Tate Modern: New Annex by Herzog and de Meuron

[lofter1]

Tate Modern Announces Plans for an Annex

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/26/arts/26tate450.jpg
http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gifhttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gif
Herzog & de Meuron
A computer-generated image shows a view of the planned annex for Tate Modern, the contemporary-art museum in London.
The Swiss architecture firm of Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron has taken on the 11-story extension,
which will allow the museum to cater to its four million visitors each year.

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/arts/design/26tate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
By ALAN RIDING
July 26, 2006

LONDON, July 25 — Tate Modern, which now says it is the most visited modern-art museum on earth, unveiled plans on Tuesday for a striking $397 million extension intended to be completed in time for the 2012 London Olympics.

The annex, which resembles glass boxes stacked up arbitrarily to form a 220-foot pyramid, has been designed by the Swiss firm Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron, the same architects who in the late 1990’s turned an abandoned power station on the south bank of the Thames, across from St. Paul’s Cathedral, into Tate Modern.

The addition will make the museum comparable in size to the Georges Pompidou Center in Paris and the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

The extraordinary success of Tate Modern since its opening in 2000 explains the need for more space.

“It was designed for 1.8 million people per year,” said Sir Nicholas Serota, who as director of Tate also oversees Tate Britain, Tate Liverpool and Tate St. Ives, “and now we have over four million visitors per year.” The Tate said that figure compares with 2.5 million visitors annually for the Pompidou and 2.7 million for MoMA.

Vicente Todoli, the director of Tate Modern, said that on weekends “we have people looking at people looking at people looking at art — not the best experience.”

The 11-story annex, which will be entered either from a new plaza or through Tate Modern’s vast Turbine Hall, will provide relief from crowding by offering new galleries of different shapes and sizes intended to accommodate installations, videos, film, photography, performance and other nontraditional art forms.

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/26/arts/26tate3_190.jpg
ODD Andersen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Tate Modern’s $397 million annex, illustrated above, is scheduled for
completion in 2012 to coincide with the London Olympics.

The opportunity to build emerged by good fortune: the French-owned electricity company E.D.F Energy, which in 2000 retained the southern third of the Tate Modern building as a substation, decided to release half of this space as part of its own modernization.

Assigned to the southwestern flank of the site, Tate Modern’s planned annex should give new momentum to the transformation of the south bank of the Thames, a district that was long abandoned and in recent years has benefited from the 20 or so cultural and entertainment institutions that now line the river’s edge, from Westminster to Tower Bridge. These include the Festival Hall, the National Theater and Shakespeare’s Globe Theater.

The novelty in the Tate Modern annex is that it will turn the museum’s face away from the river and toward the borough of Southwark. “The river is the east-west axis,” said Nicholas Stanton, leader of the Southwark Council, “and now we will have a north-south axis, from St. Paul’s Cathedral, across the Millennium Bridge, through Turbine Hall and south into Southwark.”

The museum’s role in urban development is one reason that the London Development Agency has been the first to invest — $12.7 million — in the expansion. And that is all Sir Nicholas has available so far. But while the extension will really cost more or less the same amount as the original conversion of the power station, he seems unperturbed.

“We are in England,” he said with a smile. “No one asks you to do this. We start with a very strong idea and a lot of people who are interested in helping. We don’t start with a war chest. We start with an ambition and a need. If it catches on, we’ll find the funding.”

The timing looks good.

In the late 1990’s, when Tate Modern was given $90 million from national lottery profits for its building conversion project, the Victoria and Albert Museum’s own planned extension was refused such aid, by all accounts because of opposition to Daniel Libeskind’s very modern design.

Since then, public resistance to contemporary architecture has softened.
And because Tate Modern is now the strongest symbol of London’s rapid emergence as a cultural capital, it could become a good candidate to receive more lottery funds. As for private contributions, Sir Nicholas said it might be possible to name some galleries after major donors.

For Londoners, though, the principal curiosity will be the annex’s appearance.

And here, Mr. Herzog and Mr. De Meuron have chosen not to be shy. In a statement they said that it would be “simpleminded arrogance” for the annex to dominate Tate Modern, but that it would also be “false modesty” to hide it behind the existing building.

