To Fix London House Prices, We Should Learn From The 1930s

[muppet]

Originally Posted by biguc

I was actually thinking that, if anything, Edmonton and Minneapolis were probably the ones biting London, not the other way around. Now London catches shit for looking too much like the imitators. How the world turns.

I think that's what's pissing me off a little too much. I've seen these styles literally grow over 30 years from the industrial heritage while living here. Then people see them the first time and they assume its copied yesterday, from their own backyard.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Indeed. After all, these artificial town centers and pedestrian malls you see all over the place are just modernized, Americanized simulacrums of European urbanity. Seeing an imitation of an imitation popping up in the place where the real thing originates is precisely what is so jarring about it!

The real thing never went away. We don't call them pedestrian malls, we call them streets and squares. We're not copying North America.

If you want copies of North America I would head for genuinely covered malls from the 80s/90s (not to be confused with historic arcades) and glass skyscraper districts (though once again arguable as to ownership of the International Style) like Canary Wharf, its plan built by a Canadian firm in the 80s, whose centrepoint is One Canada Square -clue's in the name.

The original plan:



Although the firm went bust within the decade, and the plan got rehashed to death, the district still looks like a slice of NA -notably the grid plan -it makes the blocky buildings face the same way.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by muppet

The real thing never went away. We don't call them pedestrian malls, we call them streets and squares. We're not copying North America.

And yet, this thing exists:

Resistance is futile

[muppet]

Once again, how is that a copy of NA?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by muppet

The real thing never went away. We don't call them pedestrian malls, we call them streets and squares. We're not copying North America.

If you want copies of North America I would head for genuinely covered malls from the 80s/90s (not to be confused with historic arcades) and glass skyscraper districts (though once again arguable as to ownership of the International Style) like Canary Wharf, its plan built by a Canadian firm in the 80s, whose centrepoint is One Canada Square -clue's in the name.

The original plan:



Although the firm went bust within the decade, and the plan got rehashed to death, the district still looks like a slice of NA -notably the grid plan -it makes the blocky buildings face the same way.

Canary Wharf turned out quite sexy imo

[muppet]

Yep, it's also gridded by docks and canals that reinforce the grid plan, which makes for some cool serendipity.

[nito]

Architecture has to a degree become globally homogenous; supply chains, architectural and engineering practices span the planet, so we should not be too surprised that the lines become blurred. I suspect if you did a blind test of new builds (without the context of surrounding buildings, streetscape, skyline, etc…) most people would struggle to identify the city/country except for a few period recreations or stand-out projects.

Canary Wharf is an interesting development; clearly taking aspects of the North American CBD grid and urban design cues, even having Pelli siblings across the pond, but the docks, and the side-lining of vehicular traffic gives it a different perspective.

Originally Posted by badrunner

You wouldn't want to copy and paste it into Paris or Brussels though. And it's not about any particular building or individual style of architecture, it's the overall style of development that is North American. European cities are nothing if they are not organic. It's a key distinguishing feature compared to American cities. And yet here you have a master planned megaproject - a city within a city, with a fake town center and fake retail streets (what we'd call pedestrian malls here). It just screams generic North American "mixed use project," but perhaps that's what most of London will end up looking like in the future.

For context, Wembley is a triangular site surrounded by railways on two sides, and historically dominated by swathes of concrete and industrial sheds. Beyond the railways and A479 road, the area is dominated by semi-detached/terrace housing. There was and is little to integrate with, so the whole site was essentially a clean slate for developers and architects to work with. That of course lends itself to designs that most would probably not consider ‘London’, and others that do (the new London vernacular). The aerial picture you posted later (post #83) is the masterplan outline which doesn’t show much in the way of actual building style, cladding, etc…

A key differentiator of a development like Wembley compared to North American projects will be the primary focus around the pedestrian, cyclist and public transport provision.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by muppet

So it sounds like to me, it's okay for North America to have 'generic' work (and when people claim generic they show pics of high end contemporary infill), but not for London. Neither is it okay for London to create new districts, which btw it's been doing throughout the modern era, and how much of the Victorian city was built too.

It's okay for both places, because that's just what large-scale modern development looks like right now. And it's not a bad look either - a lot of those developments look great. Let's just not pretend that there's anything original or uniquely London about it either.

That's also not to say that there aren't also new builds informed by the local vernacular. They just tend to be smaller boutique projects (as is also the case in most cities):


https://www.dezeen.com/2019/12/02/co...errace-london/


https://www.dezeen.com/2020/06/26/sp...ennedytwaddle/


https://www.dezeen.com/2019/06/25/vi...on-apartments/


https://www.dezeen.com/2020/04/15/pe...-road-housing/


My point here being that most unique, vernacular-type architecture happens at the smaller scale - mainly houses and small infill apartment buildings. High-rises and neighbourhood regeneration developments tend to be more generic. And in the Anglosphere, most of our growth comes from the latter; while in some other places it may be the opposite that's the case.

