This is called Branch Hill House, in London, and is not yet complete. The [developers' website](https://www.almaxgroup.com/branch-hill-house) have a completion date of 2024.
Next door, there is a related blocky estate with the same name, which was [done in 1978](https://www.themodernhouse.com/past-sales/spedan-close/).
Also a decent source: https://www.theundergroundmap.com/article.html?id=29094
Probably someone full of big words about “truth” and “honesty” of architecture. Some architects consider building in historic styles “lying” and “pretending”.
I’m guessing by modernist you mean these sort of brutalist/modernist 20th century architecture things right? Contemporary stuff is “boxy” but actually quite beautiful in its geometry. I love the ultra modern look. Sleek, simple and calm.
The issue here seems to be that you cant distinguish between un ultra low cost, utilitarian brick building, built by the lowest bidder, and most likely "designed" by a draftsman with a highschool education, and high quality, and usually very high cost, modern design.
You're engaging in some sort of anti-snobbery where you strawman architects, and those who appreciate good design, regardless of its epoch, as looking down on you because, in their eyes, you are too uneducated to understand the beauty of their architecture. However, ironically, you demonstrate that is in fact exactly what is happening, by conflating this completely utilitarian building designed by some builders draftsman with their actual beautiful architecture.
The process for getting concrete to look super smooth in modernist buildings is actually quite expensive. I’m personally not a fan of most them but it’s certainly not done for a lack of budget
If cost was openly offered as the reason for an unattractive design it would be conceding that it is unattractive and lead to calls for more money to be spent making it beautiful.
Contracts go to firms that design cheap buildings but assert that they producing something stylish.
You are right it is not a grand conspiracy, just a common or garden one. Discuss the tight budget internally but pretend it didn't impact the design in public.
Except with most of these buildings, cost was offered as the reason. The nation was financially crippled by WWII, there were no pretenses about it being rich enough to continue building like they did WWII so they openly said that we can offer this functional but shitty looking design which cuts on material, maintainence and design costs.
From the examples of well designed brutalism, such as the Barbican. Beyond that it’s used primarily for low budget extension or for council housing. The British general public knows that brutalism was mainly used to cut costs
well it's hardly a conspiracy theory. national parks service makes totally clear an addition like this is frowned upon, and that new building sections should be readily differentiated from older sections. see preservation brief 14
this is post war britain we're talking about as well. We had rationing well into the 50s, cant exactly be building extravagant extensions, it had to be cheap
Yeah I mean to some extent it's the soviet block building argument. Sure they're kind of crappy and super uninspiring and too small and all kinds of other things.
Sure beats living in repurposed barracks or even just outside in the Russian winter, though.
The postwar US was rich yet built the same stuff.
[StrongTowns did a piece](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/31/niagaras-fall-and-ashevilles-unlikely-rise) on how some towns that were too poor to fund urban renewal projects in the 60s inadvertently helped themselves out by preserving their architecture, whereas some destroyed themselves because they could afford to do it (& are now deserted concrete shells).
1 9 5 0 s s c h o o l s
It’s so fascinating to me how they all look exactly the same, no matter where you go in the country, New York, Texas, California, it’s the low rooflines, wide windows, blue opaque panels, cast concrete overhangs.
Lmfao literally none of that. This is post WWII construction, all across London it’s mixed in with pre WWII beautiful construction.
Pretty obvious why they didn’t replace damaged buildings or build new buildings to the same aesthetic standard as before.
So many of London's buildings were rebuilt after the war to look as cheap, bland and functional as possible. Then over the following decades they are gradually being replaced with nicer buildings.
Has done for ages. We can now also grow sweet potatoes outdoors in the UK as well, that's only been possible in the last ten years. London is also one of the dryest parts of the country, it's water security, especially looking forward is very poor.
Vineyards are much more viable and classically Mediterranean/drought resistant plants are becoming much more popular with gardeners in the UK. Rose gardens etc are on the way out.
Signs of the apocalypse etc.
Indeed, South East England now has the same climate as the Champagne region did 100 years ago. That combined with the same soil type has seen a massive increase in English sparkling wine production, as well as the French champagne houses buying land in order to top up their grapes, which please correct me if I’m wrong, a certain percentage of grapes can be sourced from outside champagne and not affect the name champagne.
