The new Southampton City gateway has failed its building inspection

[buctootim]

 

Thats paint you can see, not concrete

[Wes Tender]

I'm with CEC and don't think it looks that bad. It is student accomodation and should be judged as such. What was stupid was labelling it as the Gateway to Southampton, which was pretentious. There are several arterial roads that lead into the City, the main one being the Avenue, which is quite a pretty approach from the M3. The approaches from the Windhover roundabout or from the M271 are nowhere near as nice and the Airport junction leading to Thomas Lewis Way is just another route into the City.

 

Mentions of the Spinnaker as some sort of comparison as to what Portsmouth has is laughable. How many students stay in that? Their student accomodation near their Polytechnic University isn't that great architecturally. But for comparisons to their "gateway" architecture on their main arterial route into the City, you would have the monstrosities of that long line of flats opposite the Ferry terminal. or that office tower block that they have never ever filled since it was built.

 

For better images of how it looks, there are several on this website, which recorded its development.

 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1590677

 

It is clear from that site that the green and blue buildings are on the interior of the site.

 

As for Brer Rabbit's claim to be an expert in what constitutes good taste in architectural aesthetics, that whole premise is called into question by his use of orange as a colour for his posts.

[Lets B Avenue]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11508168.Controversial_landmark_tower_to_remain_empty_for_a_year/

[Whitey Grandad]

Thats paint you can see, not concrete

 

The roof is concrete. It's one of my favourite buildings.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Thats paint you can see, not concrete

 

I'm sure there must be some kind of point submerged underneath this post - but I'm not entirely clear what it is.

[Wes Tender]

The roof is concrete. It's one of my favourite buildings.

 

Mine too. Incredible how it has survived for 2000 years and even now remains the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the World

[Sour Mash]

Does anyone have any info on this, heard that the building has not put in fire escapes through the floors and building control have refused permission to use the building from the 1st floor up. If this is true then someone has made an almighty cock up.

 

On the subject of new developments in the city, does anyone know how far the new development by Ocean Village is from opening?

 

And the refurb of the old Wool House building into a bar/brewery?

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm with Charles. I like it.

 

Probably best seen from the inside.

[B Rabbit]

This is good to hear.

 

 

Where did you obtain your 'informed and professional' opinion from by the way?

Watched grand designs once...read a book.

 

 

 

 

Concrete never looks good

 

Lies!

 

 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Lies!

 

 

 

 

They rather prove my point, really. That last one, the Tianjin Art Museum, is natural stone facade but still too rectangular and plain for my liking. I'll see your photos and raise you a:

[Special K]

On the subject of new developments in the city, does anyone know how far the new development by Ocean Village is from opening?

 

And the refurb of the old Wool House building into a bar/brewery?

 

Admirals Quay? Programmed to open December this year, i believe. But it's the same company that built the Gateway building. Don't know about the Wool House.

 

FWIW I don't think the Gateway building is too bad, nestled as it is between the flowers estate, McDonalds and Thomas Lewis Way. But I agree with the poster who said the biggest problem was giving it the rather grandiose title of the Gateway to Southampton, especially as it consists of student accommodation and a couple of shops. Very strange.

[Halo Stickman]

I quite like it but Mrs Stickman doesn’t, so that’s a resounding NO from our household.

 

But with regards to the name, perhaps it’s worth recalling that this project has been ‘downgraded’ over the years.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/southampton/8478065.Planned_landmark_tower_could_become_student_digs/

[aintforever]

I quite like it but Mrs Stickman doesn’t, so that’s a resounding NO from our household.

 

But with regards to the name, perhaps it’s worth recalling that this project has been ‘downgraded’ over the years.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/southampton/8478065.Planned_landmark_tower_could_become_student_digs/

 

The original plans don't look too bad.

 

So all the so called experts on here claimed it is a great piece of architecture when in fact it's a project that has gone horribly wrong and is a design compromised by lack of funds. :lol:

[Whitey Grandad]

The original plans don't look too bad.

