Nominate St Appalling's for bad design award

[Islander 10]

It's too early to call. Londoners hated St Pauls (ie the cathedral in, er, London, not the office precinct in Sheffield...:-) for a hundred years. It was a foreign monstrosity on Ludgate Hill to them.

 

Good new buildings often attract negative reactions early on, because sometimes architects have to look ahead and not build what people in the street want now, but what future generations want to call their heritage. This does take a certain arrogance on the part of the profession and it is true that sometimes they get it wrong. But the alternative - trying to please all one's contemporaries - almost always leads to mediocre compromise in which future generations can feel no pride.

 

It takes time for people to learn to love their buildings. Who is to say the eggbox, a chunky civic fortress knocked up at a time when many cities expected government buildings to have things thrown at them, would not have gained hugely in public affection if it had not been battened off behind the appalling (old) peace gardens and condemned after just 20 years?

 

The replacement buildings are classic urban modernism, Mies-ian glass and steel that is simple and respectful to it's surroundings, without being self-effacing. If they are of good quality build and finish, and can hold their shine over the years, they have the potential to be well-regarded as courteous neighbours to the new open civic spaces that surround them.

 

I'm probably in the minority in liking the new developments in the area, but I'll bide my time...!

[nick2 10]

Well, Arundel gate is just down the road and we don't always have to give 'businesses' everything they want. There are some big 'businesses' out there that would happily dump toxic waste in our back yards if the planners allowed it.

 

Arundel Gate is a dump, if you were a high-profile company would you want your offices there ?

[RodimusPrime 10]

The worst thing about St. Paul's, apart from it just looking uninspired and generally crap, is that it blocks off the last bit of view from the peace gardens across the city, so whereas before we had a sense of open space, now there's just another rubbish square building.

[Islander 10]

The worst thing about St. Paul's, apart from it just looking uninspired and generally crap, is that it blocks off the last bit of view from the peace gardens across the city, so whereas before we had a sense of open space, now there's just another rubbish square building.

 

If you want open space, head for the peak district. Cityscape should be crowded and busy. Sheffield has had far too much open space. At last its all getting built on.

[nick2 10]

The worst thing about St. Paul's, apart from it just looking uninspired and generally crap, is that it blocks off the last bit of view from the peace gardens across the city

 

However if you walk round to the other side of the building the view is still there.

[chris@25 10]

If you want open space, head for the peak district. Cityscape should be crowded and busy. Sheffield has had far too much open space. At last its all getting built on.

 

Not for islander, the wide boulevards or Paris or Barcelona. And quite right too, they are terrible examples of urbanity.

[Islander 10]

Not for islander, the wide boulevards or Paris or Barcelona. And quite right too, they are terrible examples of urbanity.

 

I like your vision chris@25, but first things first! Those are great cities, which Sheffield is not - yet. They came to their boulevards late in life and whilst I am not advocating the pestilential slums which Haussmann's plan for Paris replaced (incidentally a vision of imperial grandeur which I don't suppose will ever be a part of Sheffield's outlook) I think that we have some stages to go through before we can afford such extravagance in our city centre... my point wasn't so much against parks, squares, etc., but that there have been too many undeveloped sites, now thankfully being built on. But the arguments in the press and here about preserving views everywhere, eg by not building the MacDonalds Hotel, seemed to me to be wrong for Sheffield: too many views, not enough economically active buildings.

[firecracker 10]

It's too early to call. Londoners hated St Pauls (ie the cathedral in, er, London, not the office precinct in Sheffield...:-) for a hundred years. It was a foreign monstrosity on Ludgate Hill to them.

And most of the buildings in Sheffield look as if they were designed by David Blunketts guide dog.

[chris@25 10]

I like your vision chris@25, but first things first! Those are great cities, which Sheffield is not - yet. They came to their boulevards late in life and whilst I am not advocating the pestilential slums which Haussmann's plan for Paris replaced (incidentally a vision of imperial grandeur which I don't suppose will ever be a part of Sheffield's outlook) I think that we have some stages to go through before we can afford such extravagance in our city centre... my point wasn't so much against parks, squares, etc., but that there have been too many undeveloped sites, now thankfully being built on. But the arguments in the press and here about preserving views everywhere, eg by not building the MacDonalds Hotel, seemed to me to be wrong for Sheffield: too many views, not enough economically active buildings.

 

Well I'd agree with that, but that's not to say that a lot of Sheffield's centre doesn't suffer from a ramshackle approach. The new 'square' at the back of St Paul's place for example is laughably small, pointless really. I understand there will have been all sorts of commercial issues but for me a taller office building set further back so the square was bigger would have been more sensible. And the monolith along Flat St could be replaced by a few smaller buildings and reopening a road route to Arundel Gate (traffic free perhaps) between them to open the space. Rather than a wee smelling set of steps.