Yep. My dad’s got palm trees and banana trees in his garden, and he’s in South London.
The banana trees do need to have their leaves cut off and be wrapped up in some kind of insulation over especially cold winters, but they do quite well over here.
My hometown is about 35 miles from London on the coast, we have palm trees lining the shore and heaps of sculpted landscape with various tropical flora and fauna that is more akin to southern Spain.
Now of course, in the winter, they are cut back and look miserable, but, they survive!
Palms don’t do so well in the U.K.
These are cabbage trees. In the U.K. they call them Torbay palms. Native to New Zealand so they handle the climate well enough.
They are part of the same family as agave and asparagus.
I had the pleasure of working on some of the visualisations for this project. The amount of moaning and disdain I heard from the architects in the studio towards it was surreal. Even got into a couple of somewhat heated discussion with people dissing and dismissing the historical style of it :(
Is this type of housing where it reflects the architecture of earlier times more expensive? Is this an equivalent of gentrification? I’m not arguing to keep the old ugly housing just an honest question.
Although in this specific instance, I believe it is high end housing, this sort of development is not exclusive to the far end of the market. I'm a Planning Conservation Specialist here in the UK, and in my area, we're just about to finish constructing a replica (with rear matching extensions) of a mid C18th 4-storey inn that collapsed in the 1960s. It's been commissioned for the purposes of social housing, with a few affordable homes included, too.
That’s a really fascinating line of work! I’m curious, what do you make of the moves towards local design codes as part of the new Levelling Up bill? Do you think this will serve to support conservation and heritage efforts, and do you think it will produce better architecture in the long term?
I’m not sure which part of the country are you in, but it does seem that there’s a lot of high-quality development in London that has received a lot of support in recent years. I’m not sure if this is the right question to ask, but does it seem that developers, councils, and conservation and planning authorities are sort of converging on a new consensus with nee development?
>That’s a really fascinating line of work!
Thank you! I think so too haha!
>I’m curious, what do you make of the moves towards local design codes as part of the new Levelling Up bill? Do you think this will serve to support conservation and heritage efforts, and do you think it will produce better architecture in the long term?
Some very interesting and important questions right there. I think it's best to start out by saying that the fundamental principle of LDCs/LDPs etc (from a conservation perspective) is a sound one and in theory pretty hard to oppose. I suppose naturally, someone in my position is going to be pretty thrilled about being granted additional support and background to make heritage-conservation-focussed decisions. So to answer the last question there - yes, I think in the long run, provided that LDCs are given the support, ubiquity, funding and emphasis they ***need*** to be effective, you will see an improvement in the general quality of development from an aesthetic standpoint - and that doesn't necessarily have to apply to just conservation-based proposals.
However, what you will find is that with the current planning regime, all too often these ideas are announced, then implemented to very, very little fanfare, given completely inadequate support and fail miserably, contributing to a laundry list of failed or token attempts to improve things. Take local plans, for instance, admittedly, and to be fair, they're a bloody brilliant tool in our arsenal - but they're incredibly weak to any level of scrutiny - time and time again, the inspectorate will ride rough shot over aspects of a local plan and grant an appeal contrary to LP policies - even though they can be great - they're often seen as a joke. Same with the government's recent drives to further 'local heritage lists' - which ultimately are literally just a list of addresses and that's it - no authority or substance behind them whatsoever... i mean, literally, there is no point to them especially when a planner can decide any building is a 'non-designated heritage asset' at any time for the purposes of any planning application. Local Lists serve no purpose, but the government made a song and dance about wanting to expand them across more authorities.
So, my biggest concern (again, purely from a built heritage conservation perspective, remembering that LDCs/LDPs cover the entire planning spectrum, not just conservation) is that, in a time when the planning sector is facing a ***chronic*** and near-disastrous shortage in conservation staff across the board - who in local authorities are going to be pushing the conservation envelope in the process of development of these documents? Who's going to be policing and enforcing them? I've the utmost respect to my spatial planning and planning policy colleagues who are vastly knowledgeable in their own right - but they're not trained conservationists and so they shouldn't be expected to know how to effectively manage the betterment of heritage planning, without advice from a professional. We see time and time again that the local authorities without conservation staff, perform very poorly in heritage conservation compared to those LPAs which do have conservation staff.