 

So all the so called experts on here claimed it is a great piece of architecture when in fact it's a project that has gone horribly wrong and is a design compromised by lack of funds. :lol:

 

That's what I thought. The original colours are acceptable (to me at least) but what we've ended up with looks like a 15- year old has been let loose with a set of paints that came free on the front of a comic and I doubt that they will last as long.

[OldNick]

Southampton was bombed during the war and we got the boring and soulless Above Bar, the Germans rebuilt their medieval cities to their former glory. I know how I would have liked our city to look like now

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

That's what I thought. The original colours are acceptable (to me at least) but what we've ended up with looks like a 15- year old has been let loose with a set of paints that came free on the front of a comic and I doubt that they will last as long.

 

This curious British disapproval of colour and ornamentation can I suspect trace its roots back to the time of our puritan past. This era saw the great religious conflicts of the Tudor age result in any hint of colourful decoration being violently removed (along with the Rood Screens) from what were once gloriously colourful Roman Catholic churches on idealogical grounds. I believe this pervasive 'whitewash' attitude has seeped into British culture over time becoming something akin to a 'race memory' almost.

 

Our Victorian forefathers somehow managed to (spectacularly) shake this old prejudice off course, but the British are perhaps a innately conservative people and some of us seem to have reverted to type I'm sorry to say. Well I say that Queen Mary and Edward VI are long gone and we should rejoice in colour like many other nations do. Indeed, where does it say that our built environment must be dominated by dreary pale stone or brick-red structures? For that matter why does the tyranny of 'good taste' demand that so many of us insist that our cars be grey, silver or black?

 

Whitley - I think you really should change your avatar image to one of Oliver Cromwell. Now I'm not saying that you're old enough to remember the old fanatic of course, but methinks it might suit you better.

 

[The Kraken]

Not sure what the obsession with striking pastel is on buildings these days but it looks horrendous as far as I'm concerned. The fag butt looks dreadful, I'm yet to meet anyone other than the Emperor's New Clothes bods on here who think it's anything but an eyesore.

 

It's akin to the terrible new car park in Bournemouth.

 

[Goatboy]

This curious British disapproval of colour and ornamentation can I suspect trace its roots back to the time of our puritan past. This era saw the great religious conflicts of the Tudor age result in any hint of colourful decoration being violently removed (along with the Rood Screens) from what were once gloriously colourful Roman Catholic churches on idealogical grounds. I believe this pervasive 'whitewash' attitude has seeped into British culture over time becoming something akin to a 'race memory' almost.

 

Our Victorian forefathers somehow managed to (spectacularly) shake this old prejudice off course, but the British are perhaps a innately conservative people and some of us seem to have reverted to type I'm sorry to say. Well I say that Queen Mary and Edward VI are long gone and we should rejoice in colour like many other nations do. Indeed, where does it say that our built environment must be dominated by dreary pale stone or brick-red structures? For that matter why does the tyranny of 'good taste' demand that so many of us insist that our cars be grey, silver or black?

 

Whitley - I think you really should change your avatar image to one of Oliver Cromwell. Now I'm not saying that you're old enough to remember the old fanatic of course, but methinks it might suit you better.

 

 

That's all very well but the Gateway building is mostly a sh*tty tan colour.

[Whitey Grandad]

That's all very well but the Gateway building is mostly a sh*tty tan colour.

 

Most sh*t usually is a sh*tty tan colour, to be fair.

[Sour Mash]

This curious British disapproval of colour and ornamentation can I suspect trace its roots back to the time of our puritan past. This era saw the great religious conflicts of the Tudor age result in any hint of colourful decoration being violently removed (along with the Rood Screens) from what were once gloriously colourful Roman Catholic churches on idealogical grounds. I believe this pervasive 'whitewash' attitude has seeped into British culture over time becoming something akin to a 'race memory' almost.

 

Our Victorian forefathers somehow managed to (spectacularly) shake this old prejudice off course, but the British are perhaps a innately conservative people and some of us seem to have reverted to type I'm sorry to say. Well I say that Queen Mary and Edward VI are long gone and we should rejoice in colour like many other nations do. Indeed, where does it say that our built environment must be dominated by dreary pale stone or brick-red structures? For that matter why does the tyranny of 'good taste' demand that so many of us insist that our cars be grey, silver or black?