Thus, as seen from the river, the top of the pyramid, or ziggurat, as one architecture critic described it, will be visible above the broad facade of the current museum. Viewed from the south, though, the annex will make a far stronger statement, with its thick glass windows and walls suggesting transparency and solidity.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/26/arts/26tate2_450.jpghttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gifODD Andersen/Agence France-Press — Getty Images
An illustration of Tate Modern’s planned extension, which
will feature glass boxes stacked to form a ziggurat.

“A lot has still to be defined, and that is on purpose,” Mr. Herzog said. “We are free to make changes up the end. This is a working strategy.”

Still, he and his team have already decided to make use of three large, circular oil tanks that were used by the oil-fired power station until 1961.

These will serve as the annex’s basement and even afford room for a new 400-seat auditorium. With light brought into the annex through various openings, a wide staircase sweeping up 10 floors will then provide an internal logic to a building that from the outside can look almost accidental.

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[Luca]

I despise deconstructivist buildings. They actually make me feel bad, just knowing they're out there. I would prefer a 1960s brutalist bunker to that. It's sickening.

[ablarc]

Deconstructivist?...Brutalist?

Bin Laden can be described as both.

Devil and the deep blue sea.

[Luca]

I don't disagree. My point is that at LEAST, this

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3749/p72801046io.jpg

does not purport to be artistic or meaningful or imaginative. Unlike that deabsed piece of frivolous ugliness in the original post.

[Fabrizio]

Funny how this deconstructivist stuff looks so common....audience pleasing...ooooooh....ahhhhh.....wow.

^^^The above pile is almost chic by comparison.

[Luca]

Exactly. Brutalism is reductivist, anti-human, confusing and nihilistic.
Deconstructivism is Brutalism without any trace of even simple-minded rigor or reason - but rather cheap sensationalism. It's a corpse with bright red lipstick on it, devoid of even the (admittedly dubious) dignity of death.

Did I mention I hate the proposal? ;)

Seriosuly though; it was bad enough having to read all the critics swooning as if that filthy plastic box plopped unimaginatively on top of a rather grim brick monolith were St. Peter's square. The peudo-intellectual fawning over those lumpen boxes is going to be doubly nauseating. A bestial parody of architecture.

[pianoman11686]

A bestial parody of architecture.

The essence of today's starchitecture?

[Luca]

If, as I suspect, a substantial minority of people seriosuly interested in architecture consider 99% of critically acclaimed new builds to beutter shit 9it's a technical term, that), you'd thinkt there would be a major niche for an architecture magazine that concentrates on other buildings.

[212]

i think the ziggurat contrasts well with the existing structure, and i bet there *is* an underlying logic to how the boxes are stacked.

the complexity of its form is very urban, and overall the design seems to allow for more access to the neighborhood than there is now.

to me it looks exciting.

[Kris]

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm/

http://www.hughpearman.com/2006/25.html

[ablarc]

At this point it looks like a pile of junk. A junky pile?

[czsz]

The setting is worse than the design; it will really awkwardly overpower the symmetry of the former power station when viewed from the Thames, and does nothing for it on the other side. It belongs, if anywhere, at some prow-like intersection of the Flatiron variety.

[212]

The setting is worse than the design; it will really awkwardly overpower the symmetry of the former power station when viewed from the Thames, and does nothing for it on the other side. It belongs, if anywhere, at some prow-like intersection of the Flatiron variety.


i agree that this would work well at one of our broadway intersections ...

... but it'll be good in southwark too. Because the addition's shape and materials contrast so thoroughly with the power station's ("pile of junk" vs. simple mass), i think the addition will look from the thames like a separate building, and the power station's symmetry will seem intact.

[ablarc]

Because the addition's shape and materials contrast so thoroughly with the power station's ("pile of junk" vs. simple mass), i think the addition will look from the thames like a separate building, and the power station's symmetry will seem intact.
Problem is, it will loom asymmetrically behind the present building's roof from the iconic view, which is from the Millenium Bridge, and axial. It'll send Bronx cheers sailing towards the smokestack/tower.

So the stronger the contrast the better the relationship, eh? Quick: someone put a mustache on the Mona Lisa!

Architecture by Versus.

Of pianoman's categories for contextuality, the only one starchitects choose is confrontation. That's Wright's stance with Guggenheim, but most architect's aren't as good as Wright. And that includes Herzog and de Meuron.

[Luca]

Here are some of the initial reactions from the fawning UK press critics.

predictable content, predictably stupid.