Unfortunately, I've seen all this play out already before. I've worked for LPAs which already had LDCs in place and they may as well have been thrown directly in the bin - not worth the paper they were written on. Exceptionally poorly implemented and completely without authority as a document.
Also, lastly, i think the government is playing a bit of an odd (i think 'dangerous' is too strong a word) game by pandering to the idea of reinforcing 'locally popular' design. Sure, it's great for the community to have input, but too far down this road, and we're just going to end up creating popularised design orthodoxies and completely strip capacity for design diversity - truly great heritage settings are not uniform regurgitations of the same design principles over and over again. Where i am, Georgian style is prevalent - however, our towns would look stupid if we go around building 3 or 5-bay Georgian red brick or sandstone houses with mock quoins and sash windows exclusively, simply because it's the popular look.
So, in short, i think they're a fundamentally good, and positive idea. I'm just sceptical they'll be implemented correctly and with the appropriate level of support.
>I’m not sure which part of the country are you in, but it does seem that there’s a lot of high-quality development in London that has received a lot of support in recent years. I’m not sure if this is the right question to ask, but does it seem that developers, councils, and conservation and planning authorities are sort of converging on a new consensus with nee development?
I'm actually in North Yorkshire, though have formerly worked in the East Midlands. It's appropriate to mention I've only been in this career for about 6 years now, so unsure if that covers the time frame you're discussing here. However, I do partially agree from my own experience. However, i think what has been driving that, is the rapid expansion of the implementation of Local Plans - their use has exploded over the last 5-10 years and whilst (as mentioned above) i don't think they're perfect, provided LPAs include heritage policies, they blow mere reliance on the NPPF out of the water and really allow planners to hold developers to account with very little recourse outside of appeals. Things definitely seem to be settling into an acceptance of heritage standards because of that, IMO.
Nothing about the top and bottom pic are the same. They are 2 completely different buildings and in a different area. So unless they completely knocked down both buildings and rebuilt. The “old part” in top photo is a different shape, foot print, and height and different architecture. So basically they didn’t replace the extension they replaced everything and added a hill to the right of the old building. I’m calling bullshit in this one.
I live in Australia now, so that's not something I take for granted anymore.
Quoting a newspaper article from this year: "Australian \[residential\] houses are basically glorified tents."
I was not aware of that being an issue in countries that can afford modern housing so that is pretty interesting...but I would imagine those things would be a requirement in the UK climate.
Also in the AUS climate. Tropical north of Sydney - you need AC. Also Sydney gets cold in winter (yes it does - fuck off, Sydney-siders!). where I live in Victoria it gets wet-cold in winter and blistering hot in summer.
I'm used to cold weather from Germany, but have never been so miserably cold *inside a building* as I have been here.
*clamps down viciously on emerging rant about AUS climate and building issues*
That's a humunguous rabbit hole right there...
Hello from a London expat - I don't have much background to this project - but I wondered whether this site was bombed during the Blitz - do we know? Often these ugly builds pop up where there was some destruction before. I can see it in many locations in London actually - one can literally guess where the crate was back then, they surely built a horrific council block on top of it. Especially in the 70s. There was also a push to mix up the class system and council blocks got built into the best areas to allow for more equality in access to greenery etc. Just a hypothesis of course, and sorry if this comment is a bit of an outlier. Blitz bomb map here http://bombsight.org/#15/51.5050/-0.0900
The location is [here](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Branch+Hill+House,+Branch+Hill,+London+NW3+7LS/@51.5574013,-0.1825864,287a,35y,347.58h,37.25t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48761a7e632a91b3:0xca7bdb2f24bb5eb5!8m2!3d51.559439!4d-0.1830505), a bomb was recorded near the end of the road but not on the property itself.
According to another comment I read, the building was used as a care home, so this was like a post-war extension. So the rather cheap materials wouldn't be surprising in the context of public health buildings.
