Crystal Palace Architectural Competition

[admin]

I thought I would start a new topic for Architect Anoraks so you can choose your favourites. A short profile of each with links for more can be found here: http://sydenham.org.uk/crystal-palace-architects/

On the basis of their past work in glass and cultural buildings who would go for?
BTW the poll software only allows six choices so no "none of the above" option I'm afraid.

Admin

[leenewham]

Of all of them, I hope it's Grimshaw and certainly not Zaha Hadid (although the final version of the swimming pools looks good now they have removed those hideous wings), but she has a tendency to stick aggressive Z shapes in a lot of her work and not really design for context. I like Grimshaw's Eden Project and the Cutty Sark.

With the listed architects, one thing for sure is that it won't look anything like the Crystal Palace.

The biggest problem I have is that there doesn't seem to be a brief. How on earth can we have any idea of what it will be or what the architects are going to do if there isn't a brief, there isn't a problem to solve?

The other issue with all of this is that so many people are involved. I can just imagine it being a mish mash of ideas.

I'd love for an historical context, to celebrate the original palace in some way and it's footprint (they have with the Berlin Wall in such a brilliant fashion), and what was in it. The Crystal Palace is one of the most important building ever created. To totally ignore it and not pay homage to it in some way would be totally wrong.

This has to be a very sensitive job. I'd like to see a much smaller scale development, perhaps just rebuilding one of the Brunel Towers for a viewing platform and integrating with that in some way with a multi use space and outdoor space for markets and events on the top site.

[Sid Nam]

The biggest problem I have is that there doesn't seem to be a brief. How on earth can we have any idea of what it will be or what the architects are going to do if there isn't a brief, there isn't a problem to solve?

The other issue with all of this is that so many people are involved. I can just imagine it being a mish mash of ideas.

I'd love for an historical context, to celebrate the original palace in some way and it's footprint (they have with the Berlin Wall in such a brilliant fashion), and what was in it. The Crystal Palace is one of the most important building ever created. To totally ignore it and not pay homage to it in some way would be totally wrong.

This has to be a very sensitive job. I'd like to see a much smaller scale development, perhaps just rebuilding one of the Brunel Towers for a viewing platform and integrating with that in some way with a multi use space and outdoor space for markets and events on the top site.

Lee's comments echo my thoughts. How can something of that scale be designed without the architects knowing what its function will be. How can something of that scale be proposed for a park surrounded by mainly single lane, residential roads? Arup have stated that existing road networks cannot be altered yet they plough ahead with a scheme of this size before they have "worked up" the travel plan, that cannot be done till the function, size and times of operations of events are released.

Did anyone see the report on London's dangerously high pollution levels? The worst areas are the ones where the tourist attractions are sited. I can see that the Mayor wants to redirect tourists from the centre to the suburbs but the implications for those who live in the vicinity of Mr Ni's fantasy are not healthy. We need a philanthropic tycoon to step forward with a £500 M gift to South London hospitals that will help towards the treatment of those who will be affected by the increased levels of pollutants this building will attract. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/w ... 48517.html

We know nothing about how the future funding of this vanity project and the increased maintenance costs of the park will be met. What happens if it fails to attracts 20,000 visitors a night/day? What will become of it and god help the the park, as Bromley council can barely afford to maintain it in its natural state.

I too would support a CP museum and public art gallery on a much, much, smaller scale. Something that would work as be part of the park and connect with the surrounding communities as opposed to some thing that will suck the life out of the area within which it is proposed to be set.

[admin]

With greatest respect Sid Nam - this is a thread to elicit any preferences amongst the Architect's existing buildings elsewhere. It is not about the scale or nature of the proposed future development. There is a separate thread on just that. Thread 'wander' in that direction from here is disruptive.

Hence please can we stay on topic. I don't want to be shuffling posts between threads.
(Any discussion on this moderation please take to Town Asylum)

TIA
Admin .

[marymck]

As we can't vote for "none of the above", I tried voting without ticking any of the boxes. But that didn't appear to register. Could we maybe have another separate poll please Admin for a "none of the above"? Thanks.

[admin]

Or to be positive Mary - whose work in glass and cultural buildings do you think beats all of the above? (Paxton and other dead folk excluded)

The project might go ahead or not. But if it goes ahead even without the support of the local community would it still be in our best interest that the 'least worst' building results?

Can you imagine something with the mediocrity (I'm being kind) of the Westfield Centre fronting onto the Parade or Park?

[marymck]

Or to be positive Mary - whose work in glass and cultural buildings do you think beats all of the above? (Paxton and other dead folk excluded)

The project might go ahead or not. But if it goes ahead even without the support of the local community would it still be in our best interest that the 'least worst' building results?

