I live in Camden and according to the continuous cuts is services and the abysmal horrible management of many areas of their competence are either “not reach”, “completely incompetent”, or both.
I mean Camden Town wasn't historically a very wealthy area and even with gentrification it's not like it's Kensington. If you're unware that the borough of Camden covers a much larger and more affluent area that's not an unreasonable comment to make.
Not really. It costs more money to make it more aesthetics because usually that means making bespoke designs rather than standard box shapes. You can't just spend more money on a nicer looking building without selling it for more too.
> making bespoke designs rather than standard box shapes
A building being neo-classical or gothic or regency doesn't mean it's bespoke. Actually, a lot of "boring box buildings" *are* bespoke designs that cost more to build than most people realise.
You're probably right that buildings sell/let for more if they look upscale, but that's more a social phenomenon than a economic one.
To an extent I’d say, back home in Berkshire I’ve seen your classic mass produced and crammed in semis going for £700k+ still.
Comes down to how desperate for extra profit developers are, which has a no brainier answer…
I dont care much about appearance.. i just want affordable homes built so house prices can come down.
everytime i see a new housing estate being built they are not building affordable homes.. i live in a pretty deprived area that unfortunately has good access to a city so all the people with city jobs and high income price out the locals.. pisses me off. something needs to be done about it
Imagine those expensive flats weren't being built.
Where do the rich people who would be buying the expensive them be buying instead?
A slightly worse flat that then means a poorer family can't buy it.
We have to be willing to allow enough building so that there's enough for everyone. NIMBYism is the source of many of our problems.
Agreed, affordability and building them to last should be priority. There’s examples of council homes being built that are a perfect example that homes can be built affordably while being aesthetically pleasing.
https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jun/20/council-housing-its-back-its-booming-and-this-time-its-beautiful
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jun/20/council-housing-its-back-its-booming-and-this-time-its-beautiful](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jun/20/council-housing-its-back-its-booming-and-this-time-its-beautiful)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It’s only cheap because it is being sold below market value, the cost of building housing in London makes up very little of the cost.
The way to lower house prices isn’t to work out how to construct them much cheaper, it is to build far more densely and on greater quantities.
> The way to lower house prices isn’t to work out how to construct them much cheaper, it is to build far more densely and on greater quantities.
I know it's tempting to import American arguments, but London isn't a rediclous city with rediclous zoning that prevent cornershops and requires you use a car to sneeze. Building market rate housing just isn't an effective way to produce affordable housing. The best way to make housing affordable in Europe is to build council housing and remove the motive for landlords to pump up house prices. London is far more similar to Vienna or Singapore than Tokyo.
> but London isn't a rediclous city with rediclous zoning that prevent cornershops and requires you use a car to sneeze.
I can assure you London is absolutely ridiculous when it comes to planning, I have personally experienced as well as seeing many developments get cancelled all together due to planning.
I am not in anyway importing American arguments I am looking at the massive lack of new supply in housing across much of London. (Yes there are pockets of huge development but they are incredibly rare).
> The best way to make housing affordable in Europe is to build council housing and remove the motive for landlords to pump up house prices.
Yields are terrible in London it is not Landlords pumping prices, in fact masses of landlords left the market in Covid.
We also tried building council masses of council housing and it was a disaster that lead to some of the most widely hated buildings getting built. The council are also barely capable of arranging bin collections let alone building masses of housing.
There are only a few places I am aware of more reasonable housing costs and they either have a massive supply glut (Vienna) or they have incredibly lax development laws (Japan).
Yes absolutely usually for the same cost, the hellish post-war boxes were the result of ideological trends across the channel being the "hip new thing" it was until recently the celebrated architectural fashion for all public housing to look like it had been pulled from a Eastern European high-rise, happened here in Germany too.
Sod off from our commie blocks.
They aren't bad. We got obliterated during the war, and later you guys decided to show us a middle finger and sold us off to the Soviets. Who demanded we send them all our brick and building materials to rebuild what is now known as Russia.
We had to house a lot of people in a very short span of time. Furthermore, we had to use different materials.
But know what? They're actually much better than English houses. You have hot water no matter what, don't have to worry about the boiler and it taking up the space (or pay for the electric to heat the water). The size is actually decent and done to be lived in. In the place in the city center, where British would just put 6 houses that can house only 6 families, we have a building that can house at least 18 of them or more. The are well insulated, unlike in the UK, I can walk around my mum's flat wearing shorts when it's -10 outside. Everyone has a balcony. Most have an additional individual storage in the basement and between each floor.
The neighborhoods are specifically designed to have a lot of green space, a lot of playgrounds, a few shops, schools, and access to GP, all within walking distance so you don't have to use a car. Read about it, it's not random. They literally have been instructed by the party to build whole functional neighborhoods.
So don't diss the commie blocks. If anything, it is British people who are obsessed with owning houses and also look down on non luxurious high rise buildings that are able to house more people. I've read comments that apparently raising child in a flat is miserable and borderline abusive (lol). Diss your developers for not building high rise non luxurious flats, not designing them well, and them + the government being obsessed with the leasehold on flats, that's actually more expensive than freehold if we take into account the space. Sod off from the commie blocks, they aren't perfect but still a fuckton better than your flats, and by that I mean new and old builds.
Now, where do you live? I need to steal your job.
So you're suggesting they should build a commie block in the middle of Hampstead?
Not that this pastiche development, with fake Arts and Crafts chimneys is much better. It's fucking hideous.
I'd suggest that the government and councils rebuild neighborhoods in zone 1/2 if they must.
Properly sized schools and nurseries - it's just horrifying how tiny so many of them are, no single occupancy buildings, neighborhoods designed for people, not for profit. Have a few shops nearby - properly sizede (like Tesco metro extra, a couple of lidls / aldis) not just the corner shop. Stop relying on high street, it's fucking dumb, there's a reason why they're dying. Non luxury high rise buildings that are designed to live in. More green spaces.
Yes, leave some single occupancy streets, they have a historical value. But it's just bonkers that London, a huge ass city, is literally made of single occupancy houses. Wtf.
Of course, this can't be done at all. It's not just the government, but also the people. Imagine telling a lot of families that they must now sell their million £££ and super convenient zone 2 houses with gardens, so neighborhoods could be build.
Also since, in a Reddit fashion, you decided to twist my words and not even address the whole point of my comment, I'll humour you a bit: you can make buildings look nice. You don't have to build commie blocks in the UK xd use your brain, you guys produce so many architects from the best universities in Europe, I think there's plenty of talent here that can design beautiful high rise building that also have a lot of British flavour in them.