"as fascinating in its own ultra-modern way as a baroque church tower by Hawksmoor" - Guardian

"masterplan for a glittering future: Its new crystal pyramid is a contemporary baptistry...bursting out of the brick cliff of the original structure in a chaotic, energetic architectural explosion." - Financial Times

[ablarc]

^ These guys are seeing with their theories. They ought to try using their eyes.

[212]

Problem is, it will loom asymmetrically behind the present building's roof from the iconic view, which is from the Millenium Bridge, and axial.

so would any unrelated tower planned for the area behind the museum. eventually we may see a few of those ... unless you're suggesting that london should preserve the sight lines around the tate.

[Kris]

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm/images/tate_cgi.jpg

The view from the bridge doesn't look problematic to me. But, because it's flawed conceptually or in its execution, the thing doesn't work visually on its own.

[ablarc]

^ Looks pretty bad to me.

I'm not saying don't allow towers behind it, but there's a big difference between a tower a few hundred yards back and something so close that it reads integrally with the building in front, as this addition does.

[212]

^ the ziggurat looks ok there i think.
but on the bridge, that tourist's pasty thighs are frightening me.

[nick-taylor]

I think this is going to be pretty good - the area there is practically a wasteland and of no use and Zaha Hadid's Architecture Foundation HQ is going up practically next door

http://www.architecturefoundation.org.uk/content/projects/prj_329ms/images/zahahadid_X.jpg

Keep in mind that Bankside 1/2/3 (http://www.bankside123.co.uk/ Work > Masterplan > Aerial Perspective) is going to pop out from that view, while another 70m+ tower will be going up just to the right of that render of the extension.

By 2012 this entire area will be far more lively and it won't look so out of place. Remember - London isn't about uniformity, its about contrast.

[ablarc]

Bankside: checked it out, and it's truly dreadful, nick.

[pianoman11686]

^ These guys are seeing with their theories. They ought to try using their eyes.

This design is self-serving in its goal to perpetuate the belief that wacky, awkward architecture can be brushed off as idealogical experimentation, and subsequently acclaimed for its daring and innovation. The way I see it, this is real proof that the better way to go with projects like these is to produce a subdued, complementary addition - something that will unify and serve its ultimate purpose of expansion, while remaining focused on the interior, people-oriented layout. Piano's contribution to the Morgan Library is a good example.

It's times like these that I'm forced to ask myself if I agree with Gehry's approach. The difference, in his case, is that at the very least, his buildings are sculptural, and oftentimes, rise to the level of art. This monstrosity is a stacked mountain of hacked-away boxes. It's neither architecture nor art, but merely a perversion of the former to achieve a theoretical expression of the latter.

[lofter1]

People yelled and screamed about the initial proposal for Herzog & de Meuron's new De Young Museum in SF (replacing the much-loved but earthquake-damaged original).

Now that the SF museum is complete people are crazy about the building and the experience it offers.

[ablarc]

Now that the SF museum is complete people are crazy about the building and the experience it offers.
Is this really true? Might be truer if it read "some people."

Anyway, that building is quite different from this one.

Herzog & de Meuron are auteurs; all their work is estimable, but not all of it is good. Just like Alfred Hitchcock or John Cage.

[nick-taylor]

Bankside: checked it out, and it's truly dreadful, nick.Depends how you define dreadful. They replace a wasteland with something that adds density, will focus attention around Tate Modern more (new shops, more people, etc...) and creates a southern route into Borough and Southwark (in other words opening up the Thames and Tate Modern) and. I wouldn't say that that is dreadful, if anything it is a welcome improvement.

[pianoman11686]

I'm sure ablarc was describing the design, whereas you focus on the ultimate effects of the development. In your case, design doesn't play a factor; putting up anything new to create density and revitalize an area is 'good.' And while it's not without its benefits, it doesn't mean it can't be better. New York is similarly plagued by dozens of such developments, especially on the residential side.

I checked it out as well. 2 & 3 are on the verge of hideous. They look like something built 20 years ago that's getting an average-quality facelift. 1 is okay; it reminds me somewhat of 101 Warren, going up in Tribeca, though the street-level looks unnecessarily awkward. Overall, not impressive at all; surely an improvement over a "wasteland", but nothing to get excited about.

[lofter1]

Is this really true? Might be truer if it read "some people."


I didn't write ALL people ;)

Most that I have talked to / read about do like the new de Young.