Originally Posted by muppet

^Case in point, I could decry these developments as being generic because they're the styles drawn up in London a decade ago. How disappointing. It has no place in North America. They need to come up with something else.

Exactly, that's the point - they're generic 21st century urban developments. Who did it first? Hard to say, but it doesn't even matter at this point because those styles have been brought around the world and back so many times that they've become globalised (ie. the opposite of a local vernacular). They would fit in in any one of dozens of cities. And why wouldn't they? Architectural trends are a pretty global phenomena.

[muppet]

That's exactly my point, 'generic' architecture is generic because it is everywhere.

Let's entirely forget London's been doing that style for 30 years ̶N̶e̶w̶ ̶L̶o̶n̶d̶o̶n̶ ̶V̶e̶r̶n̶a̶c̶u̶l̶a̶r̶ - you still can't point your finger at London as it being out of place. Neither is it merely a copy of a North American style -as if the presumption being that everything modern is. I seriously think sometimes NAmericans feel they have ownership of everything contemporary, like I dunno, seeing a gym in Paris, or a health food shop, or a plate glass skyscraper, or a new district with midrises. Purely because they've seen it on their own shores, it musta been there first right, and you're all copying it?? I realise most people don't think that way, but it's annoying if it does crop up like that every now and then.

1. Contemporary styles belong everywhere and nowhere equally, no one has ownership -arguably Japan, Morocco and Germany could lay claim, tenuously, but we live in a globalised world.
2. It's not sourced from North America, do the research not the assumption.

Humph, anyhoo, I think maybe we should move the argument on, even I'm getting bored of it.

PS Those pics scream London to me btw (though of course they could be planted elsewhere, some of them look Mediterranean), the traditional yellow scrubbed brick, slate grey, crosshatching brickwork and randomised windows are big tropes.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by muppet

That's exactly my point, 'generic' architecture is generic because it is everywhere.

Let's entirely forget London's been doing that style for 30 years ̶N̶e̶w̶ ̶L̶o̶n̶d̶o̶n̶ ̶V̶e̶r̶n̶a̶c̶u̶l̶a̶r̶ - you still can't point your finger at London as it being out of place. Neither is it merely a copy of a North American style -as if the presumption being that everything modern is. I seriously think sometimes NAmericans feel they have ownership of everything contemporary, like I dunno, seeing a gym in Paris, or a health food shop, or a plate glass skyscraper, or a new district with midrises. Purely because they've seen it on their own shores, it musta been there first right, and you're all copying it?? I realise most people don't think that way, but it's annoying if it does crop up like that every now and then.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing in reverse though? That because you're used to seeing them in London they must therefore have originated in London?

I don't think anyone even said that they're specifically North American styles, just that they're generically global styles that would be as at home in North America as they are in the UK. You're turning it into a bit of an "ignorant American" strawman.

PS Those pics scream London to me btw (though of course they could be planted elsewhere, some of them look Mediterranean), the traditional yellow scrubbed brick, slate grey, crosshatching brickwork and randomised windows are big tropes.

Yeah, that's cause those last four were - as noted - examples of a modern London vernacular.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by muppet

you still can't point your finger at London as it being out of place. Neither is it merely a copy of a North American style -as if the presumption being that everything modern is.

No, not everything modern. I'm afraid you're really not seeing the bigger picture here.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Isn't that exactly what you're doing in reverse though? That because you're used to seeing them in London they must therefore have originated in London?

I don't think anyone even said that they're specifically North American styles, just that they're generically global styles that would be as at home in North America as they are in the UK. You're turning it into a bit of an "ignorant American" strawman.

No I think you'll need to re-read my posts. From the first I've mentioned I dont know whether 'London's been exporting them or copying them', but what I can say it definitely looks like local vernacular and history in the form that it takes, and in the history of its evolution (here) for the past few decades. My point is this international style at least sits in a frame here locally, it would be doubly wrong to consider it out of place. This doesn't mean it's from London, but in London it's looking apt, and has been for longer. Don't point one's finger at it (not talking about you personally).


Correct me if I'm misconstruing this:

"Looks like some generic North American style development, the kind of project you'd see in a Canadian development thread or something. It's a pity. "

"Yeah all that looks generically North American, is what I'm saying. It doesn't say London. It says Edmonton or Minneapolis. "


"it's the overall style of development that is North American"

"And yet here you have a master planned megaproject - a city within a city, with a fake town center and fake retail streets (what we'd call pedestrian malls here). It just screams generic North American "mixed use project," but perhaps that's what most of London will end up looking like in the future."


"Seeing an imitation of an imitation popping up in the place where the real thing originates is precisely what is so jarring about it! "

[muppet]

Originally Posted by badrunner

No, not everything modern. I'm afraid you're really not seeing the bigger picture here.

