Wed May 24, 2017 11:22 am
I went past the tower at Prospect Place the other day and that, for me, was the worst part of the development. I'm not being a contrary bastard for the sake of it btw. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I wish they would have built it as a taller version of the smaller 'bookcase' blocks which - at least from the Barrage - look very distinctive.
On the other hand - again on my bike - I went past Victoria Wharf. I hadn't been up close to them before and had always talked snottily about them being a terrible place to live as I drove past on the bridge. Up close they actually look decent quality although the pastel render has made them date quite quickly I think.
I haven't been past the Isis tower on the river on my bike or otherwise. I've only glimpsed it from afar so can't really comment other than to say my reaction to it has been 'meh'.
Radisson I agree - it is very elegant.
I like the Premier Inn (Helmont House) building in Churchill Way. But that was built in 1984 - 33 years ago. Which sort of brings me round to my original point. Perhaps its because they are more familiar or psychologically I/we just like older buildings more than new ones but do any of the newer talls match in terms of quality or visual interest the likes of Capital Tower, Brunel House, Holland House, Helmont House, Southgate House or even the University Tower?