 

Whitley - I think you really should change your avatar image to one of Oliver Cromwell. Now I'm not saying that you're old enough to remember the old fanatic of course, but methinks it might suit you better.

 

Top stuff.

[The Kraken]

Top stuff.

Methinks the old boy is on a rather good wind up here.

 

I'll admit I fell for it at first.

[Halo Stickman]

 

 

 

Brixham harbour: Oliver Cromwell and the 3 colour palette police eat your heart out.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Not sure what the obsession with striking pastel is on buildings these days but it looks horrendous as far as I'm concerned. The fag butt looks dreadful, I'm yet to meet anyone other than the Emperor's New Clothes bods on here who think it's anything but an eyesore.

 

It's akin to the terrible new car park in Bournemouth.

 

 

I'm glad you brought this car park up because I drive past it nearly every day and consider it a excellent example of how the judicious use of colour can lift even the most mundane of buildings into something much better than it otherwise might have been.

 

You 'beige' types can argue for a dull monotone world all you like, but I'm voting for colour - the more the better.

[B Rabbit]

 

 

 

Brixham harbour: Oliver Cromwell and the 3 colour palette police eat your heart out.

Each individual building is one material colour and (assumed) all the same or similar material.... So a variation of a theme or language... All the same form and scale .... Put together, it makes a beautiful, picturesque sky line / streetscape. There's no mix of materials or heights... It's coherent.... Unlike the multi coloured , multi materialed, multi scale, shower of s**t gateway building !

[Goatboy]

Each individual building is one material colour and (assumed) all the same or similar material.... So a variation of a theme or language... All the same form and scale .... Put together, it makes a beautiful, picturesque sky line / streetscape. There's no mix of materials or heights... It's coherent.... Unlike the multi coloured , multi materialed, multi scale, shower of s**t gateway building !

 

Someone needs to cut that f*cking tree down too. Ruins it.

[B Rabbit]

Someone needs to cut that f*cking tree down too. Ruins it.

....and the church! Burn it!!

[B Rabbit]

Someone needs to cut that f*cking tree down too. Ruins it.

....and the church! Burn it!!

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Each individual building is one material colour and (assumed) all the same or similar material.... So a variation of a theme or language... All the same form and scale .... Put together, it makes a beautiful, picturesque sky line / streetscape. There's no mix of materials or heights... It's coherent.... Unlike the multi coloured , multi materialed, multi scale, shower of s**t gateway building !

 

As the acknowledged architectural expert on here I expect that you have read Albert Speer's memoirs. So you really should remember then that Speer conceded in his book that the near uniform height line, and grandiose scale, he had envisioned for the buildings of his reconstructed Berlin would have generated a oppressive effect that (in a normal non-authoritarian society) would be highly undesirable.

 

Southampton is (like most British and US cities) a dynamic constantly changing place that can never be frozen in time, as if it were a rival for Florence or Venice in all their authentic renaissance glory. Neither is it a pretty little Cornish fishing port or a Cotswold village for that matter. It seems to be that modern towers are perfectly appropriate in a 21st century city such as this.

 

I must add that for a person who chooses to write in orange your dislike of colourful buildings is more than a little puzzling.

[hypochondriac]

As the acknowledged architectural expert on here I expect that you have read Albert Speer's memoirs. So you really should remember then that Speer conceded in his book that the near uniform height line, and grandiose scale, he had envisioned for the buildings of his reconstructed Berlin would have generated a oppressive effect that (in a normal non-authoritarian society) would be highly undesirable.

 

Southampton is (like most British and US cities) a dynamic constantly changing place that can never be frozen in time, as if it were a rival for Florence or Venice in all their authentic renaissance glory. Neither is it a pretty little Cornish fishing port or a Cotswold village for that matter. It seems to be that modern towers are perfectly appropriate in a 21st century city such as this.

 

I must add that for a person who chooses to write in orange your dislike of colourful buildings is more than a little puzzling.

 

Does anyone have to be an expert to have the opinion that it's a pretty crap looking building and almost certainly not worth the money it cost to build?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Does anyone have to be an expert to have the opinion that it's a pretty crap looking building and almost certainly not worth the money it cost to build?

