Architecture Here and There

I feel fairly confident in saying America is for the better by virtue the prince's absense.

Because ... ? Eh, Jacob?

I think that it is worth noting that the proposed terry scheme deliver 1 fourth of the housing that the proposed Lord Rodgers would and i considerably weaker in terms urban planning due to the inflexibility of his neo-classical style, which is out dated and inappropriate in London.

As for the princes involvement it is truly undemocratic as Planning is undertaken by representatives elected by the public whom will not by a single un-elected man whom belives that he holds a position of power for no reason other than the mistake of his birth.

As for the Terry scheme we only have to look at Pounbury and examples of his work such as the Richmond riverside development to see the dull and lifeless quality of the urban design and the ill conceived and poorly detailed building that we can expect.

Bongo's gushing attempt to identify the "urban planning" of Roger's painstakingly concocted scheme for Chelsea as the key to its supposed superiority over Terry's five-minute napkin sketch reveals his or her aching lack of insight in the creation of meaningful public spaces.

Dropping a bunch of conspicuously technological boxes onto a site, rotating them all a little here and there for kicks, and then leaving an open swathe of "green space" where the apartment shoeboxes sort-of come together is no way to plan for an "urban" site. The result would be, of course, an inarticulate jumble of different, equally meaningless and unpleasant semi-spaces that are ill-defined by the surrounding architecture and totally empty 99% of the time.

From space--the place from which Rogers' cheezy and frankly suburban design was concocted, in more ways than one--the techno-object apartment blocks and their amateurish "arrangement" might look nifty in a freestyle sandbox kind of way. But humans don't usually experience architecture from space. We experience it from the sidewalk (or in Bongo's likely case, the Interstate and the Internet), where the geometries and detailing of true place-making require the orderly application of tried-and-true and culturally universal design principles, such as symmetry, organic proportioning, rhythm, and the sensitive deployment of axial views. Rogers' scheme delivered on none of these things, and deliberately so, because like Bongo he has no familiarity with, nor regard for, a little thing called "the human scale," which has been singularly responsible for every great place ever fashioned by human hands, from Kyoto to Machu Picchu to London to Providence.

If for a second we could forget the techno mumbo jumbo style debate, and look at the master plan you’ll see that the Rodgers scheme provides a strong rhythm working with the existing urban grid which provides a permeability to the to green space.
I would like to point out that I am a London resident and so have first hand knowledge of the area and I feel that it is worth highlighting that the spaces in London like those proposed are in constant and heavy use not only by the local residents but also by the workers and tourists.
I feel that it is also worth remembering that London is full of classical architecture and the associated gardens / square, and that the Quinlan Terry scheme will pale into in superiority when in direct comparison to these again look at the Richmond riverbank development also look at the proposed regents park terrace scheme, when he has shown either a lack of understanding or disregard of the classical style in which he is attempting to build.
It is also worth noting that London is saturated with the type of private lease housing that is suggested by the Quinlan Terry scheme, most of which the London Housing Agency will not buy up as it is inappropriate for there needs. What is require is a scheme with high density, maybe not as high as the Rodger proposal, with the associated social housing.

If for a second we could forget the techno mumbo jumbo style debate, and look at the master plan you’ll see that the Rodgers scheme provides a strong rhythm working with the existing urban grid which provides a permeability to the to green space.
I would like to point out that I am a London resident and so have first hand knowledge of the area and I feel that it is worth highlighting that the spaces in London like those proposed are in constant and heavy use not only by the local residents but also by the workers and tourists.
I feel that it is also worth remembering that London is full of classical architecture and the associated gardens / square, and that the Quinlan Terry scheme will pale into in superiority when in direct comparison to these again look at the Richmond riverbank development also look at the proposed regents park terrace scheme, when he has shown either a lack of understanding or disregard of the classical style in which he is attempting to build.
It is also worth noting that London is saturated with the type of private lease housing that is suggested by the Quinlan Terry scheme, most of which the London Housing Agency will not buy up as it is inappropriate for there needs. What is require is a scheme with high density, maybe not as high as the Rodger proposal, with the associated social housing.

I would like to take this opportunity to address some of Nathaniels more generic points which he has used as a platform to make assumption about my self and lunch some kind of physdo insults.
Symmetry, organic proportioning, rhythm, axial views and the human scale, of course I’ve heard of these as they are architecture 101 every architect has. I have also heard of asymmetry and appreciate that an asymmetrically balanced composition is considered to demonstrate a higher-order thinking to many. Strong axial composition though striking can also feel imperial and dominating, the same goes for strongly symmetrical design, which surly contradicts your point about human scale.
As for human scale this value is the core of most good architecture and is achieved by creating spaces of appropriate quality and sequencing, it should not rely upon adornment, look at any great baroque building and the space would be just as striking and impressive with out the decoration though this does provide the lightness of touch to these otherwise heavy buildings.
I must say that I was taken aback by the statement that architecture is experienced from the sidewalk, as surly it is experienced from within or have we learnt nothing from the teachings of Palladio about volumetric design!

A few people round here are in the reinntg phase (see website below) it’s not always the cheapest way to rent but here it’s about 20% cheaper than a comparable private let and you get to find out what the place/area/neighbours are like before you finally commit to buy which could be 3 to 5 years to save a deposit.Upside is it’s easier to buy in stages ‘staircasing’ and you obviously need less deposit to start with. Downsides are that you can normally only ever own a max 90% which bothers some, prices may seem a bit steep compared to other new builds check their deals out 1st. May have issues selling on later. Limited places you can get a mortgage from.If you want a new house and like the ones on offer and can’t get one any other way then go for it. A lot of people don’t like the idea but then it’s usually the people who have/can afford to buy on the open market anyway.Try and go for one on a ‘mixed’ development private build/social housing.