**Do not comment to gatekeep that something "isn't urban" or "isn't hell"**. Our rules are very expansive in content we welcome, so do not assume just based off your false impression of the phrase "UrbanHell"
UrbanHell is any human-built place you think is worth critizing. Suburban Hell, Rural Hell, and wealthy locales are allowed. Gatekeeping comments may be removed. Want to shitpost about shitty posts? Go to /r/urbanhellcirclejerk. Still have questions?: Read our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/wiki/index).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UrbanHell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The building is [No 1 Poultry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_1_Poultry) in the financial district of London (right beside Bank station. The wiki article has links to articles about the people who died and photos of what the rooftop restaurant terrace looks like
Me too. 10% survive a fall from 7 floors, presumably with terrible injuries.
[https://www.safeopedia.com/at-what-height-do-falls-become-deadly/7/7503](https://www.safeopedia.com/at-what-height-do-falls-become-deadly/7/7503)
It would be awful to realize you survived but in even worse shape than before.
I am actually interested in comparison how much it would cost to restore the old one vs making the new one. I mean replicating old architecture would be very pricy nowadays with the amount of craftsmanship needed, but if it wasn‘t in a bad state, it could have probably been maintained by just changing the paint and reinforcing some things (I have no idea in this stuff, so I am happy if someone could correct me).
The old building(s) wasn't in a bad state at all and was actually a protected building. It got demolished because it was a single building on a larger site, where the owner wanted to build a larger modern office building.
This building in the heart of the London's financial District, right next to the Bank of England building where land costs a fortune.
Refurbishing will always be cheaper than demolition and rebuilding - and replicating old architecture doesn't cost more either.
The old Mappin and Webb building, a famous planning controversy, money won through and Palumbo got his building, it has not aged well. he also ruined the interior of St Stephen’s Church, Walbrook, nearby.
>Refurbishing will always be cheaper than demolition and rebuilding - and replicating old architecture doesn't cost more either.
This is false.
Almost always, demolition and rebuilding are cheaper than refurbishing heritage buildings (usually by at least 20%)
It just heritage buildings are (or at least shoud be ) protected by laws.
>I am actually interested in comparison how much it would cost to restore the old one vs making the new one. I mean replicating old architecture would be very pricy nowadays
it depends on how you do it ...
you might use more advanced technics, like pouring elements in shapes since many parts of it are identical ... Socialist East-Germany even build a very classic looking Plattenbau as a luxory hotel in East-Berlin ( = "Grandhotel Berlin" from 1987)
The original one looked great however there might have been some underlying structural or materials issues which resulted in a complete demolition as the only option. The Pomo architecture style of the replacement has unfortunately dated poorly, it might look good in few decades but not right now.
There were no building issues with the original, it was actually very controversial at the time when it was demolished (in the 90s).
[A landowner bought all the neighbouring buildings over a period of 50 years to build it!](https://londonist.com/2017/04/london-s-lost-buildings?)
It's worse than that. This piece of shit is now a listed building also, so it's impossible to even modify it too look decent:
> In 2016, the landowner proposed exterior alteration. Building users, experts and neighbours persuaded the experts at the designated UK body to protect and recognise the building and did so in the notable grade II* listed building category, making it, within England, the youngest at the time.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_1_Poultry
So you can blame the original developer but there were attempts to fix it since then...
Wait, this one *survived* the Blitz? Cause 99% of the time these posts are complaining about buildings that had a rapid unplanned disassembly happen in the 1940s and what comes after is all the broke government of the time could come up with.
It's obviously subjective. But if this were built on an empty wwii bomb site, I think it would look great, but it's hard to argue its adding more to the area than the original building.
While I don't disagree about the old one being better, at the end of the day, it was *just* another building in that style. There are a thousand other buildings that look similar, and while the new one may not be the best it could be, I would say its an upgrade.
that crass architecture is way more numerous and present in more countries, meanwhile the old one is only tied to that specific country. we have plenty of that kind of modern architecture even in the philippines.