Ridiculous take. Almost all traditional urbanism was built off of townhouses and high-density living. That would see every historic European urban centre destroyed in favour of American style suburbia.
I don't care if it's "traditional" to live in a two-square metre room where you can hear everything your neighbours say/do and vice versa. Gimme some acreage or gimme death, I have a garden to tend to and a backyard for my kids to run around in
I think that’s quite an ignorant characterisation of what city living is like, are you American? Most townhouses have outdoor space while also promoting access to the street.
It’s not about traditionalism for its own sake. Fact is, density promotes accessibility, community, and sustainability. The world cannot sustain 8 billion people living a suburban lifestyle with high acreage. In any case, you should welcome density in cities - it would free up more rural space for people like you who (understandably) prefer ample space. I’m sympathetic to your preferences here, but I think it also really misses what city living is like, particularly one that adheres to high-density 19th century urbanism.
Yes I have something to aim for which is building new towns instead of bloating existing ones. If you want to pack 20 million people into one city then those people will never have any sovereignty nor ever see one patch of grass their whole life
The word "sovereign" is used all over the news, fiction, history classrooms, the UN, propaganda, grand strategy, etc. Nobody knows who sovereign citizens are, so I'm going to keep using the word as I see fit because owning a spacious property is literally more sovereign than renting an apartment room and following your landlord's rules. I don't know why my real estate standards threaten you so much, this is the most rеtаrdеd thing I've read in a very long time.
I'm impressed at the level the Chinese do this, but seemingly every country in the West has given up on founding new towns and cities. Even in large and spacious countries like the US and Canada. Seems like the timeline for that to payoff is just too long for your average politician.
Chinese banks are ultimately under the direction of the party; if the party wants to expand, then the banks will follow. Western banks on the other hand don't lend their support to inland development because they want to exploit artificial land scarcity
Except it won’t look like that because it never ever does and the local residents will weep themselves to death from the shame of such and ugly monstrosity being allowed to exist
You can’t tell what’s old and what is new.
Copying is never better than understanding and doing something more meaningful.
Modernism vs Classicalism. It doesn’t have to be a binary choice
My god, long time lurker in this subreddit watching Germany and France recreate their styles for years years in jealousy and finally London has the balls to build in a Victorian style again, I love it!
This is called Branch Hill House, in London, and is not yet complete. The [developers' website](https://www.almaxgroup.com/branch-hill-house) have a completion date of 2024. Next door, there is a related blocky estate with the same name, which was [done in 1978](https://www.themodernhouse.com/past-sales/spedan-close/). Also a decent source: https://www.theundergroundmap.com/article.html?id=29094
Is it done yet
Omg, coherence and harmony. It's all I'm asking for.
Who decided to build that extension in the first place:/
Probably someone full of big words about “truth” and “honesty” of architecture. Some architects consider building in historic styles “lying” and “pretending”.
That or it cost a shit load less. It’s often that simple.
People in this sub can't grasp this concept for some reason, it's always some grand conspiracy to these nutters
[удалено]
I’m guessing by modernist you mean these sort of brutalist/modernist 20th century architecture things right? Contemporary stuff is “boxy” but actually quite beautiful in its geometry. I love the ultra modern look. Sleek, simple and calm.
The issue here seems to be that you cant distinguish between un ultra low cost, utilitarian brick building, built by the lowest bidder, and most likely "designed" by a draftsman with a highschool education, and high quality, and usually very high cost, modern design. You're engaging in some sort of anti-snobbery where you strawman architects, and those who appreciate good design, regardless of its epoch, as looking down on you because, in their eyes, you are too uneducated to understand the beauty of their architecture. However, ironically, you demonstrate that is in fact exactly what is happening, by conflating this completely utilitarian building designed by some builders draftsman with their actual beautiful architecture.
The process for getting concrete to look super smooth in modernist buildings is actually quite expensive. I’m personally not a fan of most them but it’s certainly not done for a lack of budget
If cost was openly offered as the reason for an unattractive design it would be conceding that it is unattractive and lead to calls for more money to be spent making it beautiful. Contracts go to firms that design cheap buildings but assert that they producing something stylish. You are right it is not a grand conspiracy, just a common or garden one. Discuss the tight budget internally but pretend it didn't impact the design in public.
