your despair at the dearth of any decent modern architecture in Greenwich.
But - and how sad is this? - I keep thinking: it could have been a lot worse.
At least these "pavillions" are low profile, so won't severely affect the Canaletto view or block out the Cutty Sark. Bracketing all the architect "blah blah" (it's how they use The Force on local planners - "You will permit my amorphously shaped moulded view axes." "We permit your amorous ax... whatever, thingie."), the use of copper and timber is good.
So, you see, after years of ever-lower expectations, all we can hope for these days is damage limitation...
Just to say Alsop was responsible for North Greenwich not the ubiquitous Foster.
Anyway, maybe you could send the archigibberish to pseud's corner.
I agree with Franklin: it's a great shame about what we've lost (what WERE they thinking???) but these new buildings could be OK. I love the idea of the outdoor dining areas overlooking the river - we've needed something like that in Greenwich - and I think/hope the finished product will look a lot better than the pictures. They're simple designs and we could have ended up with another space age pod-like contraption (which was what I was expecting...)
DEB you're right. Well - I never knew that. Will Alsop, eh. Good for him. (Now you'll tell me it was a her...)
Are we really down to 'least worst' when it comes to new buildings for Greenwich?
Does this also mean we get a Conran restaurant in the building, I am no great fan but a half decent bit of chow in this gastronomes wilderness will help wash down architectural esoteric doublespeak, gulp!
It's a thought...
Dunno. I guess we'll have to see. Since Dazza had to go searching for these plans it's unlikely we'll have anything actually volunteered in the way of information on this project.
I am so pleased that I have managed to depress everyone on this grey dull morning.....LOL
I suppose that we are going to have one 'Pavilion' with the Ticket Offices in, one for the new 'Restaurant' but what about the 3rd? A souvenir shop run by Mr Fleecem and Mr Grin?
At high tide I expect that the sight greeting travellers on the river wouldn't be too bad (Did I just type that?) but what about low tide when all you'll be 'greeted' by would be a wall with some upright planks on it?
Why can't they 'borrow' from our industrial past and build a platform that would then say something about the Site itself?
I am still amazed that the Power Station platform can't be 'utilised' in some way. Imagine the views. Now a lower version with the New Pier buildings....that might actually have worked.........
Ah - the powers station. Now of course we can't actually use the power station as it's still - well - a power station - but how cool would it be to use the little pier bit as a base for a fab tea/room restaurant/open pier? You could climb up steps or have a little glass lift from the Thames Path and make a real feature out of that sad little platform...
Oh, for that Lottery win to come my way......
Should we start a funded to buy the Old Coal Jetty? I have £2.53 and a couple of really nice shirt buttons.....
Just don't mention it to Frank!!!!!!!!!
Are we really down to 'least worst' when it comes to new buildings for Greenwich?
Yes. Sad, isn't it? I think that people who care about the built environment can have legitimate disagreements about aesthetics. But I don't think that there is any disagreement that the vast majority of new building in and around the centre of Greenwich in the past 15 years has been carbuncular (viz. the Ibis, the Novotel, The SElect10n and its cardboard-box ilk along Trafalgar/Woolwich Rd, the gated Admiral's Gate, and all the major forthcoming developments).
In my view, the few exceptions are Laban (in Deptford, anyway), possibly the new Haddo estate (jury's still out)... and that's about it.
Sorry, thought of some more good ones: the refurbished Picture House, Neptune Court at the NMM, and the new planetarium. Subtle, creative, modern, but reflective of and respectful toward their settings.
I'll be quiet now. ;-)
The planetarium is fantastic. But that's because the architects they used put their egos after the project itself. They kept the bits that were worth keeping, they razed the bits that weren't and created something new that actually works in harmony with the Observatory. If only we could have them more often. The name escapes me just now but they're great.
Well, I thought it couldn't be THAT bad but I was wrong. What a pathetically ugly building. Looks like it's going to be made of plywood!
How dire! I am a fan of good modern architecture, but this just looks like a bunch of Barrett-home style '80s urinals. No public consultation?
Maybe the bung, sorry 'Consultation fee' was split 80% Fee and 20% materials costs? I'm sure someone, somewhere is getting rich out of it!! Or am I just being a touch cynical here?
I'm reserving judgement on Greenwich pier. The pictures don't look special but that's CGI for you. It never quite gets the way light plays off surfaces in nature or in the picture on which the CGI has been imposed.
The pier was hardly something to boast about before - it could certainly do with more shelter. One of the pier men told me that the buildings at the top will be two stories hight and there will be a resturant.
All winter the builders have been in dry suits working in the water to shore up the old Victorian quay. Every morning I saw them I figured no matter how bad my day was going to turn out it couldn't have it any worse than those guys.
"The amorphous shape ..." sentence is going to give me a sleepless night ... "The shapeless shape ..." What? Who? How? Scratches head.
BTW - The planetariem was designed by Allies and Morrison who also did the refurb of the Royal Festival Hall, which is great too.
I really have to ask - did the designers actually know where this was going to go cos I cannae see overtures of harmony or a welcoming gateway. Albeit nicely panelled it has all the charm of a toilet black!!
This looks really dreadful - a cross between a 70's throwback and a student campus building.
Absolutely shocking...god knows how much the council are paying for that monstrosity
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home