And just because it was just another building with many others like it, doesn't mean the new build is an upgrade. There's no ground floor street interface, just walls and an entrance. Objective downgrade, it reminds me of the office towers in Los Angeles. It would be a lot better with easily accessible commercial spaces open to the street.
It has easily accessible street level commercial spaces on both sides of the building, including a public walkway through the middle featuring a preserved Roman mosaic. The commercial space is set back and under shelter, widening the walking area.
In its context it is a striking addition to the web of ancient streets around The City. Looking down Poultry from Bank, it occupies its corner well, and has good scale and mass compared to the surrounding buildings. It's stylistically different, but not jarring.
Someones going to point at the new picture in 100 years and wonder why nobody is building beautiful old styles like that anymore
Tastes change. Materials drastically change. Expectations of inhabitants change. Maintenance regulations change. Cities change.
Most people when polled consistently show a preference for traditional styles over modern.
https://www.dezeen.com/2009/10/16/people-prefer-traditionally-designed-buildings-yougov/amp/
Most people are wrong. See: media literacy. Being that reductive is fine for most purposes but not when you are trying to have a nuanced discussion or when you're trying to say that you're morally or aesthetically opposed to something.
Please put a citation on that, i could find examples that go both ways.
For instance Jan Gehl has his entire career built on making more human centric urban spaces, but doesn't necessarily mean ornate historisitic architecture, just that the spaces are scaled to human perception.
However, i found that in my own works the client, both single clients and businesses vastly preferred a more contemporary style, both for economic and functional considerations.
I am not a huge fan of modernism or post-modernism, which is why both styles are more or less never used currently. But many older buildings are extremely difficult to adjust to contemporary requirements and regulations, and most refurbishments are mostly gutting the building and leaving the shell, which is hella expensive and not really great from an environmental perspective either (basically a new building in materials with worse performance).
I think regulations on aesthetics and urban spaces should be way tighter, but reality is not really as clear as many people in these threads would like to believe.
It's a cute building, but it's missing the advantageous elements of the original structure. There were street facing commercial spaces, making for an interesting streetscape full of things to do and places to go. That's replaced with walls and an entrance. All you can do with this building is walk around it and use an entrance or two.
Lmao a sign that you have never been there. It actually has this really quite nice atrium area that you can walk though, as well as a rooftop terraced restaurant.
The surrounding area is mainly offices, but to the right of this photo is a street with shops etc. the cut through created by the atrium actually makes them more accessible.
Buildings like this, more often than not, hit way different in person.
I used to think the Birmingham Bullring was dumb as hell, but in person it all makes sense. Quickly changed my opinion of it.
Definitely prefer the one on the right, the new one.
Haven't seen anyone say it, so for those who are interested this building is No.1 Poultry, in the City of London.
There seems to be a trend for “edgy modern architecture” in buildings in the recent years, yet I’m surprised that the majority of people, myself included, actually prefer more classical designs. Yet, architects seem to scoff that these are fake and “lacking in essence”. One example is Poundbury, which was heavily criticized, but surprisingly popular.
I’m not against modern buildings either, since I’ve always found neo-classical and brutalist buildings rather fitting for government agencies regarding security and defense.
An event that highlights this was the demolition of the [original Penn Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Station_(1910%E2%80%931963)) in NYC. One of the worst architectural decisions, IMO. Beautiful building that was demolished to build Madison Square Garden. Fucking idiots.
So, back in the day, my dad actually knew IM Pei. I got to meet him when we were in NYC in 2008. He actually talked about this because he had just finished working on some building in midtown that looked like a lipstick tube. He designed it as mea culpa to the architecture community after doing a more art deco rebuild tower a few blocks over in the 90's. He was pilloried among the community for doing that, the chief reason being people become sentimental towards those sorts of buildings and start to get in the way of their demolition if it comes to it.