 

As a democrat I'm happy for everyone to have their say. Can you say the same I wonder.

[Whitey Grandad]

When it comes to architecture suddenly everyone's an expert.

[hypochondriac]

As a democrat I'm happy for everyone to have their say. Can you say the same I wonder.

 

Of course. I still think the majority who aren't experts would think it is a bit crap and what the public thanks is surely the important thing.

[B Rabbit]

When it comes to architecture suddenly everyone's an expert.

 

Well I am an architect

 

 

As the acknowledged architectural expert on here I expect that you have read Albert Speer's memoirs.

Nope.... and I couldn't care less I'm fairly confident i've read more architecural 'stuff' than your good self...but you never know I guess.

 

I must add that for a person who chooses to write in orange your dislike of colourful buildings is more than a little puzzling.

 

Colour is one of the factors, but isn't the overriding problem with the building... There are plenty of beautiful buildings that use colour tastefully. The issue with the building is form. The form of the building is disgusting... The architecture (ha!) is very confusing and the use of a plethora of materials and multi colours just adds to it being complete horse sh*t... It even has colour recesses to the windows which add further. It is far too much...just add it all in and it makes a mess...and it really does

 

I'm going to throw in some 'contemporary' coloured buildings... What you'll note with them all is that they have a strong, simple and well considered base to work with...a single material or strong form and the variation and enjoyment comes from the colour... Which offsets nicely from the overall form... It adds to it, not detracts.

The proportions and repetition make a strong language which doesn't exist in this w*nk piece tower with astro turf stuck to the side. All these buildings below are completely different by different people, but the ideas in each are strong because they have used colour correctly.

 

I'm not even suggesting I like the buildings or colours ....some i do, some i'm impartial to....I think they could be too vibrant... But the concept is absolutely sound... Simple base material and form offset with the colour...which completely opposite to the gateway project which tries to do everything....and therefore fails. Simple, strong form, clean material pallet, robust materials = good architecture. Simple doesn't mean basic... the simplest looking buildings / ideas are usually the most thought out.

 

That last building is concrete BTW @Whitey Grandad

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I like your examples of colourful buildings. We should have more structures like these.

 

However the 'chalk and cheese' deferential you draw between them and the broadly comparable 'Gateway' complex remains a mystery to this observer of our cityscape. To me the scale seems appropriate to the setting while much of the design is eminently 'simple' in nature.

 

Try explaining it again or show us a example of your own work and perhaps I'll get it.

[saintbletch]

Well I am an architect

 

 

 

 

Colour is one of the factors, but isn't the overriding problem with the building... There are plenty of beautiful buildings that use colour tastefully. The issue with the building is form. The form of the building is disgusting... The architecture (ha!) is very confusing and the use of a plethora of materials and multi colours just adds to it being complete horse sh*t... It even has colour recesses to the windows which add further. It is far too much...just add it all in and it makes a mess...and it really does

 

I'm going to throw in some 'contemporary' coloured buildings... What you'll note with them all is that they have a strong, simple and well considered base to work with...a single material or strong form and the variation and enjoyment comes from the colour... Which offsets nicely from the overall form... It adds to it, not detracts.

The proportions and repetition make a strong language which doesn't exist in this w*nk piece tower with astro turf stuck to the side. All these buildings below are completely different by different people, but the ideas in each are strong because they have used colour correctly.

 

I'm not even suggesting I like the buildings or colours ....some i do, some i'm impartial to....I think they could be too vibrant... But the concept is absolutely sound... Simple base material and form offset with the colour...which completely opposite to the gateway project which tries to do everything....and therefore fails. Simple, strong form, clean material pallet, robust materials = good architecture. Simple doesn't mean basic... the simplest looking buildings / ideas are usually the most thought out.

 

That last building is concrete BTW @Whitey Grandad

 

Serious question before you get too rampant, Rabbit...

 

...Putting to one side the utility of a building and it's functional value, and concentrating purely on the aesthetic, is it possible for someone to tell someone else that a building is ugly, or that certain colours work or don't work?