But to give you a nod, THIS GUY (http://kerbot2000.wordpress.com/2005/10/17/de-young-grand-opening/) HATED it :cool:

[nick-taylor]

Design does play a factor, but we have to remember that buildings have to have a function and for most purposes this is the primary concern. I'm not too concerned about buildings like this which are mostly tucked away, the ground-level aspects are what are important and these are being pounced upon. For skyscrapers and high-profile events then naturally things like Bankside are unacceptable.

[ablarc]

...ground-level aspects are what are important and these are being pounced upon.
Ground level's not too great, nick.

[nick-taylor]

Is it? Its creating new pedestrianised routes to access more of the South Bank and Southwark. It could be the most beautifully designed building but still fail at creating new routes to facilitate growth and regeneration. By the time this is all finished, the trees have fully developed and the shopping and offices fully let, this area will be quite active and far more interesting than it is now. I find that a welcoming addition.

I think the most important aspect is that a new (and busy) corridor has been developed. Bankside 1 itself isn't too bad, infact I quite like the fins protrouding from the sides. Bankside 2 + 3 should have been more different but I like the wood/terracotta tiles that act as discrete edges along the facade. If Bankside 3 was in a different style then this would be even better, but the positive from Bankside 3 is the whopping atrium and rooftop terrace which will have some of the best views of the City and Canary Wharf.

An important thing however is that because of the high-density of the site, the developers are going to build Zaha Hadid's Architecture Foundation (look on the Bankside123 website to see views) and that is drop dead sexy.


Also remember that Bankside while not terribly exciting balances the Architecture Foundation and Tate Modern extension.

[ablarc]

nick, your problem is that you undiscriminatingly swallow and then regurgitate the hype in the press releases and development brochures. You believe the hype, the guys who put it out believe it, and so do the architects, developers and planners. But what if the architects, developers and planners are incompetent? Sometimes we on this forum can see the outcome better than they can with their tunnel vision. After all, the world's full of deadly projects, isn't it? Do you suppose their creators wanted them to turn out that way?

I don't think what we have here is destined to be a vibrant pedestrian corridor except during lunch hour when everybody's hunting for their fish and chips. It just doesn't have the right treatment to attract. Compare its ground floor treatment and general ambiance with, say, King's Road or Piccadilly.

[lofter1]

... the developers are going to build Zaha Hadid's Architecture Foundation ... that is drop dead sexy.


You bet .........

http://www.architecturefoundation.org.uk/

[nick-taylor]

nick, your problem is that you undiscriminatingly swallow and then regurgitate the hype in the press releases and development brochures. You believe the hype, the guys who put it out believe it, and so do the architects, developers and planners. But what if the architects, developers and planners are incompetent? Sometimes we on this forum can see the outcome better than they can with their tunnel vision. After all, the world's full of deadly projects, isn't it? Do you suppose their creators wanted them to turn out that way?

I don't think what we have here is destined to be a vibrant pedestrian corridor except during lunch hour when everybody's hunting for their fish and chips. It just doesn't have the right treatment to attract. Compare its ground floor treatment and general ambiance with, say, King's Road or Piccadilly.See this is where I think you're wrong - currently the Tate Modern lacks an avenue into Southwark which harbours many other delights that many don't visit. Also factor in the 4mn (and constrained by the capacity - hence the extension) that currently visit the Tate Modern and thats an awful lot of people who will probably hang around if there are shops and cafes, etc...

In fact with the extension, visitor figures could rise beyond all expectations and this extension might not be enough, either way that is a catchment area for such a development. Remember its free as well so many people actually spend their lunchtime and time after work in the area. I know this, because I've done exactly that and this will of course be an attraction.

This is all part of the larger masterplan of connecting Houses of Westminster - Waterloo - Southwark - London Bridge.

[ablarc]

The numbers are there, the need is there, the blight needs cleaning up, and the project has great potential. No argument there.

My criticism is limited in scope, and here its is, as succinctly put as I can make it: the street-level treatment I see in those renderings is unnecessarily sterile, and the architecture it's a part of is mostly junk.

The sad truth is that most new architecture in London has these faults --and has had for decades. That's why the nicer parts of London are mostly not the newer ones.

Don't feel bad; that's often true in New York also (though maybe not quite as much).

[pianoman11686]

Thanks for posting those pics, lofter. I see you're well on your way to mastering the Print Screen technique. http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

The building is definitely an eye-catcher, but its a shame that Bankside 2/3 provide such a dull backdrop, and will probably end up being reflected in the facade.

