Hoover building, second attempt

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I posted some LX2 shots of this building last week, here's an M8 shot.

 

As I was walking into the supermarket that now lies behind the façade I was stopped by a member of staff and told that taking photographs wasn't allowed for 'security reasons'.

 

This is the detail above the entrance at the front of the building.

 

M8, 50mm Summicron

 

[ATTACH]39579[/ATTACH]

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[elansprint72]

Glad they spotted you; I rang them on Friday and tipped them off.

 

Great colours. I suspect that the outside of the building is better than the inside anyway.

[stunsworth]

Cheers Pete, they did mention a tip off.

 

Here's another, same camera and lens.

 

[ATTACH]39592[/ATTACH]

[andybarton]

Security reasons make me sick. What has this country become?

[spylaw4]

Great shots!

IMO "Security Reasons" is just a catch-all to enable a cetain type of person to exercise power that they would otherwise not have. It would be interesting to find out the reasoning behind such bans from the property owner(s), but I fail to see how building detail photos could lead to robbery/terrorist action.

[huwge]

Given that the office space is currently to let at GBP 480.000 p.a. you'd think they'd welcome the extra publicity.

 

All these "security" restrictions really put me off inner city photography.

[cocker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All these "security" restrictions really put me off inner city photography.

 

They make me even more determined to do it. I now always question people who challenge me. I do it politely as they are "only following instructions" - where else have we heard that as an excuse? - but I don't let them get away with it easily. I sometimes ask them to get the person responsible to explain to me the reasons why I can't photograph. I have sometimes had them back down and say "OK but don't be too long". Like Andy, I despair and am very angry at what has been foisted on us in the UK in the name of "Security" and the nonsensical concept of "War on Terror" and don't think we should just roll over and take it. No doubt I'll be arrested one day!! End of rant.:mad:

 

Interesting pictures Steve - shame such a nice building has the evil Tesco in it - oops I feel another rant coming on. Better have another coffee and get back to work!!

[stunsworth]

I was taking the photographs on private land, so there was no point in arguing as they were within their rights not to allow any photography, but it was annoying all the same. Also I'd already taken all the photographs I wanted to.

 

'Security reasons' is just a blanket phrase to cover anything as Keith and Andy say it's meaningless. At least it proves that the security staff watch the output from all of the cameras.

[samwells]

Steve - lovely art deco studies...shame about the security, because buildings like this deserve to be recorded as much as poss (esp. in view of the Firestone building debacle, demolished 'overnight' by developers, I recall).

'Security' is, of course nonsense...any terrorist could take any number of pix on a mobile phone without being noticed...hell, I've taken enough pictures of my ear with one without even me noticing :-) The private land thing is pretty nonsensical, too, since - assuming a viewpoint is still artistically acceptable - one could presumably be one foot outside the property line and use a longer focus lens. Bah humbug1

Sam

[Artichoke]

thanks for going back & getting these

this kind of detail work enriches the building and is classically Art Deco

it does seem odd that the owners would not wish to have their building thus glorified, but I suppose they were unaware of the quality of your work

[stunsworth]

Thanks guys.

 

I promise this is the last one. I thought a black and white one to finish.

 

Who said digital couldn't handle highlights :-)

 

[ATTACH]39881[/ATTACH]

[biglouis]

Interesting pictures Steve - shame such a nice building has the evil Tesco in it - oops I feel another rant coming on. Better have another coffee and get back to work!!

 

For once, I think this is actually the acceptable face of megastore expansion. If I recall correctly (and I lived in the area for about 20 years) the Hoover factory was in a bad state of repair. I suspect Hoover deliberately let it run down in the hope that they would eventually persaude the council (either Ealing or Brent, I can't remember which) to let them knock it down and re-develop the land. Tesco actually 'rescued' the place and did a lot to improve the exterior. The Tesco's is behind the facade and they deserve some credit for ensuring that the original vista from the A40 is unaffected.

 

As to being stopped from taking photographs on the property, fair enough. Personally, if I was going to photograph the Hoover building I'd do it from outside its boundaries so I could get the full sweeping impact - and of course, no one could do anything about that.

 

LouisB