The new U.S. embassy in London: A crystalline ‘sugar cube’ worth a billion dollars

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Where in London is this again? Maybe I missed it, but it seems to only mention across the river from Grosvenor Square.

33 Nine Elms Ln in Wandsworth.

[Zerton]

The old embassy was designed by Eero Saarinen but it was very cramped. I've heard that the ceilings were only 7'! The new digs look pretty nice even if the building isn't in the best/poshest part of town.

[Centropolis]

god, looks like hell.

[Centropolis]

not to mention that it fucking disgusts me that it was a billion dollars considering the needs back here.

[San Frangelino]

It kinda reminds me of the new United States District Courthouse here in L.A.

https://archpaper.com/2017/01/crit-l...lery-0-slide-0

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

god, looks like hell.

Yeah I don't get why people are praising this, it looks like garbage aesthetically and no different from the usual fortress type of architecture.

The U.S. has no problem spending when it comes to imperialism related endeavors.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

I think he meant that Franklin and Jefferson, our first two ambassadors to France, began a tradition among the diplomatic corps of living well in Paris en profitant de ses charmes.

Btw, the old London embassy was in Grosvenor Square, Mayfair, probably the poshest address in London. I think moving to Nine Elms is a bit of a step down for our spooks, but maybe it'll be a lovely place after all once all the construction dust's settled.

what’s to become of the old embassy? anyone know?

[Encolpius]

It was sold for an undisclosed sum to the royal family of Qatar, who plan to turn it into a luxury hotel. Londoners will at least be relieved that ugly metal barriers and concrete guard booths will no longer mar the prospect of Mayfair's largest, most iconic square.

[dc_denizen]

So a bit of extra room for the hedge fund and Arab expat communities. Good to know.

[10023]

Originally Posted by The North One

How is it cleverly hiding it's defenses when there's a very obvious moat around the whole thing?

This.

And they've moved it from Mayfair to Vauxhall partly, I'm sure, due to the ease or cordoning off a perimeter there versus at Grosvenor Square. Nine Elms "Lane" is basically a highway, and the other side is the main line train tracks out of Waterloo.

That article makes no sense.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

I think he meant that Franklin and Jefferson, our first two ambassadors to France, began a tradition among the diplomatic corps of living well in Paris en profitant de ses charmes.

Btw, the old London embassy was in Grosvenor Square, Mayfair, probably the poshest address in London. I think moving to Nine Elms is a bit of a step down for our spooks, but maybe it'll be a lovely place after all once all the construction dust's settled.

I wouldn't say the poshest, but yes it's a very nice part of town. Nine Elms on the other hand is barely even London; it's like moving to Jersey City.

So yes, it's a step down for the staff. But remember that the ambassador's residence remains Winfield House in Regent's Park:



That is also where dinners and state functions are held. The move does make his commute to the office take longer, however.

And it's also a much bigger pain to get to for any American citizens who actually need to visit the embassy for something like visa services (fortunately, I've never had to).

[Encolpius]

I didn't know about Winfield House. That's quite an impressive-looking Neo-Georgian. Out of curiosity, which part of London would you say is the poshest?

I know real estate is more expensive in Knightsbridge, but that part of town is mostly mass-produced terraces built for the nouveaux riches of the railroad era, whereas Grosvenor Square has had solid aristocratic credentials since it was developed in the early 18th century.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

not to mention that it fucking disgusts me that it was a billion dollars considering the needs back here.

Oh come on. This is a onetime expense for a building they will likely occupy for 50 years or more. If you want to slam waste slam the $80b increase to defense spending that nobody at DOD actually asked for. You could build out a US high speed rail system for what that expense represents over just the next two years alone.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Oh come on. This is a onetime expense for a building they will likely occupy for 50 years or more. If you want to slam waste slam the $80b increase to defense spending that nobody at DOD actually asked for. You could build out a US high speed rail system for what that expense represents over just the next two years alone.

yeah you got that right. but to be fair, or perhaps fair i should say, yesterday i heard a republican senator say there are ships and subs that have been sitting in drydocks that need big repairs. i dk about freakin $80B worth, but also that there are upgrade expenses the military needs. yeah, yeah, i know, the underlying elephant in the room is gearing up for war with nk or you name it, but they certainly didn't say that or i dk about that. anyway, thats the way it was put. so it's guns over trains for now.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

so it's guns over trains for now.

Trump may be a strange man upsetting us all, I think he wasn't wrong when he said the US was paying too much for others' defense.

$600 billion a year. That would be the annual military budget of the US to protect us all. To be fair, that's unfair. If I was an American taxpayer, I'd be pissed too.
The US needs more "soft power", and the Europeans need more military expense to share the burden and develop our related industry further.

My country pays roughly €34 billion a year. More than any other EU member, except maybe for the UK that acts responsible in that matter too.

The real scandal is Germany here. I said it already on here. They must help us for our common defense. They always claim to teach us Frenchies about seriously managing a public budget, but they do nothing much to defend themselves against the threats on us all, always relying on others (especially the US, of course). That's no fair attitude from them.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Oh come on. This is a onetime expense for a building they will likely occupy for 50 years or more. If you want to slam waste slam the $80b increase to defense spending that nobody at DOD actually asked for. You could build out a US high speed rail system for what that expense represents over just the next two years alone.

what causes you to presume that i haven't done this?

in any case, it's a hideous borg cube.

[Busy Bee]

Would you rather have the artless pomo bunker that is our Berlin embassy? :


_

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Oh come on. This is a onetime expense for a building they will likely occupy for 50 years or more. If you want to slam waste slam the $80b increase to defense spending that nobody at DOD actually asked for. You could build out a US high speed rail system for what that expense represents over just the next two years alone.

DOD just put out a report blaming the multiple ship collisions in the 7th Fleet (Pacific) on lack of training time due to over-commitment of an insufficient number of ships for the missions given the Navy in that part of the world. If DOD isn't asking for more ships for the Navy, maybe they should be . . . and maybe they are now after the collisions and the report.

“Simply put, we need to acknowledge that the Navy has a supply-and-demand problem. We are asking too few ships to do too many things for American security, and that needs to be rectified,” he said.

“As the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions have demonstrated, the short-term costs of ‘doing more with less’ are unacceptable.”

[geomorph]

The side of the façade with the fabric treatment also has a similarity to the Central Library in Phoenix, Arizona:







All photos taken by geomorph in 2010.

[Encolpius]

^ The difference being that Central Library's sails are on the north side of the building, meaning they can be oriented perpendicular to the windows to impede glare without directly obstructing the view (the cable support structure is also nearly imperceptible). In contrast, the Embassy is wrapped on every side but the north in a spiky curtain of expensive ethylene tetrafluoroethylene which was originally supposed to incorporate photovoltaic cells but doesn't. The frame that holds them in place also seems excessively bulky.



As a result, instead of generating energy as intended, the curtain mostly just obstructs what would otherwise be a fantastic panorama of London and the Thames.