What's the bigger picture?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by muppet

Correct me if I'm misconstruing this:

"Looks like some generic North American style development, the kind of project you'd see in a Canadian development thread or something. It's a pity. "

"Yeah all that looks generically North American, is what I'm saying. It doesn't say London. It says Edmonton or Minneapolis. "


"it's the overall style of development that is North American"

"And yet here you have a master planned megaproject - a city within a city, with a fake town center and fake retail streets (what we'd call pedestrian malls here). It just screams generic North American "mixed use project," but perhaps that's what most of London will end up looking like in the future."


"Seeing an imitation of an imitation popping up in the place where the real thing originates is precisely what is so jarring about it! "

Fair enough. I guess some people really were saying that. I'd disagree with that beyond it looking interchangeable with a lot of North American (and South American and Australian and Asian and European) development though.

Anyway, I don't mean to pile on London. The architectural quality of new builds there is generally a step or two above that of most North American cities. And there are still a ton of fantastic local architects working on smaller projects that do build in an interesting local vernacular.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by muppet

What's the bigger picture?

Perhaps if you weren't so insular in your thinking you could see it. You seem overly annoyed at the suggestion that anything in London can look generically North American. Well, I've seen a million different renders that look exactly like that Wembley project, so it's generic and familiar to me, and to many other NA based urban enthusiasts, though it may not be to you. And yeah, that style of mixed-use, faux-urban megadevelopment does originate in the US, obviously. It wasn't invented in London 30 years ago (lol). But I do think it's funny how you're trying to claim it, when I consider it to be utter urban schlock.

Anyway, you're taking all this the wrong way. There's no need to be offended. There's nothing wrong with having a little North America in your back yard mate. Just enjoy the urban goodness

[muppet]

^Try it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+...w=1696&bih=798

[muppet]

And that Wembley project is generic over here too fer Chrissakes, it's like a rash across the country since the noughties and is quite tired. It is not 'unfamiliar'.


I would hesitate to say it started in London, I honestly wouldn't know -but over here it's known as a local vernacular. It's been about since the noughties, and has a charted evolution from the warehouse conversions started in the 80s. At the end of the day it fits in with the history before it, and it looks local.

If you want the 80s (warehouse conversions plus new builds), these are the kind of streetscapes that started it off (here) anyhoo:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.50...7i16384!8i8192

If you continue down, you can literally see the style emerging, this whole area (Wapping) was redeveloped in the 80s and 90s

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.50...7i16384!8i8192


In 2011 someone wrote a sourcebook after noticing the previous year many categories up for the RIBA awards had started unifying the same look, which of course had been extant for a number of years already (plus you'll find local brick modernism/ warehouse conversions all the way back to well, modernism):


https://www.urbandesignlondon.com/li...acular-housing

Fast forward a decade and the Wembley project looks dated due to how slow they've been building -one of the most delayed projects in the city for a whole slew of reasons (since 2005). The current plan is from 6-7 years ago. That look has kinda moved on now because it's so done to death in the country, and is frankly a bit boring.

From this



to this:

[muppet]

Although it's not all bricks, in West London they've been doing it all in stucco and the local detailing from that end of town. It resembles the kind of thing you see in Moscow and Berlin these days -another vernacular entirely (not NLV), although it also pays heed to the local materials and history.


https://www.buildington.co.uk/images...2.30722286.jpg


https://wetherell.co.uk, www.charlespearce.co.uk


https://media.onthemarket.com, https://techrete.com

https://d224eigjcmsomk.cloudfront.ne...ming_20574.jpg

[badrunner]

I'm not sure what you think those pictures are supposed to prove. You keep focusing on window trim and brick finishes, as if this was an architectural critique, when I've made clear that it's more about urban format and development patterns. You know, big picture stuff...

[Omaharocks]

badrunner, I think I get the point you're trying to make, but the projects Muppet is showing are greenfield/blank slate, not small scale infill, where the cost of designing locally integrated buildings is more feasible.

Muppet has done a good job at showing projects where London has put a local stamp/vernacular on the globalist style, which many places strive to do, but London a bit better than others.

These styles (either the architecture or urban design) did not originate in North America - that's been the predominate greenfield/new outer urban format in Europe and the UK going back at least as long as in N.A. They both evolved into similar forms around the same era due to the same global forces of economics, vehicle ownership, buyer demand...

Some of the examples you've mentioned, particularly Minneapolis, also happen to be of the few cities that have incorporate similar elements (cream brick is popular in the upper midwest). But outside of the Twin Cities, Milwaukee, and perhaps a few others with a history of light brick/industrial lofts/urban waterways, you won't actually find many other cities with examples that are very similar, just sort of similar, and that's what muppet is trying to say, I think.

Interestingly, you can see an evolution into something more locally representative in London. The development that muppet posted that was built in the early 2000s was very similar to the design and quality of stuff being built in most of the U.S. now. But the U.S., for the most part, is about 10-20 yrs behind.