[nick-taylor]

The numbers are there, the need is there, the blight needs cleaning up, and the project has great potential. No argument there.

My criticism is limited in scope, and here its is, as succinctly put as I can make it: the street-level treatment I see in those renderings is unnecessarily sterile, and the architecture it's a part of is mostly junk.

The sad truth is that most new architecture in London has these faults --and has had for decades. That's why the nicer parts of London are mostly not the newer ones.

Don't feel bad; that's often true in New York also (though maybe not quite as much).I totally disagree, Paddington Basin and the areas around the Canary Wharf Tube Station are prime examples of where it has gone well. Going back further, Broadgate would be the significant other. In the future, Battersea Power Station, Lots Road, Wood Wharf, Stratford City & Olympic Park are going to be the new benchmarks. Naturally not all won't go well, but I suspect large chunks will.

As for the last comment that is highly subjective ;)

[ablarc]

...the areas around the Canary Wharf Tube Station are prime examples of where it has gone well.
Tell you what, nick. Take your camera down to Canary Wharf and show us this is true with street-level shots. No renderings, please.

.

[Luca]

The Tate Modern has already added some street life to the area. Building that ugly pile of junk behind it does little to connect it to Soutwark but we'll see. The problkem with connectivity is the power plant building itself. It's very big AND, some genius decided to build some puzzling curtains of beech trees around it in a truly odd way ( more diffuse grove would have worked much better, but it would not ahve been 'concpetual' enough, I guess).

The ochre building to the right of Tate Mod was developed as lofts form an old warehouse in the mid-1990s, I looked into a flat there. Shoulda bought.

[nick-taylor]

Tell you what, nick. Take your camera down to Canary Wharf and show us this is true with street-level shots. No renderings, please.

.Considering I don't live in London that isn't something I can do hop off to do.

I will be down there soon though. ;)

Had it been 5 years ago, then I would have agreed that Canary Wharf was a dump - it had no life because hardly anyone went there. Yet when the working population boomed, so did the weekend visiting population. I'm not sure exactly what your expecting though, but the area around the tube station is pretty good - nice landscaped area which is gradually being filled around by shops and cafes.

The area around the Canary Wharf tube station (and park above) and the West India Quay are my favourite spots. With Riverside South and North Quay it will only get better. :laugh:

Personally I find Paddington Basin to just be a tad better - absolutely love the scorpion bridge..

[ablarc]

Personally I find Paddington Basin to just be a tad better - absolutely love the scorpion bridge..
Now you've done it: you just volunteered for a second photoshoot assignment for your upcoming London visit!

[nick-taylor]

Doubt I'd be in Paddington ;)

But here is the bridge:

http://www.index2005.dk/Members/domubiky/communityObject/fss_download/img3 http://www.index2005.dk/Members/domubiky/communityObject/fss_download/img2 http://www.index2005.dk/Members/domubiky/communityObject/fss_download/img1


Another interesting bridge is this one, the Helix Bridge which is like a giant corkscrew and moves to allow canal boats through by rolling along.

http://en.structurae.de/files/photos/614/helix_bridge_5.jpg

[ablarc]

Now nick, those bridges are several cuts above the stuff you generally post. Dynamite!

The second bridge: does it roll up an incline? How else would it let canal boats under?

[lofter1]

http://en.structurae.de/files/photos/614/helix_bridge_15.jpg

http://www.lusas.com/case/bridge/helix_bridge.html

The Helix Bridge

Glass and steel retractable footbridge
Global modelling of stresses in glass, adhesive and cantilevered walkway
Localised modelling of key individual componentsThe Helix Bridge at the Paddington Basin development adjacent to Paddington Station is a retractable, composite glass and steel pedestrian bridge. It has a helical frame which rotates during deployment to give the appearance of it corkscrewing across the canal. AK Heavy Engineering (http://www.akerkvaerner.com/heavyeng/) used LUSAS to ensure that the proposed form of construction would not excessively stress the glass or adhesive bonds whilst operating under self-weight.

Redevelopment scheme

The Paddington Basin development is one of the largest urban regeneration projects in Europe. As part of a masterplan to restore links within the local community, a network of new footpaths; a towpath along the canal to Little Venice; and several pedestrian bridges, such as this Helix Bridge, by Marcus Taylor, and the Rolling Bridge, by Thomas Heatherwick were designed and installed on behalf of Paddington Development Corporation.


