There's a thread running from a poster whose "no-traditional touring" shopping list includes worthwhile new buildings in London. (http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...-some-tips.cfm)

Though there a quite a few books with lists and photographs, I couldn't find a website that offered a compendium. This is a plea for a suggested such site - or additions to the poster's list.

Most of us think the pressures of fast postwar rebuilding meant practically everything built between 1945 and the late seventies was just awful. Architects like a few things from the period, like the Roehampton Estate and the Barbican Estate between Barbican and Moorgate tunes, though few ordinary punters agree.

The conventional wisdom is probably that we then started doing really great fusions, like:
The Millennium Bridge linking an early 20th century power station to a 17th century cathedral,
The refurbed St Pancras station,
The now-sleeping Eurostar terminal at Waterloo,
The Grand Court at the British Museum,
The Sainsbury wing at the National Gallery
Tate Modern.

We also started great complete new builds, like

The network of stations on the late-90s Jubilee tube line from Westminster station east
The MI6 building at Vauxhall Cross
The Swiss Re building (aka "the Gherkin")
The London Assembly building ("Glass testicle")opposite the Tower
Lloyds Insurance in the City
The British Library at St Pancras
Possibly the O2 building (once called the Dome) at Greenwich

As well as some more slugs of mediocrity (like Canary Wharf)

What else built post-1945 would people add?

The Royal Festival Hall maybe?
And not post 1945 but 1940-45 the Ladies Bridge (Waterloo) is quite pleasing to the eye in an understated sort of way.

Trelick Tower?

This is so great you started this thread! I feel like an INSPIRATION! (Sigh)

Obviously I can't add to it but I just wanted to say I appreciate it.

You know, I think Prince Charles had a really bad effect dissing architectural experimentation in London -- monstrous carbuncles, beloved friend, etc.

Trelick Tower?
Why not - it is listed, as should more buildings from that era. If you can include the Barbican Estate in the list then Trelick is also worthy of inclusion.

Peckham Pulse regularly wins awards.

http://www.svm.co.uk/projects/hotels...t-and-leisure/

And of course there's the whole olympic park.

Can we vote on things to tear down?

Whilst you're in Peckham, the library is also worth a look.

I'm inclined to like architects HOK, because of their commitment to sustainability. Their 40 Grosvenor Place office building (formerly known as Enron House) looks interesting inside and I believe won some design awards.

http://www.hoksustainabledesign.com/...LON40grov.html

It looks as if they are also responsible for the new Olympic Stadium that is running a wee bit over cost.

Another thought: the LMU graduate centre on Holloway road is striking, both architecturally and in terms of location.

Probably a bit too close to the Arsenal for Cholmondley's taste though...

Whilst you're in Peckham, the library is also worth a look.>>>

It's the same place old bean.

You can tell where my interests lie can't you? I'll just let out another notch on my belt, adjust my glasses and pretend I noticed the sports centre when I visited the Library...

How about the US Embassy building in Grosvenor Sq, designed by Eero Saarinen? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/8320558.stm

You didn't mention the Eye?

Not sure if this qualifies, but I like the refurbed Floral Hall @ ROH

This website may be of assistance:

http://aiauk.org/labels/awards.html

I wonder whether Saarinen had anything to do with that incongruous eagle.

"Prince Charles had a really bad effect dissing architectural experimentation in London -- monstrous carbuncles, beloved friend, etc"

Much as I hate taking Big Ear's side, on this I'm completely with him.

Architects aren't like other artists: authors and composers know their works far more intimately than their audience does - whereas people who live and work in badly-constructed buildings freeze, get sick through damp or get cancer from asbestos way before the architect even knows about the problem, and centuries before he stops trying to blame the client. Unpleasing books and music upset only those who've paid to read or listen: bad buildings ruin the townscape for all of us.

Britain's architects - rightly IMHO - had acquired a reputation among the public by the early 80s of covering the country in truly awful buildings betwen 1945 and 1980, many of which we're still blowing up. British dislike was ignored by a profession more interested in building things other architects would like than in what the views of the people who had to live with these monuments to egotism. Widely praised architect Basil Spence foisted the Hutchesontown abomination on the people of Glasgow, and tried to demolish most of Georgian Canonbury, for example.

The national views were repeatedly ignored by democratic institutions, so junk got planning permission to be built. Not of course in Canonbury, where we didn't need royalty to argue for us. But, by 1984, few places had such advocates: Charles' speech represented the views of Britons far better than Britons' elected representatives did.

The result wasn't to stop good buildings: the speech forced architects to design buildings the citizenry would like. Whereas architects left to their own devices had destroyed Euston station, and the Royal Fine Arts Commission wanted St Pancras destroyed as well, the post-Charles world gave us the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo (still, IMHO, Britain's most beautiful railway station) and the spectacular St Pancras refurb.

The past 15 years, for almost the first time I can remember, have brought a platoon of new and refurbished buildings people talk about benignly (OK: Lloyds predated The Speech, but that's about the only one). They've also brought more new non-urgent buildings than almost ever in our history (London had to be rebuilt quickly in 1670-90 and in 1948-68, so the profusion then was understandable)

The sharp contrast between what Charles II's era produced and what went up in the era of Charles III's mum explains perfectly why Charles was absolutely right to say what he did.

The Danish embassy on Sloane St. to me is the prettiest building on the whole street and a refreshingly modern break in a row of some actually pretty ugly older mansions.
It's not even that new, dating back to 1977, but Arne Jacobsen's design still looks good to me (and despite a different colour scheme on the facade from the original draft).

"I wonder whether Saarinen had anything to do with that incongruous eagle."

Me too! It makes me smile in disbelief almost every time I pass by there.

I think we can assume it was over Eero's dead body, hsv?

take your pick through this lot.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=729