Depressed Phantom
David's just depressed the hell out of me.
Contrary to popular belief, I DON'T have a big problem with giant modern glass buildings - just modern buildings in sensitive settings. We've been worried for some time about what the hell will become of Trident Hall - not an utterly glorious building in its own right, I'll admit, but at least low-rise.
We've known it's been hoovered up by the Greenwich Inc. Empire for some time (which, btw is still looking for places to swallow - thanks for the link, Karen) but we didn't really know what form the hotel we've known they want to build would look like.
Well - here it is, courtesy of David.
Apparently, according to the article, the architect has actually worried about what impact her design will have. Not worried all that much, I would hazard. This looks completely out of place in such a historic site, to me.
But am I just being a jumpy Phantom this week? IS it that bad? I guess it could have been worse. What do you think about this?
Contrary to popular belief, I DON'T have a big problem with giant modern glass buildings - just modern buildings in sensitive settings. We've been worried for some time about what the hell will become of Trident Hall - not an utterly glorious building in its own right, I'll admit, but at least low-rise.
We've known it's been hoovered up by the Greenwich Inc. Empire for some time (which, btw is still looking for places to swallow - thanks for the link, Karen) but we didn't really know what form the hotel we've known they want to build would look like.
Well - here it is, courtesy of David.
Apparently, according to the article, the architect has actually worried about what impact her design will have. Not worried all that much, I would hazard. This looks completely out of place in such a historic site, to me.
But am I just being a jumpy Phantom this week? IS it that bad? I guess it could have been worse. What do you think about this?
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
11:08
37 Comments:
96 bedrooms?!
The thing that worries me, in the photo the hotel is directly next to the tavern. Does this mean there will be no access to the small street past the yacht pub and trinity hospital from this side?
Surely this can't be allowed?
Grotesquely out of character with the surrounding area.
Not meaning to be complacent but I really can't see how this would get a go-ahead. It's entirely out of character with a it's locale, not to mention a World Heritage site. What's more, such a hotel would create extra traffic in an alreay busy road and hinder pedestrian access to the river.
Now, here is one planning meeting which I would happily attend.
This is like the cranes all over again.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I am not against the Glass and Steel School of Archtecture (oopps is that The Stockwell Street site ? ) but while Ms Jiricna says she is sensitive to the historical surroundings there is no Architectural nod to any of her neighbours. I can appreciate it may be an awkward site to design with the very narrow Crane St on the north side of the plot .Could there not be some reference at least on the frontage to the buildings surrounding it either through form/style and or building materials?
I wonder whether she has even visited the site?
I dont expect some terrible pastiche but come on Eva/Frank look around you!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Captain might be on to something here, although I think the hotel is probably outside the WH area. Unesco recently stripped Dresden of its WH status because of a new bridge being built across the river in the WH area.
The process is pretty straight-forward; the application will be heard in committee; in that case it's down to local councillors. They will turn it down if enough of their voters object; however, they will be wary of losing the case on appeal (which is overseen by an independent inspector) as in this case costs are awarded against the council.
In this case, Dowling and Jiricna would have to demonstrate that the building preserves or enhances the area and does not detract from the setting of the listed buildings.
Jiricna is reasonably respected - she worked with Richard Rogers - and you can get your bottom dollar that she and Dowling will try and get a bunch of letters saying what a magnificent design it is. The best way to deal with this is to start contacting the amenity groups like EH, to get them on our side.
I think this will be a difficult on on aesthetic grounds; after all, would you want a pastiche old building in there? Look at the "Neo-Georgian" buildings on Burney St and King George St, and it's hard to justify that approach. More relevant here is that the building is hugely over-scale and assertive, towers over Trafalgar, one of Greenwich's key buildings, and dominates the view both of that, and of the Naval college.
I wonder also if an all-glass building such as this is going against the current fashion for sustainability, as presumably the heat loss is greater from such a structure.
Correction - I just checked the map on the Greenwich tourism website, it shows the boundaries of the WH site. The Trafalgar is within the site, as is the location of the proposed hotel.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Of course - if I were an entrepreneur wanting to build something I know the locals would disapprove of, I would first submit a plan that is so outrageous that everyone went berserk. So that when I submitted a 'revised' version everyone would be actually be grateful...
Doesn't help to suspect something like that, of course - even if it is the card that's being played - the plan still has to be opposed.
It doesn't look that bad.
Besides, those apartment blocks they've been building on the old wharf sites are miles worse.
Kroker that may be so but you have to view this in context; a cheapo glass-and-steel will look so appallingly out of place I will, literally, vomit every time I walk past.
Ironic how easily things like this go up. When the new heart for greenwich and the john roan school havent even been started on...
Am I being stupid, or do most, if not all, the reasons why Greenwich Council rejected the plans for the Market development apply with at least equal force to this plan?
Not that this should stop us from vigorously campaigning against this stupid man and his stupid plan.
As to Inc looking for more properties, it would be a disgrace if they were allowed to buy up any more sites in Greenwich after the appaling destruction of the Cricketers.
The Tiki Bar has lain empty for ages now, and they have so little idea what to do with the site that at one stage they were discussing turning it into a fish and chip shop.
Frank go home
I think the Phantom is on the money here. This design fails on grounds of both height and lack of sympathy with surroundings.