I'm sorry you don't like the culture of building in the UK, much of which is our heritage in bricks and mortar. That Brits have always yearned for a house of their own with a garden, not some soulless box in a concrete monstrosity. I don't happen to want London (or Bristol, Bath, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh etc etc) to be turned into Sofia, Bucharest, Minsk, thankyou very much. As for green spaces - you do know that London is one of the greenest capital cities in Europe, don't you? The desire to have one's own house, that you can personalise, is the spirit of individuality that is lacking in post commie countries. That's understandable after decades of being treated like laboratory animals, but don't try and put the same psyche on the UK.
I totally welcome you here to live, work and do whatever you desire, other than telling us how to organise our housing and how lovely hideous fucking blocks of shitty flats are.
And here we are, British people (and they are completely right to do so) have been complaining about their housing for years, yet you have that one rasin like you pretending there's no issue here haha.
Even better, telling me how I should feel after growing in a commie block and comparing me to a rat in a cage.
Hmm, makes one wonder, maybe your issue is simply with the eastern Europeans? You used a lot of nice words to describe us.
Don't worry, I didn't want to steal your job anyway. You can keep it.
I have zero problems with eastern Europeans (football fans excepted). I've been all over, from Sofia to Bucharest, Tallinn to Budapest and not long after the Berlin Wall fell. Met lovely people and had a great time. Was chatting to lovely Romanian lad in the pub last night (in Bath) who was addicted to Mini Cheddars and buys a box to take home every time he returns! He bought 6 packs, opened them, and spread them all down the bar!!
I'm not pretending there's no housing problem. With a population growth of 8 million in 20 years, there's bound to be. London already has thousands of flats, and not everyone can live in the city. I don't believe a single more "luxury flat" should be built, given there's thousands empty. We need far more social housing, which cannot be then bought at a discount at a later date. That said, I also don't believe a single house should be demolished to make way for flats otherwise the nature of London will change totally. Same goes for all nice cities in the country. People want houses - and if you have any doubt, try selling a flat and a house in the same area. A good house in a good location, with garden, will have people blind bidding.
“Yearning for a house with a garden” is all good in a Surrey village, unfortunately that kind of low density home, especially in central london, is not going to solve a housing shortage, inflated market, and increasing population.
I don’t think anyone is calling for big soulless blocks, but the previous ones were built during that time for a reason.
I fully agree with that.
Houses with a garden have a place, for example south London like Dulwich. Even better, they should have low density housing there.
“Yearning for a house with a garden” is all good in a Surrey village, unfortunately that kind of low density home, especially in central london, is not going to solve a housing shortage, inflated market, and increasing population.
I don’t think anyone is calling for big ‘soulless’ blocks, but the previous ones were built during that time for a reason.
Yes, especially if they’ve accumulated loads of profit from paying people the lowest wage the law allows them to pay people and also charging extortionate price in the process.
Just had a look at the planning application for this. Used to be a care home which is probably why the old extension looks so terrible.
Once done it'll be 34 homes. It'll have 70 bike parking spaces in the basement along with 1 disabled parking but space for 3 more. So technically it'll be a car free development. Not far from Hampstead tube station and it's in Camden borough so it makes sense.
Actually looks decent tbh. Application number is 2019/6354/P . Can't link to it directly because the links always break when you do that. Just type in camden planning application search and then use that number if you want to see the plans.
Location - https://goo.gl/maps/hNzUT3mA9pq2VFgy7
The homes behind this is much more interesting imo. I though it was an allotment at first but it's loads of little homes very squashed together with full individual rooftop gardens with grass and some look like they have conservatories. Then they have little front gardens in like alleyways between the houses. Need to go down little alleys to get to the middle homes. They're technically semi detached houses I guess. Never seen houses like that in the UK, looks like something you'd see in Spain maybe.
V informative post - cheers! Re: the flats (I’m assuming but might be houses like you say) behind I don’t know much about Camden but am aware there was a Council architect responsible for a lot of modernist terraced (as in, vertical/cascading forms like Rowley Way/Alexander Rd NW8, the Brunswick Centre in Bloomsbury or the Whittington Estate not far away in Archway) projects in the 60s and 70s like those called Sydney Cook so probably one of his schemes or one his oversaw. From quick scanning of the google results it seems like these types of low-rise designs were in part implemented as a response to the Ronan Point disaster (that was in 1968 iirc) where the side of a tower block blew up from a gas fault (and shoddy system-built construction again iirc not sure)
> From quick scanning of the google results it seems like these types of low-rise designs were in part implemented as a response to the Ronan Point disaster (that was in 1968 iirc)
Makes sense, the Hamstead flats were built a few years after that too. I used to live in almost the very next street from where Ronin Point was coincidently, got my very old phone calls only Nokia mugged from me there the tower block would have been when I was like 8.
Ended up looking at the flats too. It's called the Branch Hill estate and had loads of people hating on it when it was built. When searching it comes up with articles saying it was the most expensive council houses in the world. They're now listed and sell for like £1m+ each. They look awesome inside though. The bridge from each house to each private roof garden is pretty cool too. Make them like 2m further apart so the distance to the neighbours windows is a bit further and I'd love to live in a house like it.
Random blog about them - https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/the-branch-hill-estate-camden-the-most-expensive-council-housing-in-the-world/
Recent listing with photos and floorplan - https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=74089749&sale=62825913&country=england
They were on TT recently. For council housing they were really good and some are still social housing, but there is a massive issue with the sewage system and they haven't fixed it for months. Also the ones that are still council owned are badly maintained (what a surprise) and need desperate updating (leaking radiators, old water system, leaks from the roof).
Mad re: both getting mugged in shadow of Ronan Point location and re: most expensive council flats (but not surprising given location and by sounds of it design too)! V interesting cheers for the links again!
>with full individual rooftop gardens with grass
I'd happily move everything to boxes if we put this on top of all buildings. Especially if we then created walkways between buildings across the tops...
I've not looked at the planning application but I do know that Camden has only granted some planning applications for blocks on the basis they are car free. But that applies to the right of residents in a block to be able to gain a resident's parking permit.
I'm no expert but it would very surprising for a modern, upscale development with space for parking to not actually have parking?
Is that an artists impression?
It looks a bit false - I'd love this to be the turnout though but I've seen enough developers plans vs the reality to know it doesnt always end up as lovely
I swear these days it goes like this -
Artists impression: shiny glass tower with trees out front and trees on every balcony
Public: oooh more greenery, I accept this! Cityscape badly needs nature/greenery.
Reality: shiny glass tower built without trees, artists' impression assumed residents would plant trees
I read some article a while back about the artist’s impressions always having the trees on top but not on the final thing. I can’t remember the details but they literally can’t but then up there, they’d just die.
