I can point you to numerous rants about why we don't have exciting challenging new architecture in Brighton....and it isn't down to lack of British architects.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
King Alfred Development - Rob Starr, Crest Nicholson, No 50m Pool
- Thread starter knocky1
- Start date
I can point you to numerous rants about why we don't have exciting challenging new architecture in Brighton....and it isn't down to lack of British architects.
symyjym
Banned
Reminds me of New England House.
So we settle for something inferior rather than let a valuable development site (as you say ) rot . its a public site ie council . why cant we have decent public facilities as well as housing there .?
symyjym
Banned
There is space for a 50m pool, a childrens pool and full size multipurpose ice arena, and there would still be space for a good amount of housing there.
https://youtu.be/yHR7cifuBVI
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
New scheme:
Butch Willykins
Well-known member
I quite like it from what I've seen so far (albeit concept images).
That's obviously not the only alternative.
Mmm, doesn't look very good.
Was it because of Nimby's? I thought it got permission, but the money was pulled. Not that I liked the scheme in the first place. I loved the Frank Gehry tower, but the mass of flats beneath it were pretty crap.
symyjym
Banned
Yep the towers looked good, but the size of the Leisure Centre was compromised by packing as much housing on the site as possible. The Leisure Centre in this design is the same size and spec as the one in the Gehry, but without the towers, but still with housing packed in.
I think the main issue people that found with the Gehry was the size of the Leisure Centre, more than the design of the towers.
The blame lies solely with the Tory council. They cynically pulled the rug. But, I have no doubt they were influenced by NIMBYs in that area.
Shocking that you could think such a thing. We have a Labour council now, so if the original designs were great, Labour could simply give them permission again. Does that not suit your extreme bias?
TWOCHOICEStom
Well-known member
It's not THAT bad. But it isn't inspiring at all and given it's location and importance within the city, I'd liked to have seen something much better than this.
Cliche art-deco references, it'll be made out of cheap materials no doubt, there'll be rust streaks down the side of the building by the end of the first year and it'll look like shit within 5.
But hey, I'm sure they'll manage to squeeze and Nandos and Pizza Express in there somewhere.
Cliche art-deco references, it'll be made out of cheap materials no doubt, there'll be rust streaks down the side of the building by the end of the first year and it'll look like shit within 5.
But hey, I'm sure they'll manage to squeeze and Nandos and Pizza Express in there somewhere.
symyjym
Banned
Just found this. It looks better inside than outside:
https://youtu.be/JoxJupDJxrU
It has a childrens pool, a 25m competition pool and a learning pool but no diving area.
I still think it should have been more like the Guilford Spectrum and with an ice rink.
https://youtu.be/JoxJupDJxrU
It has a childrens pool, a 25m competition pool and a learning pool but no diving area.
I still think it should have been more like the Guilford Spectrum and with an ice rink.
Pogue Mahone
Well-known member
- Apr 30, 2011
- 10,949
That is just so dull. As others have said, Gehry's design would have been magnificent, and instead we have...this.
What a wasted opportunity.
What a wasted opportunity.
Geestar
New member
Looks alright to me!
The Albion Roar
97.2FM
In this instance, he's not biased. Well, he is - but he's also right.
It was approved under the then Labour council - including some public funding. When the applicants went back to the council to agree a funding issue three years or so later, the administration had changed to Conservative (who had originally opposed the scheme as not being appropriate for Hove), and they decided not to go ahead. So the council pulled out, and the project folded.
And no, 'Labour' couldn't have 'simply give them permission again'. One - it would have required a re-submission of the plans, and two - Labour only became the largest party on the council again nine months ago.
Regarding 'Save Hove', this from 2008...
"Opponents felt differently and have called for the 1938 King Alfred Leisure Centre to be refurbished. Valerie Paynter, leader of Save Hove which opposes Gehry, said she is delighted with the decision. "The whole thing was puffery," she said. "I'd like to see [the leisure centre] refurbished, with no hoity-toity numbers, no iconic, landmark crap."
Gehry, 79, has made it clear what he thinks of those who oppose "icons". "They're part of the reason that things are ugly, but they don't realise it," he said. "Through history, public buildings are iconic and if we want less we have no self-esteem. We might as well go back to the caves. If you add up how many iconic buildings have been built recently, how many are there? 50? 100? It's nothing. So people can f*ck off."
So Save Hove's attitude is to retain the pig-ugly King Alfred Centre and 'refurbish' it.
But this new development doesn't have permission either, so yes, they could just re-submit the old plans and have them approved. They could do dodgy deals to approve them, like they did the first time.
The Modfather
New member
What a bland, dull, uninspiring design.