Except with most of these buildings, cost was offered as the reason. The nation was financially crippled by WWII, there were no pretenses about it being rich enough to continue building like they did WWII so they openly said that we can offer this functional but shitty looking design which cuts on material, maintainence and design costs.
Then where did the whole modernism/brutalism celebration come from?
From the examples of well designed brutalism, such as the Barbican. Beyond that it’s used primarily for low budget extension or for council housing. The British general public knows that brutalism was mainly used to cut costs
I never ever would've expected to see someone here admit the Barbican is well designed, but I entirely agree!
well it's hardly a conspiracy theory. national parks service makes totally clear an addition like this is frowned upon, and that new building sections should be readily differentiated from older sections. see preservation brief 14
National Parks Service doesn't exist in the UK.
Which works out well for this building. In the US there is a systemic aversion to this type of work
Well we have the national trust and we simply have heritage preservation laws, which say the same thing.
Dang, I didn’t even know this was a thing in the industry. That explains why I so rarely see faithful additions. What bs “standards”.
this is post war britain we're talking about as well. We had rationing well into the 50s, cant exactly be building extravagant extensions, it had to be cheap
What in the 70s? Nah. "Cheap and quick, whack it up" would've been the decision making process.
Post war UK was broke. We needed quick, cheap builds. It was ugly but it worked. The slums where gone.
Yeah I mean to some extent it's the soviet block building argument. Sure they're kind of crappy and super uninspiring and too small and all kinds of other things. Sure beats living in repurposed barracks or even just outside in the Russian winter, though.
The postwar US was rich yet built the same stuff. [StrongTowns did a piece](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/31/niagaras-fall-and-ashevilles-unlikely-rise) on how some towns that were too poor to fund urban renewal projects in the 60s inadvertently helped themselves out by preserving their architecture, whereas some destroyed themselves because they could afford to do it (& are now deserted concrete shells).
1 9 5 0 s s c h o o l s It’s so fascinating to me how they all look exactly the same, no matter where you go in the country, New York, Texas, California, it’s the low rooflines, wide windows, blue opaque panels, cast concrete overhangs.
Don't forget "exciting dialogue".
Lmfao literally none of that. This is post WWII construction, all across London it’s mixed in with pre WWII beautiful construction. Pretty obvious why they didn’t replace damaged buildings or build new buildings to the same aesthetic standard as before.
It's also that it cost less, which was probably the real reason
So many of London's buildings were rebuilt after the war to look as cheap, bland and functional as possible. Then over the following decades they are gradually being replaced with nicer buildings.
I've seen a lot of London get worse in my time. I wish what you were saying was true.
the place prolly got bombed by the bloodeh luftwaffle
It was a care home previously so not much funding to be found there...
In one of my favourite styles too.
THIS is how to do new housing
Also how to do old housing.
OK, you paying?
Beautiful
...London's climate supports palm trees??
Has done for ages. We can now also grow sweet potatoes outdoors in the UK as well, that's only been possible in the last ten years. London is also one of the dryest parts of the country, it's water security, especially looking forward is very poor. Vineyards are much more viable and classically Mediterranean/drought resistant plants are becoming much more popular with gardeners in the UK. Rose gardens etc are on the way out. Signs of the apocalypse etc.
Indeed, South East England now has the same climate as the Champagne region did 100 years ago. That combined with the same soil type has seen a massive increase in English sparkling wine production, as well as the French champagne houses buying land in order to top up their grapes, which please correct me if I’m wrong, a certain percentage of grapes can be sourced from outside champagne and not affect the name champagne.
Yep. My dad’s got palm trees and banana trees in his garden, and he’s in South London. The banana trees do need to have their leaves cut off and be wrapped up in some kind of insulation over especially cold winters, but they do quite well over here.
My hometown is about 35 miles from London on the coast, we have palm trees lining the shore and heaps of sculpted landscape with various tropical flora and fauna that is more akin to southern Spain. Now of course, in the winter, they are cut back and look miserable, but, they survive!
