Nik Nak’s Old Peculiar: buildings

Showing posts with label buildings. Show all posts

Sunday, 4 January 2026

Nik Nak’s Daily Teaser — 4-1-2026 — Burj Khalifa

4th January, 2026: Burj Khalifa.

It’s officially Sunday morning … and?

I’m up, about and cold!

But, more importantly, very aware it’s colder, outside.

As I write?

The BBC’s Weather website is telling me it’s -3ºC, out.

I’m grateful I’m indoors: my thermostat’s telling me it’s 21°C!

Warmer than outside … although my feet are complaining it’s nippy!

I’m just grateful I’m not next door to an old friend: who lives in Finland.

She’s just told me it’s -16°.

‘Nippy’ is possibly not the word … !

~≈🥶≈~

I mentioned, yesterday, that the US President was bombing Caracas, the Venezuelan capital: in a move I felt was an illegal act of military aggression.

You’re supposed to declare war before you do these things: and have a pretence of an excuse for doing so, if nothing else.

Former president Obama did, when US special forces violated foreign soil, to kill Osama bin Laden: the Bin Laden had organised the 9/11 World Trade Centre attacks.

The 47th President’s excuse?

Was that Venezuelan President Maduro was a drug trafficker, and should face US justice on US soil.

The US President also says the US is going to ‘run’ Venezuela for the interim: until stable government can be formed.

I’m angry.

The US President has violated US history — a history fighting for its independence from an empire, from Britain, its history of fighting evil regimes — by kidnapping a foreign leader, and attempting to take over that leader’s country.

Behaving as badly as some of the regimes it’s fought, and breaking laws it helped set.

And behaving like the sort of empire it’s always claimed not to be.

Personally?

I believe the 47th president of the USA is several things.

But I’ll let you use your preferred insults, about now: I’ll start with the words ‘evil’ and hypocritical, and work my way up.

~≈🤬≈~

Planning … AGAIN … !

Oh, BOY … !

THAT’S what the proposed building’s going to look like … ?

I hope not, actually.

As you probably do — or don’t, maybe — know, my street’s fairly new: to the point where the last block of flat’s is going up at the other end of it, as I write.

But I’ve also objected to building work at the other end of Saint James Road, next to the small block of flats, called Brunel House.

On the basis that I’ve always felt that more development — AND the associated parking — will seriously delay any emergency vehicle access to our street.

I still do.

So, as you can imagine, finding out that the developers that owned that patch of land still wanted to build the proposed multi-use block pictured above … ?

Had me writing in to the local council’s planning officer, as you can imagine.

Here’s what I wrote.

Dear Sir,

I’m writing to object to the proposed development next to Brunel House, in Brentwood: your ref 11/01195/FUL.

Some time ago, I — as many residents of the area — objected to some proposed flats on the same ground.

I felt — as I said at the relevant meeting of the planning committee — that the parking associated with the flats would be hazardous to the area, as it would further impede emergency vehicle access to the Saint James Road/Rollason Way/Wharf Road area..

I still believe this to be the case.

I also feel that this proposed development adds more retail and office space to an area that has — just around the corner — at least 4 unused retail lots, AND quite a lot of untenanted office space.

This is in addition to 1, Saint James Road, the three-storey office block, directly opposite the site. A three storey office block that is still untenanted, ever since it was built.

««•»»

As I said at the start of this email: I’ve objected to further development to the site in the past.

And am still objecting.

Yours