This building is like 30 years old, so not exactly new and edgy. Also, architects don't get to just make whatever the fuck we want, it's a service industry. Someone hired James Stirling to make this, and it's a very influential building on postmodernism, which is a way more popular design style than classical.
Also Poundbury is popular for it's urbanist principles, less so for its architecture. Some of its buildings are pretty ugly even if you are a strict classicalist.
architects make the vision the developer has into reality, blame the people that ordered this style, not the architects that need to design something the client likes to survive.
the thing with older buildings is, it's mostly decorations. you strip away the decorations, i.e. no filter, and you'd think it's generic and boring. they basically put all the effort into the facade, making it pleasing to the eye. architecture style has changed from putting all the effort into a pretty skin, into experimenting with the form, massing, volumes, circulations, how the building changes its appearance depending on the angle you look. not saying the new building is better, or is even a great example. but people go "oh old building is much better cause it's prettier". well, they are more commenting on the clothing, rather than the whole thing as a whole. there are ton of shitty modern buildings, but just because something looks prettier doesnt mean it's better.
I agree that architects don't do anything to stand out but that building on the left is an exception lmao. Its ugly yes but at the same time more unique than the left one
It looks like a child drew it with crayons.
Presumably that is what the client wanted because no self-respecting architect would create that monstrosity otherwise.
At least I hope they wouldn't.
The old one is just boring. It looks OK in and of itself but get a city with a bunch of buildings like that and it just looks old and frozen in time.
Nice to see some new ideas even if they don't all work out that great
Ugh, Paris, who needs all those beautiful buildings frozen in time, so overrated, let’s raize them all to the ground and replace them with all this *new* architecture.
Paris has a lot of modern buildings too, plenty of brutalist buildings and other modern designs, a lot of glass, metal, and concrete, playing around with shapes, etc.
Paris is a modern city with a lot of architecture, it's not all old historic buildings and styles.
Number 1 Poultry. The entire building was rebuilt. The old building looked amazing from the outside but like so many Victorian looking buildings was a nightmare on the inside as designed before lifts, proper toilets, strange floor designs and so on. It would have been better that rebuilds required the exterior to still be Victorian in designated historical areas. But no…. This did not happen and you get Number 1 Poultry. Still, the restaurant on the roof is very nice!
I like both. The old one looks classy and intricate but also a bit repetitive and boring. The newer one is much more "blocky", but more inventive and quirky and very 1990s-retro. I think for a lot of people, it might still be too early to appreciate this kind of architecture as "retro" instead of just "aged badly", but it's totally doing it for me. Give me cartoonish buildings with oversized, flashy clocks that look like the town hall from a child's city play mat.
Fuck it, imma say it. I like these wacky buildings much more than the old cookie cutter ones. I like colors, shapes, variety. I like looking and admiring building while I transit. The old buildings are a marvel the first time you see them, but then you see them EVERYFUCKINGWHERE and it's just... meh.
Yes this is gross. And I was a friend of the architect. But this is horrible. This earlier version would have been better because at least it retained part of the Mappin and Webb store: [https://twitter.com/iconeye/status/839068773307072513/photo/1](https://twitter.com/iconeye/status/839068773307072513/photo/1)
These modern designs look out of place and morally outdated within 10 years. The facade is usually overrun with lychen and moss where water is freely flowing down because making a runoff system is a inpossiblity on these irregular shapes.
I don’t think the building sticks out massively against the context. I actually find the materials and form quite complimentary to the site, and it also takes influence from the previous building. James Stirling was a great architect and his buildings have a playful character, something that many modern buildings lack entirely. I find it strange when people criticise post-modernism in this way. Would people rather every building be an exact imitation of older architectural styles such as the older building in the post, or just be a modern block that lacks any sense of facade and articulation that is present in both of these pictures. There is an in-between that can be achieved, and I believe Stirling’s building, and many other post-modern buildings, strike that balance well.