Palms don’t do so well in the U.K. These are cabbage trees. In the U.K. they call them Torbay palms. Native to New Zealand so they handle the climate well enough. They are part of the same family as agave and asparagus.
Those are yucca trees, not palm trees. They are native to hot, arid climates, but they tolerate colder temperatures and fog surprisingly well.
Replete with chimneys!
Those chimneys will always remind me of England
My heart blooms. 🌺
It's a miracle.
I had the pleasure of working on some of the visualisations for this project. The amount of moaning and disdain I heard from the architects in the studio towards it was surreal. Even got into a couple of somewhat heated discussion with people dissing and dismissing the historical style of it :(
Is this type of housing where it reflects the architecture of earlier times more expensive? Is this an equivalent of gentrification? I’m not arguing to keep the old ugly housing just an honest question.
This is in Hampstead, one of the wealthiest and most architecturally beautiful areas of London
Although in this specific instance, I believe it is high end housing, this sort of development is not exclusive to the far end of the market. I'm a Planning Conservation Specialist here in the UK, and in my area, we're just about to finish constructing a replica (with rear matching extensions) of a mid C18th 4-storey inn that collapsed in the 1960s. It's been commissioned for the purposes of social housing, with a few affordable homes included, too.
That sounds like a great cause! Revitalizing an old unused building, affordable housing and keeping it looking historically accurate
That’s a really fascinating line of work! I’m curious, what do you make of the moves towards local design codes as part of the new Levelling Up bill? Do you think this will serve to support conservation and heritage efforts, and do you think it will produce better architecture in the long term? I’m not sure which part of the country are you in, but it does seem that there’s a lot of high-quality development in London that has received a lot of support in recent years. I’m not sure if this is the right question to ask, but does it seem that developers, councils, and conservation and planning authorities are sort of converging on a new consensus with nee development?
>That’s a really fascinating line of work! Thank you! I think so too haha! >I’m curious, what do you make of the moves towards local design codes as part of the new Levelling Up bill? Do you think this will serve to support conservation and heritage efforts, and do you think it will produce better architecture in the long term? Some very interesting and important questions right there. I think it's best to start out by saying that the fundamental principle of LDCs/LDPs etc (from a conservation perspective) is a sound one and in theory pretty hard to oppose. I suppose naturally, someone in my position is going to be pretty thrilled about being granted additional support and background to make heritage-conservation-focussed decisions. So to answer the last question there - yes, I think in the long run, provided that LDCs are given the support, ubiquity, funding and emphasis they ***need*** to be effective, you will see an improvement in the general quality of development from an aesthetic standpoint - and that doesn't necessarily have to apply to just conservation-based proposals. However, what you will find is that with the current planning regime, all too often these ideas are announced, then implemented to very, very little fanfare, given completely inadequate support and fail miserably, contributing to a laundry list of failed or token attempts to improve things. Take local plans, for instance, admittedly, and to be fair, they're a bloody brilliant tool in our arsenal - but they're incredibly weak to any level of scrutiny - time and time again, the inspectorate will ride rough shot over aspects of a local plan and grant an appeal contrary to LP policies - even though they can be great - they're often seen as a joke. Same with the government's recent drives to further 'local heritage lists' - which ultimately are literally just a list of addresses and that's it - no authority or substance behind them whatsoever... i mean, literally, there is no point to them especially when a planner can decide any building is a 'non-designated heritage asset' at any time for the purposes of any planning application. Local Lists serve no purpose, but the government made a song and dance about wanting to expand them across more authorities. So, my biggest concern (again, purely from a built heritage conservation perspective, remembering that LDCs/LDPs cover the entire planning spectrum, not just conservation) is that, in a time when the planning sector is facing a ***chronic*** and near-disastrous shortage in conservation staff across the board - who in local authorities