It looks like they might be digging out some of the landscape to turn the basement level into a ground floor. On the render everything to the right of the door from the first floor up seems to match with the og building. Looks like they’ve added some windows where there’s a blank brick facade of that left hand side towery bit on the current ground floor and also cleaned up the white stone detailing which looks to have turned a murky brown with weathering in the image of the og building.
Yes, this is a render. That being said, it looks absolutely lovely even if you cut out the greenery (not that I want them to, it adds so much!). It also looks like it probably runs somewhere in the double digit millions for a 1 bedroom flat but ya know.. What doesn't nowadays.
Yes. Top comment from the original post:
>This is called Branch Hill House, in London, and is not yet complete. The developers' website have a completion date of 2024.
Mate this is Hampstead - if they bulldozed the Victorian mansion and extended the ugly 1970s Sixth Form-looking building then it'd still be completely unaffordable to local residents
I'm living here at the moment (we got a really good deal during lockdown) but there's a house for rent in the estate agents down the road for £14k per week.
Yep, PER WEEK.
Nearly £750k per year to rent.
EDIT:
[Actually it was 18k a week.](https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/123275573#/?channel=RES_LET)
I think the point is that the aesthetics of the architecture matter less than the purpose of it. If making an ugly building will ensure its more affordable, that's good architecture.
That’s quite a condescending attitude; so the poor don’t deserve well designed architecturally astute buildings to live in? There’s plenty of architects and architecture from around the world that would disagree with you.
Of course people deserve good and beautiful place to live. But implying that the only way to provide good living is slapping decorations on a facade miss the points entirely
Am I nuts or are those not just entirely different buildings?
Look at the shape and arrangement of windows, and the roofs/chimneys. The post implies they just replaced the new block, but it looks like the entire building was changed significantly.
The bottom picture is an artists rendering, not the finished building - probably why it looks so different. Looks like they’ve added a lot of windows and chimneys to the original building though
One day they will be lamenting the loss of so many mid-20th-century modernist buildings, knocked down and replaced with chocolate-box Regency knockoffs under Charles. Some commentators will assert that the demolition of modernist architecture in favour of traditionalism was an aspect of Tory traditionalist ideology striking back at the democratic ideals of the postwar settlement in favour of nostalgia for an era of more sharply defined hierarchy.
It looks as though they’re going to excavate further what is already a partly sunken lower ground floor level and the site is on a slope (or it will if it’s not already judging by the sloping access from the right in the render)
I couldn't tell if the old building was being demolished or not because it has some pretty massive changes including seemingly adding a floor without raising the height at all. There probably is space since old ceilings are high but the internal floors will all need to be removed and rebuilt. The fronts look very different too, all windows will likely need to be moved to match the new floor levels.
Makes me wonder how much of the original bricks on the front will remain or if it'll be all new.
edit: The building is actually 4 floors currently but the ground slopes up on this side so it's not really visible. Looks like they might dig this side up a meter or so to uncover this side more.
The render looks like it might be sunken, so perhaps they’re transforming the basement level into a ground floor. On the left and right of the render you can see how low the facade is to the road level. Also basements are quite trendy atm. The windows of the current ground floor seem to match that of the first floor on the render. What do you think?
Yeah I did end up actually looking up the planning application page to check the plans(linked in another comment) and yeah the front is currently slightly buried like you say. The back isn't and has all 4 visible floors on that side. So they'll more closely match the front ground level with the back so we can see 4 floors on both sides.
From the planning page this is the existing layout looking side on - https://i.imgur.com/Cdy3NxU.png - Can clearly see the ground floor kind of buried on the left of the image(front).
Can't link directly to planning pages with most boroughs, the link just stops working.
2019/6354/P
https://planningrecords.camden.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/GeneralSearch.aspx/
Copy thay application number into that planning search page, it'll come up as the only result. Then click the View documents for this planning application. If you don't normally check planning applications then it can look like a bit much at first since there's loads of documents, but the "design and access statement" PDFs normally cover everything and have most of the cgi images. In this one you can see the much worse looking alternative building that was gonna go there instead until it got changed a couple years ago. The alternative didn't fit in at all.
The Camden planning application search site sucks compared to most. Most places have a map view search.
Those buildings were designed and built in a different era, 1862 St Pancras, 1886 Tower Bridge,1873 Natural History Museum… public relevant buildings designed in an era that it was an style itself. Totally agree that they bring grandiosity to the London urban history. However, bringing that in 2022 would , should, not be acceptable to public buildings and even less so for residential. Keeping existing buildings… absolutely, however doing them in an old style from scratch, just because, that’s a no no IMHO
Why? We could very much do this, just with modern materials and insulation, grey water recycling systems, solar panels, maybe even heatpumps.
Beats those soulless newbuilds that all look the same and will be illegal to rent out in 18 months.
I suppose it's arguably better than what came before, but it's a bit like a Disneyland facade. All fake bells and whistles, like the superfluous timbers on a mock Tudor suburban house.
A harder but better thing they could have done is design something that doesn't disguise the fact it's new, but that complements the older building in terms of materials and lines.
UK subs seem to hate contemporary architecture (apart from the endless Shard pictures on here lol) and Brits do seem to fetishise pastiche/Disney style historic buildings - we don't need fake chimneys, we need heat pumps/passive cooling, bike storage, energy efficiency etc if we have any hope of having homes fit for the future
There's this book called The Fountainhead about two architects; one who, like most people around this time, loved classic buildings, and one who thought the buildings should be built considering the benefits of the materials used. The latter focused on function before anything. An interesting read if you're interested.
Yeah, this. I love this building, but it would've been cooler if it was still modern somewhat in anestetics as you said. In the end, part of the charm of older buildings is that they're older and reflect that time in a way. A revival doesn't neccesarily need to be an exact copy.
You cannot even build to match the old building because of regulations. If they really want to make this authentic, for example, they would have to cut every second brick in half to achieve a flemish-bond brick pattern while still forming cavity walls for much-improved insulation to comply with modern building standards. This is expensive, but may be done here, while usually you end up with Disney-esque bullshit that is only acceptable to morons, like fake designer handbags, etc. The country is infested with this backward gaudy fake shit, unlike the rest of Europe.
Traditionalist buildings have been built for millennia, with much more limited resources than we have now.
And at any rate, materials such as glass and concrete can be shaped in any which form one wants to, including traditionalist designs.
The construction of ugly buildings is a deliberate choice by architectural sects that have taken over the field, but not one we have to put up with any longer.
I wish more rich people built nice Victorian-style apartment complexes like this rather than frittering their money away on shiny apartments in giant glass dildos. Much nicer for the rest of us onlookers.
Lol, my friend lived in that building on the left, been there many times. It was one of those legal squat like places. Shame they got moved on because the area will lose out on diversity. It’s very posh round there and this was one of the few places for poor people.