I'm guessing they are hoping objections major on the latter and ignore the former. Let's not let that happen.
I just tried stepping back for a minute and visualising this in my mind.
They can't be serious!?!?
As said previously, this shouldn't happen in a World Heritage site.
That's hideous.
I had heard about this too but had no idea how bad the design was. It would be more at home on the Peninsula.
I'm with the Phantom - I do think they go for broke with original applications in the hope that they can slip in more realistic plans at a later stage, so people think 'oh, it's not so bad after all'.
There should be nothing on that site at all. it's a wonderful airy space along the river front, a great spot for a drink, to take a breather during a run, for children to stop and watch the boats go by (my sons' school is just round the corner and classes on field trips often use this spot to look at the river traffic/sit down on the benches etc).
It's hideous. It cannot happen. It won't happen.
Fear not, Phant. That building hasnt a cat in hells' chance of getting built in a World Heritage site.
Dear Phantom,
I`m sorry to hear you are depressed,and looking at the image of the "Hotel" I guess you have reason to be.What I always wonder about, in new very "glass and steel" buildings is, will they weather well,will they look worn out after just a few years?I think there is nothing worse than pastiche.Not that I know anything, but this to me looks like a late 60`s early 70`s office block,pastiche? or am I just getting old?If the current building is to be replaced, this design is hardly ground breaking,rather dull.The Ibis Hotel,I think, is one of the greatest blots on the landscape in Greenwich.Can we not not learn from our mistakes?What makes me laugh about the interior of the Trafalgar pub, is that it`s some interior decorater`s idea of an old pub.A bit like an American actor trying to put on an English accent in a c list movie.It does not work.Hope you feel better soon Phantom.
Quite surprised Dowling would want that sort of architecture in Greenwich.. even more surprising if it actually passes through the planning committee! What ever happened for the plans of a (I believe underground) parking garage as well? Any news on that? If not, expect it.
I wish this was some sort of joke?! Aprils or something! who in their right mind would pull down a peroid building, surrounded by other period buildings and replace it with this carbuncle! It would look complete out of place! Your going to tell me they had designs on the market next..
Calm down phant, if you notice the article was published in May 2008. Also I know by from a little birdy that INC have been having trouble raising cash for just day to running cost, paying people late so a 12 million hotel is not a small overdraft. Sadly this project will be a another one of INCs moth Balls.
Phantom, re your comment about proposing one slightly outrageous hotel scheme then revising it is pretty much what St James Homes did for the blank site on the corner of Greenwich High Road and the A2. The second was rejected, thank goodness. It did not have any parking, nor any way of dealing with 24-hour staff travel (some would out of necessity have to drive) nor was the hotel explictly going to be 'non-parking', so people would book in and bring their cars.
What concerns me about this illustration is that it looks light and airy, but in practical terms, would not be that light - with the rooms actually being more loaded with furniture or curtains and the like. I would like a more realistic impression to be made compulsory for any application.
Cor, Paul - is that true? INC are in trouble? I do hope so (apols to anyone who works for them but you should try being a customer). Maybe the company should learn to treat existing customers well...and it might see some return business.
Shame it's too late for the Spread Eagle. Oh, and Bar du Musee. And the Coach and Horses. And etc etc etc etc...
I love Architect's drawings, where the people are all slim and trendily dressed, fairly busy roads sudddenly appear to be pedestianised and huge glass sheets are neat and clean - can't we get another Architect to provide a REAL image of what it would look like - with litter, road works closed curtains and messy interiors. Hotels may be manageable, but the new buildings on Woolwich Rd looks such a mess now that people are moving in - people, with their messy lives, washing lines, bikes and kids toys, towering piles of newspapers,etc.
One of my if I ruled Greenwich for a while thoughts would be to make Architects submit a REALISTIC image of what the building would look like in 5 years time with REAL tenants not computer-generated stick people.
"INC have been having trouble raising cash for just day to running cost, paying people late ....."
"Cor, Paul - is that true?"
Yes, it is true.
Hey Guys -Sorry - but I've just had to remove a couple of comments - one of my (unspoken - perhaps I should make this clear...)rules on this blog is 'no adhominen attacks'.
It's quite clear we're all a bit wild about this (though I confess I'm blushing a bit that I didn't see the date on it - how embarrassing - and even more embarrassing that I didn't see the article when it actually came out - so much for me having a spectral ear to the ground...) - but please avoid bad-mouthing actual people.
We can express ourselves about concepts without getting too personal, surely...
Tear down the Trident Hall (merely Frank's store room according to an earlier post) and bring on the new! Let's have steel glass and light alongside the great old buildings.
The current building has no architectural merit that I am aware of and is of marginal use to person, phantom or beast (not suggesting that everything has to be of use to survive the wrecking ball though).
I have to agree Gwladys - the current building is hardly of any great merit - but it IS nice and low-lying...
Turn it into a keg storing facility for the near by pubs.
Hmmm.
1. Thank God it's no kind of retro.
2. Yes it is a bit big and no the existing building isn't worth much except as a sort-of rest between more interesting ones.
3. If Greenwich Council's web site is up to date there has been no planning application yet - a year on from when the BD article expected one.
Not sure how this is considered brilliant architecture - looks like an office. decline merely on the grounds that its boring, not because its in a UNESCO WHS.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home