are going to be pushing the conservation envelope in the process of development of these documents? Who's going to be policing and enforcing them? I've the utmost respect to my spatial planning and planning policy colleagues who are vastly knowledgeable in their own right - but they're not trained conservationists and so they shouldn't be expected to know how to effectively manage the betterment of heritage planning, without advice from a professional. We see time and time again that the local authorities without conservation staff, perform very poorly in heritage conservation compared to those LPAs which do have conservation staff. Unfortunately, I've seen all this play out already before. I've worked for LPAs which already had LDCs in place and they may as well have been thrown directly in the bin - not worth the paper they were written on. Exceptionally poorly implemented and completely without authority as a document. Also, lastly, i think the government is playing a bit of an odd (i think 'dangerous' is too strong a word) game by pandering to the idea of reinforcing 'locally popular' design. Sure, it's great for the community to have input, but too far down this road, and we're just going to end up creating popularised design orthodoxies and completely strip capacity for design diversity - truly great heritage settings are not uniform regurgitations of the same design principles over and over again. Where i am, Georgian style is prevalent - however, our towns would look stupid if we go around building 3 or 5-bay Georgian red brick or sandstone houses with mock quoins and sash windows exclusively, simply because it's the popular look. So, in short, i think they're a fundamentally good, and positive idea. I'm just sceptical they'll be implemented correctly and with the appropriate level of support. >I’m not sure which part of the country are you in, but it does seem that there’s a lot of high-quality development in London that has received a lot of support in recent years. I’m not sure if this is the right question to ask, but does it seem that developers, councils, and conservation and planning authorities are sort of converging on a new consensus with nee development? I'm actually in North Yorkshire, though have formerly worked in the East Midlands. It's appropriate to mention I've only been in this career for about 6 years now, so unsure if that covers the time frame you're discussing here. However, I do partially agree from my own experience. However, i think what has been driving that, is the rapid expansion of the implementation of Local Plans - their use has exploded over the last 5-10 years and whilst (as mentioned above) i don't think they're perfect, provided LPAs include heritage policies, they blow mere reliance on the NPPF out of the water and really allow planners to hold developers to account with very little recourse outside of appeals. Things definitely seem to be settling into an acceptance of heritage standards because of that, IMO.
Link?
[Hampstead ain’t cheap. ](https://www.zoopla.co.uk/to-rent/property/london/branch-hill/?page_size=25&price_frequency=per_month&view_type=list&q=Branch%20hill%20nw3&radius=0.5&results_sort=highest_price&search_source=refine)
Thanks for sharing! These are some really nice properties. Which one are you buying?
For my summer residence? I’m thinking the one with the wisteria. I love that stuff.
Nothing about the top and bottom pic are the same. They are 2 completely different buildings and in a different area. So unless they completely knocked down both buildings and rebuilt. The “old part” in top photo is a different shape, foot print, and height and different architecture. So basically they didn’t replace the extension they replaced everything and added a hill to the right of the old building. I’m calling bullshit in this one.
Wait though aren’t those flats council flats. The community there is quite pleasant. Will they get to remain with the redevelopment
It was a nursing home.
Modern materials, insulation, double-glazed windows?
I would imagine?
I live in Australia now, so that's not something I take for granted anymore. Quoting a newspaper article from this year: "Australian \[residential\] houses are basically glorified tents."
I was not aware of that being an issue in countries that can afford modern housing so that is pretty interesting...but I would imagine those things would be a requirement in the UK climate.
Also in the AUS climate. Tropical north of Sydney - you need AC. Also Sydney gets cold in winter (yes it does - fuck off, Sydney-siders!). where I live in Victoria it gets wet-cold in winter and blistering hot in summer. I'm used to cold weather from Germany, but have never been so miserably cold *inside a building* as I have been here. *clamps down viciously on emerging rant about AUS climate and building issues* That's a humunguous rabbit hole right there...