Can you imagine something with the mediocrity (I'm being kind) of the Westfield Centre fronting onto the Parade or Park?

No Admin, sadly I fear it's going to be much, much bigger.

[admin]

No Admin, sadly I fear it's going to be much, much bigger.

Then maybe I can relieve that fear. Westfield is 30 football pitches v ZRG's 5 football pitches.
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home ... 46.article

Admin

[Sid Nam]

No Admin, sadly I fear it's going to be much, much bigger.

Then maybe I can relieve that fear. Westfield is 30 football pitches v ZRG's 5 football pitches.
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home ... 46.article

Admin

Five football pitches is the scale given for the footprint Admin. This is proposed to be set on five levels so that would be 25 in total plus the yet to be disclosed underground aspect which will make it more or less the same size of the Westfield in your image

[leenewham]

You may find this interesting: http://www.colander.co.uk/architectural ... ciples.pdf

And this: http://www.colander.co.uk/architectural ... alace.html

[admin]

Thank you Lee but I think we are both wrong when I rechecked.

According to Wikipedia Westfield is 150,000 sq m. according to ZRG's document the Crystal Palace should be of the same magnitude as the original palace at 78,400 sq m. Hence Crystal Palace would be just over half the size of Westfield and not bigger as Mary feared.

But of course the vagueness of the ZRG proposal is no help.

The key, of course, is if any building lives happily in its environment. A great building can even dominate it as did the original CP. Whereas a poor design of any size is still an eyesore.The view of Westfield as you zoom down to Shepherds Bush is truly depressing.

But if I may venture an opinion is that the shortlist is truly stellar and gives the one chance in 150 years to bring a iconic and transformational building to the area. We have seen what that has done for places like Bilbao. Of course even stellar architects can undershoot but are we seeing real ambition in contrast to the abortion that was the Greyhound development?

At this stage I can't see anything wrong in waiting in great expectation to see what's on offer in building and contents.

Admin

[Sid Nam]

Admin I am afraid you are conflating the size of the proposed footprint of the ZRG complex with the size if the retail floor space of Westfield.

Multiply 78,4000 by 5 to get a more accurate idea of the internal floor space of this proposal and you will see that Mary is correct, it is larger than Westfield.

[admin]

Multiply 78,4000 by 5 to get a more accurate idea of the internal floor space of this proposal and you will see that Mary is correct, it is larger than Westfield.

Sid, you put in an extra 0 and multiplied by 5 a figure that is not the footprint of any new building. Let's see what the offer is before becoming afeared of monsters - or beauties - who knows?

Admin

[marymck]

I just wish people would stop calling it the Crystal Palace. But then they call wind generated power stations "wind farms" and I guess it's the same principle ... give something an attractive, though misleading, name and you can get away with building all sorts of monstrosities.

[Sid Nam]

Admin you are right. Amazing what a difference a nought makes.

If the footprint of the proposed building is to be 78,400 m sq and it is to be set over five floors it has the potential for 392,000 m sq of interior floor space.

Mary you are right, could not have put it better. It's all style over substance, conjecture, glossy sales pitches and starry architects.

[admin]

Mary, do you not think anything by any of the architects is any good?

Admin

[admin]

If the footprint of the proposed building is to be 78,400 m sq and it is to be set over five floors it has the potential for 392,000 m sq of interior floor space.

Wrong. Read what I wrote.

Again you are not posting anything about architecture and appear to be trying to derail the thread. I think it best if you keep to the the CP Development thread unless you wish to comment on the architects.

Admin

[Sid Nam]

If it were for a massively, smaller, building then I would be happy with either Grimshaw, Howarth or Rogers.

[Maria]

It's all style over substance, conjecture, glossy sales pitches and starry architects

I totally disagree. In my opinion it's all about great art, creative risk taking, stunning structures, enriched spaces and fantastically talented architects.

And what a bunch they've turned out to be! Just sorry Frank Gehry is not one of them but even if he was I would still go for Grimshaw. Is it at all possible that there is anybody who does not love the Eden Project in Cornwall? Funny thing is, so very often walking through the beautiful park I have thought of those magnificent crystalline biomes and how well they would look in there.

If only...

[Sid Nam]

Let's hope it's not Hadid.

"Respecting your elders is age-old etiquette; yet it is sometimes forgotten in the modern world of architecture. Because the contemporary needs are based on aesthetics and functionality, ‘upgrades’ are often made in poor taste. Resolve to not tamper (i.e. if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it). If your creative addition is necessary, remember to stray from Zaha Hadid’s Serpentine Sackler example, where creative freedom has gone too far and doesn’t have much harmony or logic. Hadid’s addition to the restored Georgian building seems to be “heavy and smothering”, not great descriptors in any professional realm."

http://www.sparn.com/2014/02/21/new-yea ... ect-style/