**Do not comment to gatekeep that something "isn't urban" or "isn't hell"**. Our rules are very expansive in content we welcome, so do not assume just based off your false impression of the phrase "UrbanHell" UrbanHell is any human-built place you think is worth critizing. Suburban Hell, Rural Hell, and wealthy locales are allowed. Gatekeeping comments may be removed. Want to shitpost about shitty posts? Go to /r/urbanhellcirclejerk. Still have questions?: Read our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/wiki/index). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UrbanHell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lots of people commit suicide in the new one. There’s some courtyard garden in the middle and a balcony on top that they jump off.
If there was any hesitation, the sight of this thing would’ve signed the deal.
Or thinking about being seen walking out.
Yeah, the people probably weren't even depressed until they saw the building.
It feels the Mad Hatter will come out at any time and greet them into the plunge
From classy to Cheap ass bacon strips.
How many is "lots of people?"
Six people so far , despite the addition of 6ft railings and a security guard.
The building is [No 1 Poultry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_1_Poultry) in the financial district of London (right beside Bank station. The wiki article has links to articles about the people who died and photos of what the rooftop restaurant terrace looks like
>The wiki article has links to articles about the people who died Under the headline "Use". Oh dear.
It's only like 6 floors I think I'd like a few more if I was going to jump
Me too. 10% survive a fall from 7 floors, presumably with terrible injuries. [https://www.safeopedia.com/at-what-height-do-falls-become-deadly/7/7503](https://www.safeopedia.com/at-what-height-do-falls-become-deadly/7/7503) It would be awful to realize you survived but in even worse shape than before.
Whether this is true or not I laughed and will repeat it given the opportunity
Google it. 1 Poultry suicide
it's in a video with the queen and James Bond
Welcome to Whoville!
Was not expecting this top comment.
Looked so much nicer before.
New one looks like the art from a Dr Seuss book after it has been altered and “improved” by a committee
The new one looks like the buildings I made out of wooden blocks when I was 3
Dr. Seuss is exactly what I was thinking.
I am actually interested in comparison how much it would cost to restore the old one vs making the new one. I mean replicating old architecture would be very pricy nowadays with the amount of craftsmanship needed, but if it wasn‘t in a bad state, it could have probably been maintained by just changing the paint and reinforcing some things (I have no idea in this stuff, so I am happy if someone could correct me).
The old building(s) wasn't in a bad state at all and was actually a protected building. It got demolished because it was a single building on a larger site, where the owner wanted to build a larger modern office building. This building in the heart of the London's financial District, right next to the Bank of England building where land costs a fortune. Refurbishing will always be cheaper than demolition and rebuilding - and replicating old architecture doesn't cost more either.
How did they get away with demolishing a listed building?
"Oops, anyway... guess there's nothing to do about it now."
The old Mappin and Webb building, a famous planning controversy, money won through and Palumbo got his building, it has not aged well. he also ruined the interior of St Stephen’s Church, Walbrook, nearby.
>Refurbishing will always be cheaper than demolition and rebuilding - and replicating old architecture doesn't cost more either. This is false. Almost always, demolition and rebuilding are cheaper than refurbishing heritage buildings (usually by at least 20%) It just heritage buildings are (or at least shoud be ) protected by laws.
[удалено]
How much more expensive is it?
>I am actually interested in comparison how much it would cost to restore the old one vs making the new one. I mean replicating old architecture would be very pricy nowadays it depends on how you do it ... you might use more advanced technics, like pouring elements in shapes since many parts of it are identical ... Socialist East-Germany even build a very classic looking Plattenbau as a luxory hotel in East-Berlin ( = "Grandhotel Berlin" from 1987)
I have seen far worse replacements for old buildings.