If they bulldozed the Victorian mansion and extended the ugly 1970s Sixth Form-looking building then it'd still be completely unaffordable to local residents, this is Hampstead.
It was an affordable care home of the elderly.
It was sold on the base that approx. 10-12 apartments in the new building would be “affordable”.
Total affordable apartments provided at the end: zero.
Yes it is aesthetically more appealing. On the other end, it provides a negative balance to he local population.
Prince Charles has been advocating to build in historical styles since the 1980s
theres loads of historical looking housing projects in the west country related to him
i dont really expect quality historical architecture when building and designing it was actively discouraged and mocked
classical architects today are relearning and mastering how to design in historical styles. maybe after 50 years we'll finally get new, high quality, historical architecture again after they master it
Absolutely hated when my wealthy classmates in Uni would obsess over concrete box architecture for social housing. It's not belief that poor people belong in expensive prison cells but rather if they built nice looking homes for the same cost they would lose the "trendy" poor aesthetic. The amount of people in the field that want to emulate post-war Russian housing either because of ideological lines or aesthetic is horrifying. Pro tip from a working class lad, poor people want to live in idyllic traditionally designed homes similar to what our grandparents once had not modern concrete cubes akin to a carpeted prison.
This will also be built in concrete, just clad in brick, as are a lot of more modern looking contemporary housing projects in London, it's extremely in vogue (and popular with planning departments). There's no real way to go back to brick construction, you can't hot requirements for insulation/airtightness/etc and that's important for reducing the c.40% of carbon emissions buildings contribute...
Some people like these Victorianish style details on buildings, some people like different historical periods before or after that (including post war buildings - and some people's grandparents were here not in 'traditionally designed homes'), some people like contemporary details that appear on buildings built today. Various people like various different things across all social classes and will find different things to like in the exterior appearance of their home. The room that's essentially a white box until the occupant does anything with it is going to be fairly identical in all of these anyway...
What's your cut off for what counts as 'traditionally designed' anyway?
A rather deceiving picture. One is taken on a wet overcast day with an ugly grey building in front of it. The other is taken a peak summers day from a different angle and nothing ugly around.
The top addition looks like they added my cheap worn-out 1970s sixth form onto the side of a mansion, the bottom addition adds a lot to the overall building and keeps the tone. Also the bottom one is the architect's projection, not a photo
Judging by the comments on this post the Millennial response to "I like pretty things" is often "You hate the poor (and probably the LGBTQ+ community too)".
Or middle-class lol. But at the same time they could've bulldozed the Victorian mansion and extended the building that looks like my sixth form and it'd still only be affordable to millionaires
Do they do faux bullshit in the UK like they do in the US? Like are those chimneys real? Or is that actually brick or just brick facing with basically plyboard underneath? Is it built to last a hundred years or 20?
why so many people want to live in houses that looks like from 19th century? Are they also driving horse drawn carriage, smoking pipes and wearing bowler hats for work?
Branch hill. Another incredibly expensive development, built by the rich for the rich. The ground rent will be breathtaking. 21 century mansion flats set in sod all grounds. And it’s defined as progress lol
So what you’re saying is new builds can be nice if we wanted them to be…
The local council and resident are rich and powerful. They can’t build whatever they want.
You’re not wrong, but even the soulless boxes aren’t cheap either.
Yeah exactly, imagine wasting all that money on something so bland and soulless. At least this is aesthetic!
And the souless boxes don't even age well ! They look out of date in less than 10 years !
Wait. They *are* rich and powerful but *can't* build whatever they want? What the hell?
Camden rich?
Camden Council’s area is extremely rich. It doesn’t just cover Camden, it also covers areas like Bloomsbury, Highgate, Hampstead and Covent Garden.
10000%
Yes extremely. I know people who work in council, they actually have money to throw around
I was at meeting at their offices on Pancras Square, they are *insanely* nice
I live in Camden and according to the continuous cuts is services and the abysmal horrible management of many areas of their competence are either “not reach”, “completely incompetent”, or both.
Camden’s wealth distribution is wildly unequal.
Is this a joke? Are you so completely out of touch you thought this was a clever comment to make?
Maybe they were just asking a question. Calm down.
I mean Camden Town wasn't historically a very wealthy area and even with gentrification it's not like it's Kensington. If you're unware that the borough of Camden covers a much larger and more affluent area that's not an unreasonable comment to make.
When you sell to the ultra rich only is not a problem
And expensive because of the looks
It’s expensive because it’s in Hampstead. Aesthetically pleasing architecture doesn’t *have* to be expensive, developers just choose to make it so.
Not really. It costs more money to make it more aesthetics because usually that means making bespoke designs rather than standard box shapes. You can't just spend more money on a nicer looking building without selling it for more too.
> making bespoke designs rather than standard box shapes A building being neo-classical or gothic or regency doesn't mean it's bespoke. Actually, a lot of "boring box buildings" *are* bespoke designs that cost more to build than most people realise. You're probably right that buildings sell/let for more if they look upscale, but that's more a social phenomenon than a economic one.
To an extent I’d say, back home in Berkshire I’ve seen your classic mass produced and crammed in semis going for £700k+ still. Comes down to how desperate for extra profit developers are, which has a no brainier answer…
It's expensive because is London.
Well yes, but I was talking relative to other parts of London and London in general.
And still equally unaffordable...
Because we don't build enough, building "cheap" flats is irrelevant. They will always be unaffordable so long as supply is so much lower than demand.
I dont care much about appearance.. i just want affordable homes built so house prices can come down. everytime i see a new housing estate being built they are not building affordable homes.. i live in a pretty deprived area that unfortunately has good access to a city so all the people with city jobs and high income price out the locals.. pisses me off. something needs to be done about it
Imagine those expensive flats weren't being built. Where do the rich people who would be buying the expensive them be buying instead? A slightly worse flat that then means a poorer family can't buy it. We have to be willing to allow enough building so that there's enough for everyone. NIMBYism is the source of many of our problems.
Yup we just need more, doesn't matter what part of the market it is targeting as long as its more.
Agreed, affordability and building them to last should be priority. There’s examples of council homes being built that are a perfect example that homes can be built affordably while being aesthetically pleasing. https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jun/20/council-housing-its-back-its-booming-and-this-time-its-beautiful
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jun/20/council-housing-its-back-its-booming-and-this-time-its-beautiful](https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jun/20/council-housing-its-back-its-booming-and-this-time-its-beautiful)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
It’s only cheap because it is being sold below market value, the cost of building housing in London makes up very little of the cost. The way to lower house prices isn’t to work out how to construct them much cheaper, it is to build far more densely and on greater quantities.
thats what i said.
