HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2015, 1:54 PM
Larry King Larry King is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnypd View Post
Prince of Wales. Which allows him to interfere in anything he likes, particularly architecture. I don't think this is a serious proposal fwiw - the army hasn't decided if it is even going to sell this site yet.

He tried to push a Quinlan Terry design for Chelsea Barracks a couple of years back and managed to single handidly foil a Richard Rogers scheme by personally complaining to the Emir of Qatar, whose country owned the site.

That's interesting, I guess I never thought about what a royal actually does all day. He should step up and develop stuff himself, I'm sure he has the money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2015, 5:11 AM
RLS_rls's Avatar
RLS_rls RLS_rls is offline
▓▒░
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,601
What relevance does #6 have in western Canada? Our traditional architecture is either pre-Colombian indigenous, of which nothing from that era remains, or pre-war pioneer, which was done in a contemporary style and often with cheaper materials. Areas without architectural legacies would only be burdened by this approach I think.
__________________
ಠ_ಠ
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2015, 1:59 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry King View Post
That's interesting, I guess I never thought about what a royal actually does all day. He should step up and develop stuff himself, I'm sure he has the money.
I'm sure you're wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2015, 2:30 PM
johnnypd johnnypd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 638
^Charles has money aplenty. He's already developed Poundbury on his own land near Dorchester.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2015, 2:32 PM
Larry King Larry King is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
I'm sure you're wrong.
the prince doesn't have money?

edit: according to google he's worth 370mm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2015, 10:27 PM
BIMBAM's Avatar
BIMBAM BIMBAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnypd View Post
Prince of Wales. Which allows him to interfere in anything he likes, particularly architecture. I don't think this is a serious proposal fwiw - the army hasn't decided if it is even going to sell this site yet.

He tried to push a Quinlan Terry design for Chelsea Barracks a couple of years back and managed to single handidly foil a Richard Rogers scheme by personally complaining to the Emir of Qatar, whose country owned the site.

Charles should interfere less in England and more in Canada. Innovative modern architecture has been a boon to England and I think created a more vivacious built environment, but places like Toronto could benefit alot from his philosophy. A certain balance needs to be struck and I think England is managing well, but Canada, and in particular Ontario, would benefit from the variety and philosophy neoclassical architecture would introduce to the urban environment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2015, 3:57 AM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLS_rls View Post
What relevance does #6 have in western Canada? Our traditional architecture is either pre-Colombian indigenous, of which nothing from that era remains, or pre-war pioneer, which was done in a contemporary style and often with cheaper materials. Areas without architectural legacies would only be burdened by this approach I think.
Then be thankful you have a blank slate to work with. And see point #10.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2015, 8:21 AM
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
ThatOneGuy ThatOneGuy is offline
Come As You Are
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Constanta
Posts: 920
Hopefully that London proposal won't end up like the monstrosity in Bucharest.

It does look better from the drawings but the facade quality will make or break it.
__________________
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
-Leonardo Da Vinci

Last edited by ThatOneGuy; Jan 29, 2015 at 8:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2015, 5:13 AM
johnnypd johnnypd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 638
Another pic of the barracks proposal:



Seems the developer is quite serious about this one: http://www.sdandbinternational.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2015, 5:15 PM
montréaliste montréaliste is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chambly, Quebec
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnypd View Post
Another pic of the barracks proposal:



Seems the developer is quite serious about this one: http://www.sdandbinternational.com/


There is room for reinterpreting the classical vocabulary beyond the postmodernist phase that can propel this architecture to better heights. The problem is in reinventing the use of columnar, glazing and veneer elements to a level of quality in design that doesn't deceive. So far only the postmodern efforts of very good architects have managed to deliver on vision and quality of execution. The postmodernists like Johnson at least had had the training and Art-architectural knowledge to reinstate some of the vocabulary in a cohesive form.

The pile proposed for the barracks seems tied down to a lack of rigor and vision. It is totally untimely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2015, 7:56 PM
mousquet's Avatar
mousquet mousquet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Greater Paris, France
Posts: 4,556
mm... I just read my 1st post to this again, I'll confess it was excessively contemptuous and rude, but seriously... It's no secret, beyond the design of an architect, it takes above all the likely expensive skills of specialized craftmen to build such a thing in a proper way. Looks like it would all be made of limestone, à la bonne vieille parisienne, and it looks quite large, like taking an entire street, so you'd need a lot of guys who can cut limestone materials properly. Obviously, forget about anything precast, it'd be intolerable. I'm assuming they would do it properly, then I'd be curious to see what it would cost. Maybe the price of a neat and shiny contemporary highrise. Maybe even more. So I still can't see the point of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:16 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.