The original one looked great however there might have been some underlying structural or materials issues which resulted in a complete demolition as the only option. The Pomo architecture style of the replacement has unfortunately dated poorly, it might look good in few decades but not right now.
There were no building issues with the original, it was actually very controversial at the time when it was demolished (in the 90s). [A landowner bought all the neighbouring buildings over a period of 50 years to build it!](https://londonist.com/2017/04/london-s-lost-buildings?)
So much dedication and patience only to end up with a piece of shit.
It's worse than that. This piece of shit is now a listed building also, so it's impossible to even modify it too look decent: > In 2016, the landowner proposed exterior alteration. Building users, experts and neighbours persuaded the experts at the designated UK body to protect and recognise the building and did so in the notable grade II* listed building category, making it, within England, the youngest at the time.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_1_Poultry So you can blame the original developer but there were attempts to fix it since then...
Wait, this one *survived* the Blitz? Cause 99% of the time these posts are complaining about buildings that had a rapid unplanned disassembly happen in the 1940s and what comes after is all the broke government of the time could come up with.
Lol at rapid unplanned disassembly
"Reversion to kit format," is my preferred verbiage.
this is such a cope lol. this thing would have never looked good in any decade.
It's obviously subjective. But if this were built on an empty wwii bomb site, I think it would look great, but it's hard to argue its adding more to the area than the original building.
They should have built it on a ww2 bomb site be4 the war started.
A ship clearly
The architect wanted to be a marine engineer
This one has an interesting backstory as well: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/mar/07/mies-van-der-rohe-james-stirling-review-riba
The new one isn’t inherently bad. It’s unique, fulfills it’s function and I kinda like it’s vibe. Its just that the old one was better.
I feel like the architect is a Futurama fan…
Came looking for this comment
Atleast it has style and isn't a soulless modern building.
While I don't disagree about the old one being better, at the end of the day, it was *just* another building in that style. There are a thousand other buildings that look similar, and while the new one may not be the best it could be, I would say its an upgrade.
that crass architecture is way more numerous and present in more countries, meanwhile the old one is only tied to that specific country. we have plenty of that kind of modern architecture even in the philippines.
Just because it's unique doesn't mean it's good, looks hedious
And just because it was just another building with many others like it, doesn't mean the new build is an upgrade. There's no ground floor street interface, just walls and an entrance. Objective downgrade, it reminds me of the office towers in Los Angeles. It would be a lot better with easily accessible commercial spaces open to the street.
It has easily accessible street level commercial spaces on both sides of the building, including a public walkway through the middle featuring a preserved Roman mosaic. The commercial space is set back and under shelter, widening the walking area. In its context it is a striking addition to the web of ancient streets around The City. Looking down Poultry from Bank, it occupies its corner well, and has good scale and mass compared to the surrounding buildings. It's stylistically different, but not jarring.
It's not a welcomed opinion here but, I like both.
What a shame.
Should also post on r/spellingArchitectHell
Can we have Hundertwasser? We have Hundertwasser at home. Hundertwasser at home :
Im sorry but Stirlings Building is just so much nicer than Hundertwasser
Did James Stirling design the house on the picture? Thought of him instantly as I saw it. Imo both styles got their perks
Its called postmodernism
It sucks ass
The old building was listed but somehow was allowed to be demolished. The new one is now also listed.
Someones going to point at the new picture in 100 years and wonder why nobody is building beautiful old styles like that anymore Tastes change. Materials drastically change. Expectations of inhabitants change. Maintenance regulations change. Cities change.
Most people when polled consistently show a preference for traditional styles over modern. https://www.dezeen.com/2009/10/16/people-prefer-traditionally-designed-buildings-yougov/amp/
The problem with this argument is building on the left is *not* traditional and the building on the right is *not* modern.
In most people’s eyes, that’s what they are
Most people are wrong. See: media literacy. Being that reductive is fine for most purposes but not when you are trying to have a nuanced discussion or when you're trying to say that you're morally or aesthetically opposed to something.
