Which skyline do you prefer?
- Thread starter owentaylor121
- Start date
reddude333
Giga Poster
My opinion could easily change if I visit either city (or perhaps in a few years when new buildings are up) but for now I think that the Liverpool skyline looks stunning, especially in that second panoramic shot. One thing's for sure, both are radically different from the metropolises of the United States.
TP Rich said:^ Because these are the planned "buildings" that Smithy mentioned.
I respect the fact that people's opinions may vary, but seriously. Building these structures in the same city as beautiful architecture such as Westminster Palace, Battersea Power Station, Tower Bridge and St. Paul's Cathedral is like remixing Justin Bieber with Beethoven.
First of all, Battersea Power Station is vile and doesn't even have a roof.
Secondly, those other buildings aren't going anywhere. Ask anyone with a clue about architecture (not you) and you'll note the special thing about London is the way it mixes old buildings and new ones.
These buildings are not actually near the ones you list either. I'm gonna guess you've never actually been to London.
But that's fine, you keep wishing London would fall behind every other major city and stay in the 19th century, luckily you're noone and have no effect on anything.
TP Rich said:
Two things. Firstly, do you think that Battersea was welcomed with open arms in the 1920s?
Secondly, it's not like "remixing Justin Bieber with Beethoven". It's more like having a music "hall of fame" with Beethoven alongside The Beatles and Jonny Cash (or anyone else you may think has been a massively influential and important musician).
Just because things change doesn't mean they don't have value. The world moves on and we have to move with it, taking the new with the old.
I adore lovely gothic looking buildings. I'm a fan of Tudor design too. I'm not keen on Georgian, but Bath is fantastic. Not everything from every era is "great". A lot of Georgian - Victorian buildings are hideous (in my opinion), particularly stately homes. However, they are historically important because they were culturally important at the time.
The buildings in London are mixed and have been for hundreds of years. It's the old mixed with the modern, but it's always cutting edge which becomes historically important. Like the Lloyds Building or not, it's still a massively important piece of architecture that even now is seen as historically important and has been given listed build status - almost unheard of for a building not yet 30 years old.
Ben said:
Fall behind? No, I'm just wishing them to stop coming up with such **** gimmicky architecture. And for the record, Tower Bridge and St. Paul's Cathedral are both in the City of London, which is where all of these disgusting modern buildings are located/being built. I'm going to assume you've never been to london...
I'm pretty sure the majority of people would rather have architecture with character in the city, rather than cheesegraters and helter-skelters.
^What should they build instead then? There's a distinct need for the buildings to be constructed, otherwise the plans wouldn't be on the table in the first place. What else should a 21st century building in one of the most important, high-profile cities in the world look like?
owentaylor121
Giga Poster
Liverpool is not as bad as people make out. I visit Liverpool alot (1 a week) and I've never seen a car with no wheels.Ian said:
And I don't just visit the center aswell.
I did find the joke quite funny though.
Smithy
Strata Poster
Aye, because those two would be an insult to a skyline that includes [imghttp://www.falcontradecorp.com/img/events/gherkin1.jpg[/img]
.
I'd also like to point out you have the London Eye in your signature. Surely that's a modern blot on what should be a historically inspired skyline?
.
I'd also like to point out you have the London Eye in your signature. Surely that's a modern blot on what should be a historically inspired skyline?
The London Eye is not ugly, which is more than can be said for the cheesegrater and the helter skelter. It's not that I don't like modern buildings, some of them are excellent, it's that I don't like ugly buildings. And some of the projects currently underway in London are building just those. And yes, the Lloyds Bank Building is possibly the ugliest building in London, if not England.
TP Rich said:
I lived there for three years, it's how I know the City is a big place.
And tell me what buildings you think do have 'character'? If ones with affectionate nicknames and distinct, modern architecture don't have character I'd love to know what does.
I'm starting to think you just troll deliberately. You're not Myk are you?
I wish I'd made a post about the fact that some of the buildings TP Rich loves were protested against when built and that the Lloyds building is a VERY young listed building and considered as important, architecturally, as something like St. Pauls. However, if I'd made a post like that and if TP Rich wasn't a troll, I'm sure it wouldn't have been ignored...
Colossus
Giga Poster
TP Rich said:
The Lloyds Bank Building is quality. It`s got elevators on the exterior and cranes permanently on the roof, that alone makes it cool.
The Gherkin is a fab building also, I quite like the modern architecture in London, I can still appreciate the older buildings, but this isn't 1854, you need balance of the two in which I think London does well.
I like the newer buildings, but I guess it`s all opinion.
^ You accuse me of trolling, and this is the sort of building you like:
You've also ignored what I've said previously. Some of the modern buildings are fantastic - the City Hall and the Millenium Dome being examples of some nice-looking modern architecture. They need to build modern buildings that look like nice buildings, not cheesegraters. Anyway, the cheesegrater is wasting space. If the diagonal wall was straight, there would be more office space in the building, and it would look a lot neater as well.
You've also ignored what I've said previously. Some of the modern buildings are fantastic - the City Hall and the Millenium Dome being examples of some nice-looking modern architecture. They need to build modern buildings that look like nice buildings, not cheesegraters. Anyway, the cheesegrater is wasting space. If the diagonal wall was straight, there would be more office space in the building, and it would look a lot neater as well.
I never said I liked it*. I simply stated that it is a world recognised piece of highly important architecture and is protected alongside equally as important historical buildings in the city. This isn't trolling, this is the valid opinion of experts. As I say, like it or not, it's a very important work. In 200 years time it will stand alongside St. Paul's as a unique, fantastically important historical building. A "Beethoven" if you like?
I also suspect that you've studied this topic as deeply as ever, i.e. not at all. Forming an opinion without knowledge is the most futile exercise anyone can undertake.
The cheesegrater is built that way to lessen the impact on the protected sightline to St Paul's. If it was built "square", it would not only be dull, but it would also destroy the views of London you so want to protect.
It's clear you have no understanding of art, aesthetics, architecture or the London skyline (with protected views). So you'll get a lot of disagreement in here from people who do understand those things.
Plus, have you managed to sort out which of the historic buildings you love shouldn't have been built because "ignorant people" objected to the building of them? Thankfully most people with "common sense" aren't given enough power to stop the world from advancing and for bold new buildings (like St Paul's and Battersea Powerstation) to be built despite objections from those who don't understand art, aesthetics, architecture or cityscapes.
*I think it's pretty ugly, but an amazing piece of architecture. You can dislike the way something looks, but still enjoy the boldness of it and the fantastic design methodology, technology and forward thinking employed to produce it. It's possible to have completely mixed views on a single thing.
I also suspect that you've studied this topic as deeply as ever, i.e. not at all. Forming an opinion without knowledge is the most futile exercise anyone can undertake.
The cheesegrater is built that way to lessen the impact on the protected sightline to St Paul's. If it was built "square", it would not only be dull, but it would also destroy the views of London you so want to protect.
It's clear you have no understanding of art, aesthetics, architecture or the London skyline (with protected views). So you'll get a lot of disagreement in here from people who do understand those things.
Plus, have you managed to sort out which of the historic buildings you love shouldn't have been built because "ignorant people" objected to the building of them? Thankfully most people with "common sense" aren't given enough power to stop the world from advancing and for bold new buildings (like St Paul's and Battersea Powerstation) to be built despite objections from those who don't understand art, aesthetics, architecture or cityscapes.
*I think it's pretty ugly, but an amazing piece of architecture. You can dislike the way something looks, but still enjoy the boldness of it and the fantastic design methodology, technology and forward thinking employed to produce it. It's possible to have completely mixed views on a single thing.