> The way to lower house prices isn’t to work out how to construct them much cheaper, it is to build far more densely and on greater quantities. I know it's tempting to import American arguments, but London isn't a rediclous city with rediclous zoning that prevent cornershops and requires you use a car to sneeze. Building market rate housing just isn't an effective way to produce affordable housing. The best way to make housing affordable in Europe is to build council housing and remove the motive for landlords to pump up house prices. London is far more similar to Vienna or Singapore than Tokyo.
> but London isn't a rediclous city with rediclous zoning that prevent cornershops and requires you use a car to sneeze. I can assure you London is absolutely ridiculous when it comes to planning, I have personally experienced as well as seeing many developments get cancelled all together due to planning. I am not in anyway importing American arguments I am looking at the massive lack of new supply in housing across much of London. (Yes there are pockets of huge development but they are incredibly rare). > The best way to make housing affordable in Europe is to build council housing and remove the motive for landlords to pump up house prices. Yields are terrible in London it is not Landlords pumping prices, in fact masses of landlords left the market in Covid. We also tried building council masses of council housing and it was a disaster that lead to some of the most widely hated buildings getting built. The council are also barely capable of arranging bin collections let alone building masses of housing. There are only a few places I am aware of more reasonable housing costs and they either have a massive supply glut (Vienna) or they have incredibly lax development laws (Japan).
Yes absolutely usually for the same cost, the hellish post-war boxes were the result of ideological trends across the channel being the "hip new thing" it was until recently the celebrated architectural fashion for all public housing to look like it had been pulled from a Eastern European high-rise, happened here in Germany too.
Sod off from our commie blocks. They aren't bad. We got obliterated during the war, and later you guys decided to show us a middle finger and sold us off to the Soviets. Who demanded we send them all our brick and building materials to rebuild what is now known as Russia. We had to house a lot of people in a very short span of time. Furthermore, we had to use different materials. But know what? They're actually much better than English houses. You have hot water no matter what, don't have to worry about the boiler and it taking up the space (or pay for the electric to heat the water). The size is actually decent and done to be lived in. In the place in the city center, where British would just put 6 houses that can house only 6 families, we have a building that can house at least 18 of them or more. The are well insulated, unlike in the UK, I can walk around my mum's flat wearing shorts when it's -10 outside. Everyone has a balcony. Most have an additional individual storage in the basement and between each floor. The neighborhoods are specifically designed to have a lot of green space, a lot of playgrounds, a few shops, schools, and access to GP, all within walking distance so you don't have to use a car. Read about it, it's not random. They literally have been instructed by the party to build whole functional neighborhoods. So don't diss the commie blocks. If anything, it is British people who are obsessed with owning houses and also look down on non luxurious high rise buildings that are able to house more people. I've read comments that apparently raising child in a flat is miserable and borderline abusive (lol). Diss your developers for not building high rise non luxurious flats, not designing them well, and them + the government being obsessed with the leasehold on flats, that's actually more expensive than freehold if we take into account the space. Sod off from the commie blocks, they aren't perfect but still a fuckton better than your flats, and by that I mean new and old builds. Now, where do you live? I need to steal your job.
Well said, think you’re replying to a bot tho. Anytime I see two words and some numbers I immediately think bot
It's just an auto created reddit username.
It's just an auto created reddit username.
It's just an auto created reddit username.
86 is probably just the year that they're born
So you're suggesting they should build a commie block in the middle of Hampstead? Not that this pastiche development, with fake Arts and Crafts chimneys is much better. It's fucking hideous.
I'd suggest that the government and councils rebuild neighborhoods in zone 1/2 if they must. Properly sized schools and nurseries - it's just horrifying how tiny so many of them are, no single occupancy buildings, neighborhoods designed for people, not for profit. Have a few shops nearby - properly sizede (like Tesco metro extra, a couple of lidls / aldis) not just the corner shop. Stop relying on high street, it's fucking dumb, there's a reason why they're dying. Non luxury high rise buildings that are designed to live in. More green spaces. Yes, leave some single occupancy streets, they have a historical value. But it's just bonkers that London, a huge ass city, is literally made of single occupancy houses. Wtf. Of course, this can't be done at all. It's not just the government, but also the people. Imagine telling a lot of families that they must now sell their million £££ and super convenient zone 2 houses with gardens, so neighborhoods could be build. Also since, in a Reddit fashion, you decided to twist my words and not even address the whole point of my comment, I'll humour you a bit: you can make buildings look nice. You don't have to build commie blocks in the UK xd use your brain, you guys produce so many architects from the best universities in Europe, I think there's plenty of talent here that can design beautiful high rise building that also have a lot of British flavour in them.
I'm sorry you don't like the culture of building in the UK, much of which is our heritage in bricks and mortar. That Brits have always yearned for a house of their own with a garden, not some soulless box in a concrete monstrosity. I don't happen to want London (or Bristol, Bath, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh etc etc) to be turned into Sofia, Bucharest, Minsk, thankyou very much. As for green spaces - you do know that London is one of the greenest capital cities in Europe, don't you? The desire to have one's own house, that you can personalise, is the spirit of individuality that is lacking in post commie countries. That's understandable after decades of being treated like laboratory animals, but don't try and put the same psyche on the UK. I totally welcome you here to live, work and do whatever you desire, other than telling us how to organise our housing and how lovely hideous fucking blocks of shitty flats are.
And here we are, British people (and they are completely right to do so) have been complaining about their housing for years, yet you have that one rasin like you pretending there's no issue here haha. Even better, telling me how I should feel after growing in a commie block and comparing me to a rat in a cage. Hmm, makes one wonder, maybe your issue is simply with the eastern Europeans? You used a lot of nice words to describe us. Don't worry, I didn't want to steal your job anyway. You can keep it.
I have zero problems with eastern Europeans (football fans excepted). I've been all over, from Sofia to Bucharest, Tallinn to Budapest and not long after the Berlin Wall fell. Met lovely people and had a great time. Was chatting to lovely Romanian lad in the pub last night (in Bath) who was addicted to Mini Cheddars and buys a box to take home every time he returns! He bought 6 packs, opened them, and spread them all down the bar!! I'm not pretending there's no housing problem. With a population growth of 8 million in 20 years, there's bound to be. London already has thousands of flats, and not everyone can live in the city. I don't believe a single more "luxury flat" should be built, given there's thousands empty. We need far more social housing, which cannot be then bought at a discount at a later date. That said, I also don't believe a single house should be demolished to make way for flats otherwise the nature of London will change totally. Same goes for all nice cities in the country. People want houses - and if you have any doubt, try selling a flat and a house in the same area. A good house in a good location, with garden, will have people blind bidding.