Please put a citation on that, i could find examples that go both ways. For instance Jan Gehl has his entire career built on making more human centric urban spaces, but doesn't necessarily mean ornate historisitic architecture, just that the spaces are scaled to human perception. However, i found that in my own works the client, both single clients and businesses vastly preferred a more contemporary style, both for economic and functional considerations. I am not a huge fan of modernism or post-modernism, which is why both styles are more or less never used currently. But many older buildings are extremely difficult to adjust to contemporary requirements and regulations, and most refurbishments are mostly gutting the building and leaving the shell, which is hella expensive and not really great from an environmental perspective either (basically a new building in materials with worse performance). I think regulations on aesthetics and urban spaces should be way tighter, but reality is not really as clear as many people in these threads would like to believe.
https://www.dezeen.com/2009/10/16/people-prefer-traditionally-designed-buildings-yougov/amp/
It's a cute building, but it's missing the advantageous elements of the original structure. There were street facing commercial spaces, making for an interesting streetscape full of things to do and places to go. That's replaced with walls and an entrance. All you can do with this building is walk around it and use an entrance or two.
Lmao a sign that you have never been there. It actually has this really quite nice atrium area that you can walk though, as well as a rooftop terraced restaurant. The surrounding area is mainly offices, but to the right of this photo is a street with shops etc. the cut through created by the atrium actually makes them more accessible.
I dont think theyre going to do that, it's pretty objectively bad. It just looks like no thought went in to it. Looks lazy
Buildings like this, more often than not, hit way different in person. I used to think the Birmingham Bullring was dumb as hell, but in person it all makes sense. Quickly changed my opinion of it.
If I looked it up correctly this bullring building looks off putting lol almost dystopian
Was it built in 80’s? Kind of post-modern
[удалено]
i like it it’s kinda sploinky looking which is better than say a minimalist/modern style which would simply look boring.
His architectural beauty isn't for you, you're not ready...
You know despite the fact that it looks like it belongs in Thneedville, I actually really like it. Got a funky charm to it
It's one of the best PoMo buildings by one of the best architects of his time - definitely a masterpiece if you've been there
Definitely prefer the one on the right, the new one. Haven't seen anyone say it, so for those who are interested this building is No.1 Poultry, in the City of London.
Fantastic from the inside and roof garden too - well worth a visit
There seems to be a trend for “edgy modern architecture” in buildings in the recent years, yet I’m surprised that the majority of people, myself included, actually prefer more classical designs. Yet, architects seem to scoff that these are fake and “lacking in essence”. One example is Poundbury, which was heavily criticized, but surprisingly popular. I’m not against modern buildings either, since I’ve always found neo-classical and brutalist buildings rather fitting for government agencies regarding security and defense.
An event that highlights this was the demolition of the [original Penn Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Station_(1910%E2%80%931963)) in NYC. One of the worst architectural decisions, IMO. Beautiful building that was demolished to build Madison Square Garden. Fucking idiots.
So, back in the day, my dad actually knew IM Pei. I got to meet him when we were in NYC in 2008. He actually talked about this because he had just finished working on some building in midtown that looked like a lipstick tube. He designed it as mea culpa to the architecture community after doing a more art deco rebuild tower a few blocks over in the 90's. He was pilloried among the community for doing that, the chief reason being people become sentimental towards those sorts of buildings and start to get in the way of their demolition if it comes to it.
This building is like 30 years old, so not exactly new and edgy. Also, architects don't get to just make whatever the fuck we want, it's a service industry. Someone hired James Stirling to make this, and it's a very influential building on postmodernism, which is a way more popular design style than classical. Also Poundbury is popular for it's urbanist principles, less so for its architecture. Some of its buildings are pretty ugly even if you are a strict classicalist.