"Finite element analysis with LUSAS was essential on this project and proved that the differential movement between the glass and the steel helix was within the strain limits of the silicon adhesive."

Phil Snowsil, Senior Design Engineer, AK Heavy Engineering
Construction

The glass and stainless steel helix structure measures 7.2m long x 3.5m in diameter and surrounds a 2m wide cantilevered, carbon steel walkway which can be retracted to allow the passage of water traffic. The composite tube is fabricated from a tubular helix or ‘corkscrew’ formed from 140mm diameter Circular Hollow Sections to which are bonded a number of curved, trapezoidal sheets of toughened laminated glass.


http://www.lusas.com/case/bridge/images/helix_bridge_lusas_model_300.gif


Welded along the full length of the helix are six 80mm square-section transoms or cross members, which provide mounting points for the laminated glass panels. The 15mm thick glass is bonded to the transoms with structural-grade glazing adhesive and the joins covered by sealing strips. Analysis with LUSAS was required to ensure that the proposed form of construction would not excessively stress the glass or adhesive bonds whilst operating under self-weight.

Modelling and analysis

A model of the whole structure allowed global stresses and displacements in the glass and steel members of the assembly to be obtained and assessed. 3D beam elements modelled the tubular helix section and the transoms. 3D shell elements modelled the glass panels, the sealant running around the "circumferential" joints, and the adhesive used to fix the glass to the transoms.


http://www.lusas.com/case/bridge/images/helix_stress_sealant_300.gif


Elements representing the adhesive and sealant were easily isolated to enable contour plots of stresses and strains in these critical regions to be produced. A broken glass scenario, as well as a wide range of operating loads and conditions was also considered.

http://www.lusas.com/case/bridge/images/helix_von_mises_cantilever_300.gif

http://www.lusas.com/case/bridge/images/helix_stress_tube_300.gif


Localised models investigated stresses at selected intersections of the Circular Hollow Section helical members and Square Hollow section transom members. CHS wall thicknesses were evaluated and an optimum thickness obtained. Regions of individual transom members that required reinforcing were also identified.


http://www.lusas.com/case/bridge/images/helix_chs_testing_300.gif







http://www.lusas.com/case/bridge/images/helix_transom_reinforced_300.gif

[ablarc]

Thanks, lofter; nick's other bridge was at least equally interesting, but it seems to have disappeared.

[Fabrizio]

^^^that´s an ultra stylish group of buildings....whether they work or not urbanistically...who knows ...but at least in that photo, they are great looking.

[ablarc]

^^^that´s an ultra stylish group of buildings....whether they work or not urbanistically...who knows ...but at least in that photo, they are great looking.
You talking about the ones lofter posted?

[Fabrizio]

Lofter... post #44

Agree?

[lofter1]

From the angle in that photo the surrounding buildings create a good composition -- nice the way the facades have been treated to avoid an overwhelming mass looming above.

Seemingly the canal curves back behind the bridge -- nice reinforcement of that with the curved facade of the building on the left (and how the "bow" of that relates to the Helix Bridge) and the arc of buildings as they recede.

Can't quite tell what is going on a street level ...

[ablarc]

Lofter... post #44

Agree?
Agree.

[nick-taylor]

At street-level its still under-development. The entire area was until 4 years ago a wasteland of former derelict warehouses. A Richard Rogers tower was to go up along a section of the basin, but in the end a few towers are going up (Merchant Square)...

The main change I think won't be with the buildings, but the construction of Crossrail creating focus on the Paddington area even more.

One thing you wouldn't have noticed is that some of the barges on the canal are actual businesses - leased out to whoever wants to use them as offices. View here: http://www.workonwater.com/


http://www.paddingtonbasin.co.uk/images/paddington_map.jpg

1. Paddington Walk (http://217.204.34.159//index.cfm/page/20) – 232 residential apartments designed by Munkenbeck & Marshall, with a childcare facility and restaurant (under construction)
2. The Point – 225, 000 sq ft building of office space designed by Terry Farrell and Partners
3. Waterside – designed by Richard Rogers Partnership, 238,000sq ft building of office space let to Marks & Spencer with a food store on the lower ground floor
4. The Winding – 222 apartments planned with a health club and retail space
5. Grand Union Building (http://217.204.34.159//index.cfm/page/4) – 650,000 sq ft building of office space scheduled, designed by Richard Rogers Partnership and formed of 6 interlinking towers including retail and a cinema.
6. Grand Union Building residential – 250 apartments scheduled
7. West End Quay – 468 apartments, with retail.