 

As an architect I understand that you have a trained eye, but what makes everything you've written here "right" (from an architectural "science" perspective) instead of just your, albeit highly trained and respected, opinion? You must surely present work to clients who tell you that they want it changed even though you "know" they are wrong and your are right.

 

What makes something timelessly "right" as opposed to something momentarily fashionable, but that will date quickly and age badly?

 

And what makes something that appears momentarily fashionable that is likely to date, but goes on to become the new standard for design?

 

Aren't we just talking about our opinions here? Corral enough opinions and you've got a verdict of sorts, but surely no one opinion is "right" when matters of taste are concerned.

 

As I say, serious question as I recognise that I have a defective colour/design gene. I have little appreciation for colours and colour combinations, as you'd instantly know if you looked at my t-shirt and sock combination today. To me colours seem to go or not go, without rhyme not reason. It's like it's some big secret that others understand, but is hidden from me. However, my brother-in-law, who is a designer, has explained to me that there is a science to colours that "go" and colours that "clash". And having used colours in software designs previously, I now use a number of sites that construct complementary colours for me.

[B Rabbit]

I like your examples of colourful buildings. We should have more structures like these.

 

However the 'chalk and cheese' deferential you draw between them and the broadly comparable 'Gateway' complex remains a mystery to this observer of our cityscape. To me the scale seems appropriate to the setting while much of the design is eminently 'simple' in nature.

 

Try explaining it again or show us a example of your own work and perhaps I'll get it.

 

Colour in buildings is VERY marmite. The only comparison I was making was the use of colour...and how it can be done very successfully if the concept and form of the building is solid...with a limited base pallet...which we don't get on this gateway building. Everything is thrown at it and it looks a mess because of it.

 

The idea (and I said this before) of the tower at the end of a vista is sound...therefore the scale of that element is fine... It's just delivered in such a poor manner and the use of many materials and many colours makes it worse, not better.

 

 

This...is a well considered gateway building (which I had a small hand in when much younger!) which we should all be familiar with...best I can think of locally!

Simple strong form, simple idea (wrapping plain and pushed / recessed glazed box on a brick plinth)... 2 materials (brick , stone (I think!)). Crisp detailing.... Not trying to be overly complicated to make a statement.... The statement comes from the strong form and wrap. The playfulness comes from the repeated and staggered glazing module (which differs from North to South face due to orientation to the sun) and inset random, yet considered, louvre system to each module.

 

 

[B Rabbit]

Serious question before you get too rampant, Rabbit...

 

...Putting to one side the utility of a building and it's functional value, and concentrating purely on the aesthetic, is it possible for someone to tell someone else that a building is ugly, or that certain colours work or don't work?

 

As an architect I understand that you have a trained eye, but what makes everything you've written here "right" (from an architectural "science" perspective) instead of just your, albeit highly trained and respected, opinion? You must surely present work to clients who tell you that they want it changed even though you "know" they are wrong and your are right.

 

What makes something timelessly "right" as opposed to something momentarily fashionable, but that will date quickly and age badly?

 

And what makes something that appears momentarily fashionable that is likely to date, but goes on to become the new standard for design?

 

Aren't we just talking about our opinions here? Corral enough opinions and you've got a verdict of sorts, but surely no one opinion is "right" when matters of taste are concerned.

 

As I say, serious question as I recognise that I have a defective colour/design gene. I have little appreciation for colours and colour combinations, as you'd instantly know if you looked at my t-shirt and sock combination today. To me colours seem to go or not go, without rhyme not reason. It's like it's some big secret that others understand, but is hidden from me. However, my brother-in-law, who is a designer, has explained to me that there is a science to colours that "go" and colours that "clash". And having used colours in software designs previously, I now use a number of sites that construct complementary colours for me.

 

That, my friend.... Is a thesis question / answer.

 

It's subjective...completely... I argue with my director all the time about it. Generally...if a building has a strong concept, it will shine through, simple strong form, robust materials, proportion, rhythm, repetition tend to be pleasing on the eye.

 

It's a very difficult question to answer without going off on one completely!

 

and yes...clients are morons and change things...usually driven by cost... The real skill...and it is f**king hard.... Is to keep it looking good and hold onto the concept ...even once the client / developer starts stripping things out.