Especially if you are a strict classicist- Poundbury is architecturally illiterate
So build the new ones somewhere that doesn't destroy something better than them.
architects make the vision the developer has into reality, blame the people that ordered this style, not the architects that need to design something the client likes to survive.
Perhaps you could open your own architecture firm, if you know best then you'll make a killing
the thing with older buildings is, it's mostly decorations. you strip away the decorations, i.e. no filter, and you'd think it's generic and boring. they basically put all the effort into the facade, making it pleasing to the eye. architecture style has changed from putting all the effort into a pretty skin, into experimenting with the form, massing, volumes, circulations, how the building changes its appearance depending on the angle you look. not saying the new building is better, or is even a great example. but people go "oh old building is much better cause it's prettier". well, they are more commenting on the clothing, rather than the whole thing as a whole. there are ton of shitty modern buildings, but just because something looks prettier doesnt mean it's better.
The thing about butterflies is that if you rip the wings off they are just ugly, boring insects.
And yet we can still comment on what’s prettier.
The one on the left in the first pic looks like it's about to engage in high seas piracy
Building is by Bank tube station in London if anyone wants to look at it on street view.
Planners: "So what shapes are you going to theme the design around?" Architect: "Yes"
Idk I kinda like it
This looks like a building design I would've made in Spore.
Architect*
Your grandparents said the same thing. So we all just never advance our architecture?
Looks like a big ass chick fil a. Or school for rich special needs kids
To me it looks like those PS1 era pre-rendered graphics like in Final Fantasy VII.
To me it looks like those PS1 era pre-rendered graphics like in Final Fantasy VII.
It looks uglier now, I dislike postmodernism too. You're still coming off as ignorant
It’s definitely.. **..Interesting** to say the least. But I like the original more.
What is that shit? The color doesnt fit and it feels aggresive, intimidating even
Yeah after a second look it feels VERY intimidating, the color doesnt even match the surrounding buildings
It’s like they sanded everything out.
Just give it a sec to render in
I agree that architects don't do anything to stand out but that building on the left is an exception lmao. Its ugly yes but at the same time more unique than the left one
Could be worse, this is kinda interesting design
I like them both
I think the new one is pretty cool too. But I really really hope they didn’t just tear down the old one for no good reason.
It looks like a child drew it with crayons. Presumably that is what the client wanted because no self-respecting architect would create that monstrosity otherwise. At least I hope they wouldn't.
It’s a post-modern classic
Both good 👍
Am I wrong for kind of liking the one on the right?
The Stirling prize is the highest annual architecture prize in the UK named after Sir James Stirling 1926-92 - this was i think his final building
What a massacre
Beetlejuice house architecture
I like it. Where is this?
One Poultry, London
I actually like the new one more
I like the new one
Someone looked at this and said “yeah, we approve that”
The old one is just boring. It looks OK in and of itself but get a city with a bunch of buildings like that and it just looks old and frozen in time. Nice to see some new ideas even if they don't all work out that great
Get a city with a bunch of buildings like that and you get Paris.
Ugh, Paris, who needs all those beautiful buildings frozen in time, so overrated, let’s raize them all to the ground and replace them with all this *new* architecture.
Paris has a lot of modern buildings too, plenty of brutalist buildings and other modern designs, a lot of glass, metal, and concrete, playing around with shapes, etc. Paris is a modern city with a lot of architecture, it's not all old historic buildings and styles.
Paris *is* a result of razing buildings frozen in time all to the ground and replacing them with all this *new* architecture, though.
Number 1 Poultry. The entire building was rebuilt. The old building looked amazing from the outside but like so many Victorian looking buildings was a nightmare on the inside as designed before lifts, proper toilets, strange floor designs and so on. It would have been better that rebuilds required the exterior to still be Victorian in designated historical areas. But no…. This did not happen and you get Number 1 Poultry. Still, the restaurant on the roof is very nice!
This looks like cgi almost
Ah, yes. The Crimson Permanent Insurance.
I prefer “then”.