Note that 1,2,3 & 7 are built. 4 is going to start soon, while 5 & 6 have been replaced by Merchant Square.




At Canary Wharf, a boat is an actual chapel, while the world's largest yacht hotel is being built to go nextdoor to the Millwall Dock at CW. Merchant Square by heights (150, 66, 65, 63, 52, 49 respectively):


Merchant Square Building A - RESIDENTIAL
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/4671MerchantSquareBuildingA_pic1.jpg

Merchant Square Building C - OFFICE
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/4672MerchantSquareBuildingC_pic1.jpg

Merchant Square Building B - OFFICE
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/4670MerchantSquareBuildingB_pic1.jpg

Merchant Square Building E - OFFICE (scorpion bridge is just further down the picture)
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/4674MerchantSquareBuildingE_pic1.jpg

Merchant Square Building D - RESIDENTIAL (the corkscrew bridge is just to the right, the buildings to the right and front are built)
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/4673MerchantSquareBuildingD_pic1.jpg

Merchant Square Building F - RESIDENTIAL
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/4675MerchantSquareBuildingF_pic1.jpg








On land to the north-west and just beside the Westway, approach tracks into London Paddington and the Paddington Basin is Paddington Central....another large development... Remember this entire redeveloped area is slap bang next door to London Paddington - ie thats a non-stop train ride to London Heathrow Airport on the Heathrow Express

Paddington Central
http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/photos/paddington_basin_arena.jpg

Unfortunately the website is under reconstruction, but it shows similar large development to Merchant Square, albeit not as tall.

[lofter1]

Thanks, Nick...

In a way this holds a promise for the future redevelopment of The Gowanus Canal / Newton Creek -- although those should be done in a particular way that works for their own specific areas / history.

[ablarc]

In a way this holds a promise for the future redevelopment of The Gowanus Canal / Newton Creek -- although those should be done in a particular way that works for their own specific areas / history.
What exactly does that mean?

[Jasonik]

Herzog & de Meuron's revised Tate Modern extension revealed

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm/images/main_view.jpg (http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm/default.shtm)
New Development of Tate Modern. Exterior view from the south at dusk © Hayes Davidson


17 July, 2008
By Rory Olcayto
(http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=725&storycode=3118445&c=1&encCode=00000000017d3842)

Herzog & de Meuron and the Tate today unveiled their substantially revised scheme, now in brick, for the £215 million extension to London's Tate Modern.

As BD revealed in this week's paper, the museum - which has so far raised just £70 million - will have to seek new planning permission after original plans for a glass facade were substantially revised.

Also key to the updated plans is the retention of the former power station's oil tanks which will become “raw spaces” for art exhibitions and performances.

A perforated engineering brick facade will now allow the concrete-frame building to glow at night, with terraces overlooking the City, according to the designs revealed by Jacques Herzog and Tate director Nicholas Serota.

The scheme, which will add 21,500sq m to the existing 35,000m space, has been reduced from 70m to 65m high across 11 levels with protruding “boxes” removed and a rooftop balcony added, echoing the top of Tate Modern's chimney.

Elsewhere the facade is punctured with horizontal “floor-high” window slots, with other large rectangular holes further exposing the concrete.

Herzog & de Meuron is said to have favoured a concrete facade but a planning consultant hired by the Tate advised that the British public would find this “too ugly”.

Speaking to BD earlier this week, chair of Southwark's planning committee James Gurling said: “They couldn't engineer the glazed panels to make it work with the building's design. A full planning application is now expected as the facade has changed considerably, but we expect it to still begin on site in early 2009.”

However, its green credentials have improved, with waste heat from a nearby substation providing most of the building's requirements.

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm/images/lookingout.jpg (http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm/default.shtm)
New Development of Tate Modern; public terrace on top floor © Hayes Davidson


Extensive documentation (models, plans, etc) at the Tate website (http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm/default.shtm).

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm/images/3d-plans.gif
Sequence detailing structural elements © Herzog & de Meuron

[alonzo-ny]

Much better looking and much more creative. Im so bored of glass.