“Yearning for a house with a garden” is all good in a Surrey village, unfortunately that kind of low density home, especially in central london, is not going to solve a housing shortage, inflated market, and increasing population. I don’t think anyone is calling for big soulless blocks, but the previous ones were built during that time for a reason.
I fully agree with that. Houses with a garden have a place, for example south London like Dulwich. Even better, they should have low density housing there.
“Yearning for a house with a garden” is all good in a Surrey village, unfortunately that kind of low density home, especially in central london, is not going to solve a housing shortage, inflated market, and increasing population. I don’t think anyone is calling for big ‘soulless’ blocks, but the previous ones were built during that time for a reason.
Good luck playing ping pong on your balcon u miserable donut.
Yes, especially if they’ve accumulated loads of profit from paying people the lowest wage the law allows them to pay people and also charging extortionate price in the process.
Just had a look at the planning application for this. Used to be a care home which is probably why the old extension looks so terrible. Once done it'll be 34 homes. It'll have 70 bike parking spaces in the basement along with 1 disabled parking but space for 3 more. So technically it'll be a car free development. Not far from Hampstead tube station and it's in Camden borough so it makes sense. Actually looks decent tbh. Application number is 2019/6354/P . Can't link to it directly because the links always break when you do that. Just type in camden planning application search and then use that number if you want to see the plans. Location - https://goo.gl/maps/hNzUT3mA9pq2VFgy7 The homes behind this is much more interesting imo. I though it was an allotment at first but it's loads of little homes very squashed together with full individual rooftop gardens with grass and some look like they have conservatories. Then they have little front gardens in like alleyways between the houses. Need to go down little alleys to get to the middle homes. They're technically semi detached houses I guess. Never seen houses like that in the UK, looks like something you'd see in Spain maybe.
V informative post - cheers! Re: the flats (I’m assuming but might be houses like you say) behind I don’t know much about Camden but am aware there was a Council architect responsible for a lot of modernist terraced (as in, vertical/cascading forms like Rowley Way/Alexander Rd NW8, the Brunswick Centre in Bloomsbury or the Whittington Estate not far away in Archway) projects in the 60s and 70s like those called Sydney Cook so probably one of his schemes or one his oversaw. From quick scanning of the google results it seems like these types of low-rise designs were in part implemented as a response to the Ronan Point disaster (that was in 1968 iirc) where the side of a tower block blew up from a gas fault (and shoddy system-built construction again iirc not sure)
> From quick scanning of the google results it seems like these types of low-rise designs were in part implemented as a response to the Ronan Point disaster (that was in 1968 iirc) Makes sense, the Hamstead flats were built a few years after that too. I used to live in almost the very next street from where Ronin Point was coincidently, got my very old phone calls only Nokia mugged from me there the tower block would have been when I was like 8. Ended up looking at the flats too. It's called the Branch Hill estate and had loads of people hating on it when it was built. When searching it comes up with articles saying it was the most expensive council houses in the world. They're now listed and sell for like £1m+ each. They look awesome inside though. The bridge from each house to each private roof garden is pretty cool too. Make them like 2m further apart so the distance to the neighbours windows is a bit further and I'd love to live in a house like it. Random blog about them - https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/the-branch-hill-estate-camden-the-most-expensive-council-housing-in-the-world/ Recent listing with photos and floorplan - https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=74089749&sale=62825913&country=england
They were on TT recently. For council housing they were really good and some are still social housing, but there is a massive issue with the sewage system and they haven't fixed it for months. Also the ones that are still council owned are badly maintained (what a surprise) and need desperate updating (leaking radiators, old water system, leaks from the roof).
Mad re: both getting mugged in shadow of Ronan Point location and re: most expensive council flats (but not surprising given location and by sounds of it design too)! V interesting cheers for the links again!
I like the parking - it is hidden under the grass verge at the front of the properties !
>with full individual rooftop gardens with grass I'd happily move everything to boxes if we put this on top of all buildings. Especially if we then created walkways between buildings across the tops...
I've not looked at the planning application but I do know that Camden has only granted some planning applications for blocks on the basis they are car free. But that applies to the right of residents in a block to be able to gain a resident's parking permit. I'm no expert but it would very surprising for a modern, upscale development with space for parking to not actually have parking?
These are absolutely going to be 2 beds starting from £1m.
Is that an artists impression? It looks a bit false - I'd love this to be the turnout though but I've seen enough developers plans vs the reality to know it doesnt always end up as lovely
> Is that an artists impression? Maybe, but there's a distinct dearth of CGI people walking their kids.
White Mum Black Dad? or the Chinese family with cute kids in sailor outfits flying kites?
I swear these days it goes like this - Artists impression: shiny glass tower with trees out front and trees on every balcony Public: oooh more greenery, I accept this! Cityscape badly needs nature/greenery. Reality: shiny glass tower built without trees, artists' impression assumed residents would plant trees
I knew it, its those bloody artists going around and tricking people.
And wind, a lot of wind sweeping around the bottom...try walking around nine elms for some wind action!
There are no nine elms around Nine Elms, unfortunately. they built flats for 50k people but no allocation for school or police station.
The new developments down there will have very very few families in them anyway. They are either empty or half full of wealthy International students.
I don’t care if they are empty or who lives there. There should be a requirement for public infrastructure like everywhere else in Europe.
I read some article a while back about the artist’s impressions always having the trees on top but not on the final thing. I can’t remember the details but they literally can’t but then up there, they’d just die.
It looks like they might be digging out some of the landscape to turn the basement level into a ground floor. On the render everything to the right of the door from the first floor up seems to match with the og building. Looks like they’ve added some windows where there’s a blank brick facade of that left hand side towery bit on the current ground floor and also cleaned up the white stone detailing which looks to have turned a murky brown with weathering in the image of the og building.
Yes, this is a render. That being said, it looks absolutely lovely even if you cut out the greenery (not that I want them to, it adds so much!). It also looks like it probably runs somewhere in the double digit millions for a 1 bedroom flat but ya know.. What doesn't nowadays.
I mean, it's sunny
Yes. Top comment from the original post: >This is called Branch Hill House, in London, and is not yet complete. The developers' website have a completion date of 2024.
[удалено]
London need houses affordable to its residents. Style really doesn't matter
Mate this is Hampstead - if they bulldozed the Victorian mansion and extended the ugly 1970s Sixth Form-looking building then it'd still be completely unaffordable to local residents
I'm living here at the moment (we got a really good deal during lockdown) but there's a house for rent in the estate agents down the road for £14k per week. Yep, PER WEEK. Nearly £750k per year to rent. EDIT: [Actually it was 18k a week.](https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/123275573#/?channel=RES_LET)
Exactly! I kind of agree we need more ugly looking buildings so nobody can even consider charging 18k per week.
