St Paul’s Way by Fashion Architecture Taste



Here's a third project by architects Fashion Architecture Taste (FAT) - a design for a 19-storey residential tower beside Mile End Park in London.


The project has just been submitted for planning permission.


See the other recent Dezeen stories about FAT:
Bentley Library
KK Outlet

Here's some info from FAT:


Fat have submitted a proposal for a mixed-use tower for planning approval on a brown-field site at the southern end of Mile End Park, London. The landmark building is conceived as a ‘green gateway’ to Mile End Park.

A vertical garden on the east elevation integrates the building into the park and vice versa. The proposed 19-storey mixed-use scheme comprises of 27 mixed tenure residential units, together with a ground floor restaurant/café.

The design uses a patterned lattice framework both as a structural component and as a means of modulating the scale and relationships of the buildings facades - like an Arts and Crafts version of High-Tech which contributes to the skyline of east London.

Posted on Wednesday March 19th 2008 at 8:43 pm by . Copyright policy | Comments policy

  • achille

    I wish they would stop publishing work by this office. Their projects are worse than their name.

  • It’s fun. But ugly.

  • jed

    are you getting commision from FAT?

  • It’s like a trip back to the 80s. A bad trip I mean.

  • Bodhi

    Is it just me or does image 2, bring back the horrors of the 1960’s tower block, eek.

  • eyeontheworld

    See pic 3. To me, it seems like yet another dated tower block, this time covered in chicken wire and weeds. How does this design enhance or even relate to the surrounding area? I also think it quite strange that, in order to help justify the ‘green gateway’ statement, they needed to superimpose trees. Would this be because in this area of London there isn’t any, and it is certainly not green, rather drab and run down.

  • NMZ

    FAT rocks. They have the guts to do their own thing.

  • A.S.

    It’s so ugly, I agree with Achille, they should stop publishing their work, its really a joke.

  • jarmo k

    ha, would be appropriate for dubai, right next to this tower by james law cybertecture –>

  • Andy

    another terrible project. perhaps you could show more awful fat projects tomorrow (just pick from any of their works)

  • Nuno

    Holy mackarel! THIS IS BAD! :D

  • DAB

    Much as I don’t like the ‘I could do so much betterif only i knew how’ attitude of many of the posters generally on this site, this is a really depressingly bad project. As if mile end doesn’t look bad enough already! I like the treatment of the fourth elevation. . . not sure what to do? just cover it in green collage!
    Also, the club motif is a bit hackneyed now (no pun intended), its just not funny any more. . . . .

  • Hey Jarmo’s right. The two towers (with james law’s building) look like siblings!

    In fact I only have a big problem with that vertical sky garden. For the benefit of the doubt, it could just be a case of bad 3d rendering of the sky garden. The way the trees are laid out look real bad – it’s just like a wild jungle growing upwards into the sky. There’s no beauty in it whatsoever, so I can’t imagine the horror if it really gets built exactly the way it looks here!

  • zetre

    it’s interesting to see that a deviant esthetics can be so controversial..
    i kinda like that they’re going against the grain of the contemporary architectural tendencies.

  • Dubbi

    Yeah, nothing to see over here. These guys should change theire name to FAT to BAD. Very trendy, bad color and material choice. The pattern at the elevation – I hope there’s a good explanation for it. What’s up with the green wall? Who’ll do it? Patrick Blanc? That thing’s going to cost at least $2 million US. Ridiculous.
    …And I’m trying to be polite here… Oh god…

  • ant

    its of comparable ‘ugliness’ to anything proposed by zaha hadid, daniel liebeskind, jean nouvel etc… nowadays. maybe its it’s explicit ‘pomo-ness’ that scares everyone?

  • john graham

    i hate it. but i like the trees. but i hate it.
    i agree, stop publishing them.

  • poster

    the worst of it all, must be living inside. Imagine the flats with those circular windows, kind of living inside a cruiser or boat.
    FAT architects, can you show any apartment interior?
    willing to see it.

  • roadkill

    Viva \FAT

  • J

    After these comments they’re going to change their design methods radically.

  • tracy

    all you design folks are such negative nancy’s – shut the fuck up all of you. every comment on every post has some negative bitchy comment – grow up


    Tracy, well, post something good then.. and we’ll have good comments about it.

  • razif

    please .. enough of random images of so called superstar designers.. it’s spoiling my students mind… FAT gone BAD.

  • joe

    yeah icon magazine and dezeen have a ‘relationship’ with FAT. ins’t that what the london design scene is all about- friends and connections getting you exposure when real work and talent fails. champagne anyone…

  • Sad architecture is still caught in seing the building as a picture of what could be cutting edge structural newthinking — as much this looks as a 3dh ,it rather display it as a picture and again, omit the structural core, the real move into a new architecture.
    Look up 3dh and you will know what I say — but I guess 3dh ask a bit more guts. — Guess 3dh realy are 20 years ahead of it’s time.

  • poppins

    i like that its there own fresh style, but it has to be said that its fat gone one step too far. forget renderings, and forget your own judgmental egos, just imagine what it would be like to live in there…you’d be calling in the renovation team asap!

  • leandro locsin

    FAT Architects has always been one SERIOUS UGLY. they belong to tabloids and never on design columns.

  • meh

    “eyeontheworld Says:
    I also think it quite strange that, in order to help justify the ‘green gateway’ statement, they needed to superimpose trees. Would this be because in this area of London there isn’t any, and it is certainly not green, rather drab and run down.”

    one can only assume you’ve not paid Mile End a visit (or indeed that you even read this article ) as the block itself will be opposite Mile End Park, as it states above. Now, parks, even ones in rundown ol’ east london, do tend to have at least a bit of green. Trees too!

    It’s also about a 5 minute walk from a ten acre woodland, the only woodland in East London, and god knows how many other parks and open spaces. fair enough, the green is punctuated by large swathes of grey and brown and other the “drab” hues but for all it’s faults, the east end, Mile End included, is enormously spoiled for green space.

    As for the building itself, well, I’m not taken by how it looks so far. I’m even less convinced as to how livable it would be. But please, whatever your opinion, at least know your subject before wading in and talking bollocks…

  • i like to submit like an architect that we disscussion about architect and about theory for architect

  • i feel to this project really i opinion non beauty but idea contains important knew movement and simpify