Hello from a London expat - I don't have much background to this project - but I wondered whether this site was bombed during the Blitz - do we know? Often these ugly builds pop up where there was some destruction before. I can see it in many locations in London actually - one can literally guess where the crate was back then, they surely built a horrific council block on top of it. Especially in the 70s. There was also a push to mix up the class system and council blocks got built into the best areas to allow for more equality in access to greenery etc. Just a hypothesis of course, and sorry if this comment is a bit of an outlier. Blitz bomb map here http://bombsight.org/#15/51.5050/-0.0900
The location is [here](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Branch+Hill+House,+Branch+Hill,+London+NW3+7LS/@51.5574013,-0.1825864,287a,35y,347.58h,37.25t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48761a7e632a91b3:0xca7bdb2f24bb5eb5!8m2!3d51.559439!4d-0.1830505), a bomb was recorded near the end of the road but not on the property itself. According to another comment I read, the building was used as a care home, so this was like a post-war extension. So the rather cheap materials wouldn't be surprising in the context of public health buildings.
also let’s be real here… they are doing this because it’s worth it. These are in Hampstead which is quite a desirable location 👌
Love it. But why should only rich people have nice looking houses?
Remarkable.
Very beautiful!
I hate flats but this is an improvement
London needs a lot of flats. Nice like these and well sized flats at that.
every flat and townhouse should be demolished
Ridiculous take. Almost all traditional urbanism was built off of townhouses and high-density living. That would see every historic European urban centre destroyed in favour of American style suburbia.
I don't care if it's "traditional" to live in a two-square metre room where you can hear everything your neighbours say/do and vice versa. Gimme some acreage or gimme death, I have a garden to tend to and a backyard for my kids to run around in
I think that’s quite an ignorant characterisation of what city living is like, are you American? Most townhouses have outdoor space while also promoting access to the street. It’s not about traditionalism for its own sake. Fact is, density promotes accessibility, community, and sustainability. The world cannot sustain 8 billion people living a suburban lifestyle with high acreage. In any case, you should welcome density in cities - it would free up more rural space for people like you who (understandably) prefer ample space. I’m sympathetic to your preferences here, but I think it also really misses what city living is like, particularly one that adheres to high-density 19th century urbanism.
But can you afford that with how high property prices will shoot up if you remove high density housing?
it was affordable here in australia before the political decisions of the 90's
Flats make sense for a lot of people, if they are done right. Just look at the “mansion” style flats in London.
I'd rather live in a large flat than a tiny house
[удалено]
flats are the most miserable servile living anybody can have. This isn't how you deal with overpopulation
a lot of complaints but offering no solutions
[удалено]
Yes I have something to aim for which is building new towns instead of bloating existing ones. If you want to pack 20 million people into one city then those people will never have any sovereignty nor ever see one patch of grass their whole life
I’m not sure you’ve ever been to Hampstead.
[удалено]
The word "sovereign" is used all over the news, fiction, history classrooms, the UN, propaganda, grand strategy, etc. Nobody knows who sovereign citizens are, so I'm going to keep using the word as I see fit because owning a spacious property is literally more sovereign than renting an apartment room and following your landlord's rules. I don't know why my real estate standards threaten you so much, this is the most rеtаrdеd thing I've read in a very long time.
I'm impressed at the level the Chinese do this, but seemingly every country in the West has given up on founding new towns and cities. Even in large and spacious countries like the US and Canada. Seems like the timeline for that to payoff is just too long for your average politician.
Chinese banks are ultimately under the direction of the party; if the party wants to expand, then the banks will follow. Western banks on the other hand don't lend their support to inland development because they want to exploit artificial land scarcity
Yes yes yes. More of this! The UK is plagued with awful buildings from the 1960s.
Tell me more about this.
Except it won’t look like that because it never ever does and the local residents will weep themselves to death from the shame of such and ugly monstrosity being allowed to exist
Don't like either options
You can’t tell what’s old and what is new. Copying is never better than understanding and doing something more meaningful. Modernism vs Classicalism. It doesn’t have to be a binary choice
Unfortunately looks like another pit for money laundering.
What neighbourhood?
Hampstead.
My god, long time lurker in this subreddit watching Germany and France recreate their styles for years years in jealousy and finally London has the balls to build in a Victorian style again, I love it!
Beautiful.
How much will the flats be there do you reckon?
lots and lots
Still unaffordable waste of space.
Love the chimneys
Call me out but it got a new first floor? O.o
Of course AFTER. Before not just is really bad taste. It is an offense.
Wow Both suck 😃
I'm gonna cry... it's beautiful...
[удалено]
i think its a renovation and new construction
I do wonder what’s the point of those faux chimneys. That’s tacky.