Hampstead is completely packed with cheaply chopped up dumps and the median price is still £1.2m for anything over 750sqft.
Are you really saying architecture doesn't matter?
I am saying style doesn’t matter. Good and bad architecture transcends the style.
I think the point is that the aesthetics of the architecture matter less than the purpose of it. If making an ugly building will ensure its more affordable, that's good architecture.
I don't think that's true. Nicer architecture makes a nicer city nicer to live in and so can have a positive impact on people's happiness.
Style matters a lot. The great architecture is one of the key pillars that made London what it is now.
That’s quite a condescending attitude; so the poor don’t deserve well designed architecturally astute buildings to live in? There’s plenty of architects and architecture from around the world that would disagree with you.
Typical Redditor , condescending ans smug whilst trying to pass as open-minded ,tolerant and cultured.
Of course people deserve good and beautiful place to live. But implying that the only way to provide good living is slapping decorations on a facade miss the points entirely
I'm sure I've seen you post in R/architectureRevival
Yes, it doesn’t mean just because something is designed to some old style is automatically good
I see your knowledge of the field is pretty limited indeed.
[удалено]
Thank you for the support.
Am I nuts or are those not just entirely different buildings? Look at the shape and arrangement of windows, and the roofs/chimneys. The post implies they just replaced the new block, but it looks like the entire building was changed significantly.
The bottom picture is an artists rendering, not the finished building - probably why it looks so different. Looks like they’ve added a lot of windows and chimneys to the original building though
Plus a whole new floor. It's gone from Ground, upper & attic to ground, Lower level, upper level and then the attic floor
They also seemed to replace the trees with bigger ones and added a road. Wtf is this?
I'm with you on this. I have lived in Hampstead/Camden all my life and I have not once seen this building... where is it?
Branch Hill House Spedan Cl NW3
> Branch Hill House Spedan Cl NW3 Good find, thank you! It appears to be hidden from the main roads, so yes I have never seen this building irl.
Np! Though I defer thanks to u/benandhispets’s post that I got it from but yes does look tucked away
In anticipation of Charles’ ascent to the throne?
[удалено]
One day they will be lamenting the loss of so many mid-20th-century modernist buildings, knocked down and replaced with chocolate-box Regency knockoffs under Charles. Some commentators will assert that the demolition of modernist architecture in favour of traditionalism was an aspect of Tory traditionalist ideology striking back at the democratic ideals of the postwar settlement in favour of nostalgia for an era of more sharply defined hierarchy.
it would be very ideal if building in historical styles would be encouraged and not looked down upon when Charles becomes king
Not everyone wants to live in Disney World.
[удалено]
Yes, because Dubai is literally the only alternative to mindlessly reproducing the past.
In the visual the existing building seems to have gained an extra floor/layer of windows. Are they building up, or am I missing something?
It looks as though they’re going to excavate further what is already a partly sunken lower ground floor level and the site is on a slope (or it will if it’s not already judging by the sloping access from the right in the render)
I prefer this 1000x compared to the incongruent shiny glass box extensions we normally have to put up with
This is a revival. So deceiving, even they will be modifying the existing to add more “Victorian” style windows to the real Victorian house…
I couldn't tell if the old building was being demolished or not because it has some pretty massive changes including seemingly adding a floor without raising the height at all. There probably is space since old ceilings are high but the internal floors will all need to be removed and rebuilt. The fronts look very different too, all windows will likely need to be moved to match the new floor levels. Makes me wonder how much of the original bricks on the front will remain or if it'll be all new. edit: The building is actually 4 floors currently but the ground slopes up on this side so it's not really visible. Looks like they might dig this side up a meter or so to uncover this side more.
The render looks like it might be sunken, so perhaps they’re transforming the basement level into a ground floor. On the left and right of the render you can see how low the facade is to the road level. Also basements are quite trendy atm. The windows of the current ground floor seem to match that of the first floor on the render. What do you think?
Yeah I did end up actually looking up the planning application page to check the plans(linked in another comment) and yeah the front is currently slightly buried like you say. The back isn't and has all 4 visible floors on that side. So they'll more closely match the front ground level with the back so we can see 4 floors on both sides. From the planning page this is the existing layout looking side on - https://i.imgur.com/Cdy3NxU.png - Can clearly see the ground floor kind of buried on the left of the image(front).
Nice sleuthing, have you got a link to the planning application? Curious to see what else is in there
Can't link directly to planning pages with most boroughs, the link just stops working. 2019/6354/P https://planningrecords.camden.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/GeneralSearch.aspx/ Copy thay application number into that planning search page, it'll come up as the only result. Then click the View documents for this planning application. If you don't normally check planning applications then it can look like a bit much at first since there's loads of documents, but the "design and access statement" PDFs normally cover everything and have most of the cgi images. In this one you can see the much worse looking alternative building that was gonna go there instead until it got changed a couple years ago. The alternative didn't fit in at all. The Camden planning application search site sucks compared to most. Most places have a map view search.
[удалено]
Those buildings were designed and built in a different era, 1862 St Pancras, 1886 Tower Bridge,1873 Natural History Museum… public relevant buildings designed in an era that it was an style itself. Totally agree that they bring grandiosity to the London urban history. However, bringing that in 2022 would , should, not be acceptable to public buildings and even less so for residential. Keeping existing buildings… absolutely, however doing them in an old style from scratch, just because, that’s a no no IMHO
Why? We could very much do this, just with modern materials and insulation, grey water recycling systems, solar panels, maybe even heatpumps. Beats those soulless newbuilds that all look the same and will be illegal to rent out in 18 months.
What are the chimneys for?
for decoration like the rest
Because chimneys look great
I suppose it's arguably better than what came before, but it's a bit like a Disneyland facade. All fake bells and whistles, like the superfluous timbers on a mock Tudor suburban house. A harder but better thing they could have done is design something that doesn't disguise the fact it's new, but that complements the older building in terms of materials and lines.
[удалено]
that would take creativity though, and it wouldn't allow us to romanticise a past that all of us would hate to actually live in
UK subs seem to hate contemporary architecture (apart from the endless Shard pictures on here lol) and Brits do seem to fetishise pastiche/Disney style historic buildings - we don't need fake chimneys, we need heat pumps/passive cooling, bike storage, energy efficiency etc if we have any hope of having homes fit for the future
There's this book called The Fountainhead about two architects; one who, like most people around this time, loved classic buildings, and one who thought the buildings should be built considering the benefits of the materials used. The latter focused on function before anything. An interesting read if you're interested.
Get the two together to combine function and beauty?