 

Everyone will have an opinion..on everything... And sometimes you just get it..sometimes you don't.. I don't pretend to understand computers or horses or cars very much!

 

 

[B Rabbit]

To add to this...reading a building (to me)...is like reading a book...it will have a certain flow and coherence...and if it's done well, it will be easy to pick up on. I imagine it's probably quite similar to a way a chef would see a meal... They'd look for certain things...preparation, smell, taste, texture, presentation...where as a lay person will just think...that tastes nice.

 

It's quite sad when you see good ideas (and I guarantee this gateway building was bloody good at concept stage!) become utterly hideous when finished... I've suffered it myself on something being built now!

i can tell it's happened to this gateway building from the pathetic attempt at a green wall climbing up the south faces.... Looks more like a Brazilian wax job than a sedum living wall.... Value engineer strip out! Yuck.

 

Edited 4 October, 2014 by B Rabbit

[Goatboy]

Serious question before you get too rampant, Rabbit...

 

...Putting to one side the utility of a building and it's functional value, and concentrating purely on the aesthetic, is it possible for someone to tell someone else that a building is ugly, or that certain colours work or don't work?

 

As an architect I understand that you have a trained eye, but what makes everything you've written here "right" (from an architectural "science" perspective) instead of just your, albeit highly trained and respected, opinion? You must surely present work to clients who tell you that they want it changed even though you "know" they are wrong and your are right.

 

What makes something timelessly "right" as opposed to something momentarily fashionable, but that will date quickly and age badly?

 

And what makes something that appears momentarily fashionable that is likely to date, but goes on to become the new standard for design?

 

Aren't we just talking about our opinions here? Corral enough opinions and you've got a verdict of sorts, but surely no one opinion is "right" when matters of taste are concerned.

 

As I say, serious question as I recognise that I have a defective colour/design gene. I have little appreciation for colours and colour combinations, as you'd instantly know if you looked at my t-shirt and sock combination today. To me colours seem to go or not go, without rhyme not reason. It's like it's some big secret that others understand, but is hidden from me. However, my brother-in-law, who is a designer, has explained to me that there is a science to colours that "go" and colours that "clash". And having used colours in software designs previously, I now use a number of sites that construct complementary colours for me.

 

The most worrying/exciting thing for me is that you are wearing t-shirt and socks.

[saintbletch]

The most worrying/exciting thing for me is that you are wearing t-shirt and socks.

 

Yeah, and only t-shirt and socks, Toga Yob.

[Goatboy]

Yeah, and only t-shirt and socks, Toga Yob.

 

That's what I was hoping, Absinth Celt.

[Lets B Avenue]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11531496.The_magnificent_seven___buildings_nominated_from_Solent_Design_Awards/

 

Surely shome mishtake? Why hasn't the SWF's favourite edifice been nominated? Especially in view of the awards sponsor.

[tpbury]

Hmm, architecture. Hmmm, Gherkin!

[B Rabbit]

Shortlisted as this years ugliest building in the country....unfortunately it fell short to something less ugly....but still, kudos to the City for making our 'gateway' building from the North notoriously gross

 

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/carbuncle-cup-2015-winner-announced/5077354.article

 

Edited 8 September, 2015 by B Rabbit

[Jonnyboy]

Looks better than the sh*tty houses around it.

[The9]

FWIW I only really like one thing about the fag butt, and it IS the crappy astroturf you can see on the right. Coming down Burgess Road, from a distance, it actually blends into the hillsides of Midanbury and beyond and pulls the place together with the backdrop. Which I suspect was designed to make the contrast with the big ugly stump and clashy bright boxes all around it even stronger.

 

Even that bit is bloody horrible close up though when you can't see the hills behind, and it really can't have been that hard for them to have chosen some actual organic material for it either.

Edited 10 September, 2015 by The9

[The9]

Anyway, is it actually open yet? Bunch of stoojunts pitching up again soon who are going to want to try and hang flags out of the windows if my first experience of South Stoneham House on Wessex Lane prior to the 1991 Rugbish World Cup is anything to go by.