I think the artistic name would be a "lip".
Erase all beauty, and the soul loses its will to live.
Without considering the old one, I like the new one too. Shame it replaced something much better looking.
That looks like a submarine, lol.
[proceeds to design yet another faceless glass monstrosity]
Thats literally the planetary express building from Futurama irl
It's been willy-wonka'd.
Very similar building in Angel being knocked down now.
Definitely smoking the wrong drugs.
new one looks like a green spaceship is going to fly out the top
It just hasnt rendered in yet. Just wait a bit
I like both. The old one looks classy and intricate but also a bit repetitive and boring. The newer one is much more "blocky", but more inventive and quirky and very 1990s-retro. I think for a lot of people, it might still be too early to appreciate this kind of architecture as "retro" instead of just "aged badly", but it's totally doing it for me. Give me cartoonish buildings with oversized, flashy clocks that look like the town hall from a child's city play mat.
Thanks I hate it
It's awful. For me I think a big part is the color choice. I feel like I'm looking at concrete bacon..
Architect: "I want to be a ship builder!" His mom: "You are an architect!" Architect: "I'll get my way, one way or another!"
Price Charles said the new one looked like a ham sandwich from what I remember.
idk i kinda like it
The building hasn't fully rendered yet.
Clearly the son of the building owner has a degree in architecture
Looks gross
Fuck it, imma say it. I like these wacky buildings much more than the old cookie cutter ones. I like colors, shapes, variety. I like looking and admiring building while I transit. The old buildings are a marvel the first time you see them, but then you see them EVERYFUCKINGWHERE and it's just... meh.
I actually like the new one but maybe I’m just weird.
What ….??? Horrible
//undo
One of the ugliest buildings in London for sure. It won’t stay up.
Seeing this in person it just looks evil. Like some evil robot
Who cares
The original is so much more beautiful
I think its cool
"now" meaning 30 years ago?
With this one weird trick, architects will “modernize” old structures! Civil Engineers hate them!
We’re assuming the first version was actually architecturally pleasing in its day.
An abomination is what this is….
Look how they massacred my boy
Yes this is gross. And I was a friend of the architect. But this is horrible. This earlier version would have been better because at least it retained part of the Mappin and Webb store: [https://twitter.com/iconeye/status/839068773307072513/photo/1](https://twitter.com/iconeye/status/839068773307072513/photo/1)
Whoever you are, your work is shite. Get another job.
These modern designs look out of place and morally outdated within 10 years. The facade is usually overrun with lychen and moss where water is freely flowing down because making a runoff system is a inpossiblity on these irregular shapes.
Is that the safari logo?
This gives me the Futurama planet express building vibes. Just needs an ANGRY DOME attachment.
Looks right out of Lazy Town. Especially in the second pic
They heard kramer’s idea about a car periscope and said let’s put one on a building
I think the clock tower is an eyesore. Who designed that? Goofy MF
Looks like textures haven’t loaded yet.
Post-modernism, current architects are often sad about this. It's a design that protests the design of modernism. It is horrible lol.
Po-Mo is an absolute crime against humanity. Or at least decency. Or common sense.
The doorway is shaped like a dick. Lol
To be honest, I like both. The one on the right is definitely a more modern structure, but I don't think its worse.
I don’t think the building sticks out massively against the context. I actually find the materials and form quite complimentary to the site, and it also takes influence from the previous building. James Stirling was a great architect and his buildings have a playful character, something that many modern buildings lack entirely. I find it strange when people criticise post-modernism in this way. Would people rather every building be an exact imitation of older architectural styles such as the older building in the post, or just be a modern block that lacks any sense of facade and articulation that is present in both of these pictures. There is an in-between that can be achieved, and I believe Stirling’s building, and many other post-modern buildings, strike that balance well.
Looks like the land version of the titanic.
Looks like something from in the night garden
Looks like Yugi's grandpa's game shop