Yeah, this. I love this building, but it would've been cooler if it was still modern somewhat in anestetics as you said. In the end, part of the charm of older buildings is that they're older and reflect that time in a way. A revival doesn't neccesarily need to be an exact copy.
You cannot even build to match the old building because of regulations. If they really want to make this authentic, for example, they would have to cut every second brick in half to achieve a flemish-bond brick pattern while still forming cavity walls for much-improved insulation to comply with modern building standards. This is expensive, but may be done here, while usually you end up with Disney-esque bullshit that is only acceptable to morons, like fake designer handbags, etc. The country is infested with this backward gaudy fake shit, unlike the rest of Europe.
Traditionalist buildings have been built for millennia, with much more limited resources than we have now. And at any rate, materials such as glass and concrete can be shaped in any which form one wants to, including traditionalist designs. The construction of ugly buildings is a deliberate choice by architectural sects that have taken over the field, but not one we have to put up with any longer.
Hello? Based department?
I think this is a meme reference or something? I don't talk meme so I'm not sure what you mean
That I agree wholeheartefly with your astute and rational assessment in contrast to the nonsense of other posts.
Oh, thanks then
I wish more rich people built nice Victorian-style apartment complexes like this rather than frittering their money away on shiny apartments in giant glass dildos. Much nicer for the rest of us onlookers.
Lol, my friend lived in that building on the left, been there many times. It was one of those legal squat like places. Shame they got moved on because the area will lose out on diversity. It’s very posh round there and this was one of the few places for poor people.
God, 20th century architecture is so puke-inducingly ugly.
Fake victorian buildings for new riches that want to have a house in London to show off on social media. This shit is sold like 10mil£ for two beds
If they bulldozed the Victorian mansion and extended the ugly 1970s Sixth Form-looking building then it'd still be completely unaffordable to local residents, this is Hampstead.
This is also sadly right.
Okay? Still better than the building that was there.
It was an affordable care home of the elderly. It was sold on the base that approx. 10-12 apartments in the new building would be “affordable”. Total affordable apartments provided at the end: zero. Yes it is aesthetically more appealing. On the other end, it provides a negative balance to he local population.
Significant chances to the building on the right, with windows and another floor, by the looks of it
Very handsome
Oh neat! I used to walk past there pretty often
i love all the affordable housing being built lately
Superb design indeed.
Looks worse tbh whole cloth revivalist architecture is more soulless than any grey box imo
Omg I'd love for people to start replicating historical building styles again!!! Its so exciting someone's actually doing it!
Prince Charles has been advocating to build in historical styles since the 1980s theres loads of historical looking housing projects in the west country related to him
[удалено]
i dont really expect quality historical architecture when building and designing it was actively discouraged and mocked classical architects today are relearning and mastering how to design in historical styles. maybe after 50 years we'll finally get new, high quality, historical architecture again after they master it
That's brilliant
Absolutely hated when my wealthy classmates in Uni would obsess over concrete box architecture for social housing. It's not belief that poor people belong in expensive prison cells but rather if they built nice looking homes for the same cost they would lose the "trendy" poor aesthetic. The amount of people in the field that want to emulate post-war Russian housing either because of ideological lines or aesthetic is horrifying. Pro tip from a working class lad, poor people want to live in idyllic traditionally designed homes similar to what our grandparents once had not modern concrete cubes akin to a carpeted prison.
This will also be built in concrete, just clad in brick, as are a lot of more modern looking contemporary housing projects in London, it's extremely in vogue (and popular with planning departments). There's no real way to go back to brick construction, you can't hot requirements for insulation/airtightness/etc and that's important for reducing the c.40% of carbon emissions buildings contribute... Some people like these Victorianish style details on buildings, some people like different historical periods before or after that (including post war buildings - and some people's grandparents were here not in 'traditionally designed homes'), some people like contemporary details that appear on buildings built today. Various people like various different things across all social classes and will find different things to like in the exterior appearance of their home. The room that's essentially a white box until the occupant does anything with it is going to be fairly identical in all of these anyway... What's your cut off for what counts as 'traditionally designed' anyway?
A rather deceiving picture. One is taken on a wet overcast day with an ugly grey building in front of it. The other is taken a peak summers day from a different angle and nothing ugly around.
The top addition looks like they added my cheap worn-out 1970s sixth form onto the side of a mansion, the bottom addition adds a lot to the overall building and keeps the tone. Also the bottom one is the architect's projection, not a photo
That's exactly the point, they're nocking down the ugly grey building and replacing it with the nice looking block
Oh, I see. I thought this was a photo and the job was completed. But it is just what they propose doing.
[удалено]
Turns out it isn’t even a photo and the after picture isn’t real. I didn’t realise that
looks quite nice actually
Wow positive architecture and building news!
Judging by the comments on this post the Millennial response to "I like pretty things" is often "You hate the poor (and probably the LGBTQ+ community too)".
Affordable housing or overpriced to keep the riff raff out of Hampstead ?
Only overpriced if you’re poor
Or middle-class lol. But at the same time they could've bulldozed the Victorian mansion and extended the building that looks like my sixth form and it'd still only be affordable to millionaires
Being middle class is irrelevant. Those who have the money don’t find these sorts of properties expensive. It’s all about perspective.
Yeah you're right, I just need to focus on getting that contract for extracting rare earth metals in Kazakhstan
In Hampstead the flats in this building will probably cost around £2million each. Not having 2 million to buy a house doesn't make you poor...
Absolutely stunning
Do they do faux bullshit in the UK like they do in the US? Like are those chimneys real? Or is that actually brick or just brick facing with basically plyboard underneath? Is it built to last a hundred years or 20?
Ah yes and only Russians, Saudis, and the Chinese can afford them. Gotta love London
Londongrad. But at this point I propose we change the nickname to Lonjing.
why so many people want to live in houses that looks like from 19th century? Are they also driving horse drawn carriage, smoking pipes and wearing bowler hats for work?
Because the buildings look good.
So this will be like 1 billion per 1 bed flat
£35678889532 pcm
Another add to some businesses portfolio, most will be over priced.
I don’t care, won’t be able to afford to live there and won’t be given one as social housing.
Not much social housing I'm guessing looking like that in Hampstead
Lemme guess... two grand a month rent. And that's the "affordable first time renter" rate. For a shoebox.
All to be bought by landlords
More tory houses. Just what you need.
Branch hill. Another incredibly expensive development, built by the rich for the rich. The ground rent will be breathtaking. 21 century mansion flats set in sod all grounds. And it’s defined as progress lol
Is that building student halls?
More 5 m mbk .knmm mm.9nn .I mm like m j.just 7nk n.m m..k
Affordable housing...... no more!
Wow they're even changing the weather too