'Nile Street contains 175 homes, of which 128 count as "affordable". Unlike many other schemes where developers have been obliged to include social housing - there is no aesthetic difference between the different types of tenure. It's all one kind of architecture. There is no class divide.' Gabion / Flickr
6 Comments
nice project. recalls Segal...
(social consideration, not aesthetic)
This is exactly like their Gainsborough estate building. And I happen to know that half a two bedroom flat will set you back about £700 a month. Social housing my ass!
antipod, The architects Munkenbeck and Marshall do projects that look very similar to each other. However if you had read the Gabion article you would know by now that the Gainsborough estate owned by Lincoln Holdings plc IS a private development not social housing, thus the rents can be at any price (they even have a flashy website titled Waterside living visit it here: http://www.gainsboroughstudios.co.uk)
In contrast this project is a Peabody Trust building. Peabody is a charitable trust, and created a building which contains 175 homes, of which 128 count as "affordable" with some 3 bedroom flats at £86 a week, the clever part is that they also have some luxury flats in the scheme subsidising the rest of the project but everyone uses the same public areas there is no differentiation and from the outside the comparison between the penthouses and the studio flats is not as pronounced as in the standard mixed use development. The whole point of showing this project here is to highlight that social housing does not have to look poorly designed and simple.
Using 'your ass' to back up incorrect claims just makes look very silly.
So those big duplex boxes sitting on top with lots of glass and big balconies aren't the more expensive flats? I find that hard to believe.
There are Luxury flats subsidising the social housing flats.
The big duplex boxes are not made out of gold while the 60pounds a weeek three bedroom flats are made out of cardboard.
What kind of discussion is this? Where is the formal, material or even stylistic difference between the different flat typologies?
The big duplexes are on top so is the open public communal terrace.
I dont understand why people are so irritated by this building but then cannot even invest 5 minutes in setting out a proper argument against it.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.