GB. Londonas / London (archyvas 2004-2010)

[vytauc]

Ačiū, Jonai- tikrai gera kelionė Manau iš anglų galėtume pasimokyti išnaudoti upių pakarantes, nes dabar mūsuose ten geriausiu atveju nutiesti keliai, o paprastai kemsynai. PVZ Kaune ir Neris ir Nemunas yra, o pakrantės visiškai neužstatytos ir mažai kur sutvarkytos. Vilniuje ta pati istorija. O juk "prileidus" pastatus prie vandens pamažu atgytų ir judėjimas upe, ir kiek puikių vietų pasivaikščioti ar šiaip pasėdėti atsirastų sutvarkius krantines...

[liutass]

PVZ Kaune ir Neris ir Nemunas yra, o pakrantės visiškai neužstatytos ir mažai kur sutvarkytos.

Kaunas ruosiasi "veidu atsigrezti i upes": DOmus Mea, Akropolis su Arena, ir tai tik pradzia...Kauno urbanistai galetu pasimokyti is Londono ir kitu miestu sprendimu

[Rolandas.]

Dar karta aciu Lauksim 3 dalies

[Rolandas.]

Si karta sutinku sutavim del 3 nuotraukos Dekui dar karta uz tema

[Mantas]

Ši dalis turbūt geriausia iš visų, puikios nuotraukos! (Labiausiai patiko apžvalginės)

[toslas]

Sveiki,
vakar grizau is keliones po Paryziu ir Londona. Tai va, mano nuomone (trumpai): Londonas grazus, bet labai tamsus, niurus ir labai prikimstas; Paryzius - grazus ir gyvesnis, bet tikrai nesigailiu, kad juos aplankiau (nors ir yra grazesniu miestu)

[Paulius]

ta nuotrauka su lektuvu butu galima det i konkursa...

beje ten ta mums pazistama masina ne bet kokia, o dar Vytauto Didziojo universitetui priklauso (numeriai)

[Paulius]

ten vienoj nuotraukoj londono akis mazdaug uz kokio kilometro ar 2, bet tikrai ne uz astuoniu!

[Paulius]

[El_Greco]

Visada bus taip, kad kazkas kazkam netinks.
Turbut reiktu paziureti, kiek atsirastu norinciu dalyvauti ir tada paderinti laika.

As pasirasau.Bus proga i Wong Kei uzsukt ryziu uzkast Del laiko manau liepos men. butu geriausiai - ir vasaros vidurys ir daug visko Londone vyksta (Dziazo festivalis Tower'y tt.).

[Ežiukas]

El_greco aš gyvai visiškai ne agresyvus ir negrėsmingas

[Svajoklis]

Canary Wharf'o pastatai taipogi yra puikus modernizmo ar postmoderno pavyzdziai (bent kai kurie is ju), pats stilius taip pat yra kur kas labiau pozityvus ir ilgalaikis...Atvirksciai, po 50 metu tikiuosi Barbicano vietoje matyti kazka grazesnio ir ispudingesnio.

Taip ir galvojo architektai septintaisiais ir astuntaisiais desimtmeciais, kai nugriuvo gatves kaip sita: ir pastate monstrus kaip sitas: Gal Canary Wharf'as dabar graziai atrodo, bet gal ateityje bus matomas kaip bjaurus monstras. What I mean is - will it stand the test of time? In my opinion, Canary Wharf will (because it's quite a graceful building and not too ostentatious) - but so will the Barbacan, which although not the softest building in the world, will age gracefully thanks to the high quality of materials used in its construction and its excellent design. Many of the other shiny edifices we are putting up at the moment, though, will look ugly and outdated once they stop shining and our tastes have moved on.

Oj, atsiprasau, kad pradejau rasyti angliskai....

[Svajoklis]

What I'm saying (and I think this is perfectly clear in whichever language) is that every generation tends to like the buildings that it is constructing, because they look fresh and new. When council flats were built in the 1970s, no one thought they were particularly attractive or architecturally interesting, but they were modern and were desirable places to live - considered far superior to the decaying 19th century terraces that were often demolished to make way for them.

To demolish a such a wonderful edifice as the Barbican - which is constructed to an excellent standard, an important part of our architectural heritage and, along with the Royal Festival Hall and the National Theatre (which you also seem to take objection to), one of the capital's main cultural centres which no project since has equalled - in order to construct, no doubt, some overblown phallic greenhouse would quite simply be a travesty. No doubt in a few years time, Canary Wharf will look like an ugly, outdated, overblown symbol of an era whose values we no longer share - and we will want to demolish that too, irrespective of its heritage value - and a few decades after that, the same thing will happen, and so on. It is by this same fashion fickleness that many of our graceful older buildings were demolished to make way for bland modernist edifices, which, at the time they were built, seemed far superior. But these days, our tastes change far too quickly and buildings seem to embody only the fashions of the day rather than embracing the more fundamental aspects of architecture and aestheticism.

[Svajoklis]

Fair enough, although of course you would not presume to speak on behalf of the majority. And with the benefit of retrospect, you may be forced to change your mind

[Svajoklis]

Hmm, I obviously have strange tastes, because I like quite a lot of the buildings that figured in the top ten of that poll! I can understand why people don't like the Barbican, but I'm glad it's listed and I would be said to see it go, because it's a really great cultural complex, even if it's not the most pretty building in London. (What is the most pretty building in London? Hmm...there's a question!)

[Svajoklis]

That'll be a real polemic! [With me on the one side, and everyone else on the other probably!] Just don't be biased when it comes to taking pictures!

[blitz]

I see Svajoklis's point but i also disagree. The trend back in the seventies among housing developers/architects/etc. was to sacrifice architectural quality and good urban planning for efficient and cheap housing with minimal architectural value. That's why most of the buildings from the 70s are usually just grey boxes, often built en masse according to one project (though not the case with barbican and many other "big" projects).
Now, those buildings might have some value in them but it's more to do with their general purpose and historical value rather than architectural value, which is minimal, exactly as intended by architects of those buildings. And the comparison between people that want barbican demolished and developers/architects in 50s-70s that destroyed great architecture to build grey, boring boxes (like barbican) is definately not fair, because of the same reason: unlike those buildings that made way for the grey boring boxes, buildings built in the 70s simply don't have much architectural value.

[Svajoklis]

I think that you shouldn't confuse social housing with the Barbican: I agree with you that not a great deal of thought went into the design of those ugly boxes (much like Vilnius's very own Helios City, for example), but the Barbican is a completely different matter: even if you may not like the style (and I can perfectly understand why people don't!) it is a well built and well designed building which performs its functions very well. Of course it also has its problems, but nowadays - unlike many of its contemporary tower blocks nearby - it is considered a very desirable place to live, and this is not purely for social reasons.

[Vaidas]

Dėkui už nuotraukas

Nauji City projektai atrodo tikrai neblogai, kita vertus Barbican'as - pakankamai niūrus...
Tiesa, Barbican'o daugiaaukščiai, bent jau mano nuomone, atrodo visai pakenčiamai - kur kas geriau nei pvz. spaudos rūmai Vilniuje, ar tas pats Exchange pastatas, bent jau kiek jo matosi 6 nuotraukoje... Kita vertus, matant, kaip siaubingai atrodo įsisenėjęs betonas, pamatęs tuos daugiaaukščius iš arti galbūt pakeisčiau savo nuomonę...

[Rolandas.]

Aciu uz nuotraukas.

Barbican'as toks visai idomus. Atrodytu kad niurus, bet pasiziurejus is arciau jis visai kitaip atrodo. Pasidaro toks jaukus

P.S. Nusisnekjau