Comments on: 10 Hills Place / Amanda Levete Architects

By: Rutger Brouwers

Rutger Brouwers — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:45:40 +0000

Interesting discussion about the "facadism". Why do we build this? 10 Hills Place/Amanda Levete Architects http://t.co/OQnxINb @archdaily

By: munter roe

munter roe — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:04 +0000

Terrible.

Reminds me of a typical girl’s project at arch school. They only get through because they flirt with the tutor.

Can’t believe they got this built.

By: A note about our fancy new building … « NoiseBlog

A note about our fancy new building … « NoiseBlog — Fri, 14 May 2010 10:27:09 +0000

[...] month ATTIK UK moved into our new studio at 10 Hills Place, an ‘architectural intervention’ by Amanda Levete Architects. AL_A is run by the [...]

By: FS

FS — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:55:39 +0000

Squidly is right in his summary. I worked on this project for a long time while at FS. The ground floor clads an existing shop which fronts onto Oxford St and has no fenestration on Hills Place. The upper stories are hemmed in on three sides with no access to light. The existing building was unlettable and had stood empty for years. We got an additional two stories on the building for the owner, and brought life back to the building. The windows were a way to throw light deeper into the space while reaching up to the small strip of sky above, and minimizing overlooking across the narrow alley. The office space is indeed spec and of a good standard, and I think the windows make it much brighter and more comfortable than if we had used an off the shelf facade. This building is a little exercise, a little reminder perhaps(if anything)that a small, simple building can be beautiful and can surprise.

By: Frank Zappa

Frank Zappa — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:57:56 +0000

“the detail of the facade” says Bekerman… Oh boy, is he a moron, or what?

By: Philip

Philip — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:02:46 +0000

why don´t you stop saying silly things?

By: alfred

alfred — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:01:17 +0000

of coarse, maybe you could shut ???

By: alfred

alfred — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:00:26 +0000

oh boy… you could so sow much better!

By: Andrew Geber

Andrew Geber — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:07:03 +0000

I think this is awesome.

I’d love to live in it.

By: Ralph Kent

Ralph Kent — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:02:01 +0000

Tomas_R – congratulations, you have fallen into the classic reactionary trap of assuming that anyone who doesn’t share your comment must be inferior or intellectually crippled. Equally, you criticise other for their judgements, yet are quite willing to mete out your own, not only on this project, but also against people who have commented, who you have absolutely no way of assessing. For these reasons, the quick to judge might say it you who could be lacking ‘capacity’.

By: Tomas_R

Tomas_R — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:52:07 +0000

Absolutely WONDERFUL BEAUTIFULL,
Thank You AL_A … we like to see more soon.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(for those who don´t understand to not boxed architecture – its OK. Not everyone has same capacity – its OK. Those who never tryied but know what to say OK people just go and try do better stuff and save us from your “opinions” and “judgments” please..thanx
Same as Mozart, Gaudi… was only one, those people who know and can make it real are incredibly tallented. Are you? So show us please.

By: OSCAR FALCON LARA

OSCAR FALCON LARA — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:51:44 +0000

"10 Hills Place / London via @ArchDaily. Ignore the negative comments, it\’s an awesome building." (http://twitthis.com/r9xzgc)

By: oscar falcón lara

oscar falcón lara — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:41:09 +0000

Woah, all negative comments aside, viewed from a purely formal standpoint this project does stand out and shows the architects had a willingness to do something different and better yet, their client was on board, and in the end architecture practice is that way, you propose and hope your clients share your same vision to innovate and at least put forward a different building, even if it is just a facade. Their use of technique and know how cannot be denied and wanting for a building to stand out is good. I like how fluid and dynamic and un-boring this facade is which cannot be said about 90% of the buildings in London. Kudos to them.

By: StructureHub Blog

StructureHub Blog — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:15:11 +0000

The best part about this inventive, amorphous, facade-heavy building is that it replaced an eyesore and did not butcher a historic property.

By: joe shome

joe shome — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:09:06 +0000

yea the ground floor is a little weak.

By: TGIF

TGIF — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:59:25 +0000

really achieves its primary goal as in the description above, to draw visitors into the back streets. but the other posters have a point though. What happens once you get to the entrance? oops! this would be an even better project if the language of the formal articulation on the facade also somehow engages the ground level and narrates an experience of use/function of the building that is as unique as the facade itself.

By: joe shome

joe shome — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:23:57 +0000

to be fair. i think most architects that are posted on this blog want to get noticed. and it is generally accepted that anything that people do from design to humanitarian aid is firstly for personal satisfaction. – enjoying yourself while designing is a good thing. being from london has absolutely nothing to do with the necesity to see people at street level. in fact – most office buildings do not give you a view of the street level unless you are on the first floor. you see other building walls mostly. or sky. or other buildings. and you can do this quite effectively without tilting your head up. (unless you are pressed up right against the wall.

By: Ralph Kent

Ralph Kent — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:49:17 +0000

Well, you can call me old-fashioned, but when I’m working at a desk job in London I do quite like to be able to have the opportunity to look down at street level and seem some life. I think giving the users of this building exclusively views of the sky is potentially quite a mean architectural gesture. If it was simply a matter of getting daylight in, there are easier and more effective ways to do this. But I suspect it was more about getting the building noticed for the aggrandissement of the architect’s name.

By: Snowy

Snowy — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:27:37 +0000

You see now we’re having a debate!!!!!!

By: joe shome

joe shome — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:03:36 +0000

squidly i give you props for being incredibly eloquent and convincing. thanks