London skyscraper developments

Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by wjfox2007, Jan 21, 2007.

  1. wjfox2007

    wjfox2007 New Member

    Hi all

    This is my first post here. Sorry if this seems rather long, but I feel it’s an important issue for London! :)

    As you may be aware, a number of stunning new landmarks are being planned for London – on a par with Foster’s Gherkin and perhaps even better. These new buildings include the “Shard of Glass", set to become the tallest building in Western Europe.

    Others include the Bishopsgate Tower and the Leadenhall Building, and there are several others, all designed by some of the world’s top architects. You can see a comprehensive rundown in this thread -

    Suffice to say, these towers will massively enhance London’s image, just as the Gherkin has done. The combined effect of this emerging cluster will be a skyline of truly world class architecture, hopefully built in time for the 2012 Olympics (when the eyes of the world will be focussed on London). Unlike places like Dubai and Shanghai, these towers won’t be insanely tall or over-the-top. They will be sensitive and considerate to the London skyline, yet at the same time beautiful and striking in appearance. In other words, they will “fit” into London very well. Also - they will have public viewing decks and restaurants offering stunning views from high up.

    Having got through a decade of negotiations and planning hurdles, most of these towers are due to start construction any time now.

    Unfortunately – and this is really the point of my thread – the heritage body UNESCO have recently visited London. They are concerned about the historic setting of the Tower of London, and are requesting these projects be cancelled. They also want the planning authorities to limit virtually all future highrise developments in the City. This, despite years of detailed planning, the incredibly strict guidelines already in place, the need for London’s financial sector to expand, and the dynamic mixture of “old and new” that London is already famous for! The skyscrapers won’t even be visible from most views... only from the east, and even then a considerable distance away. The Shard of Glass, for example, will be over a kilometre away on the other side of the river!

    UNESCO are a valuable organization, but they are going way too far with London. They completely miss the point about this city and the way it has to evolve and develop. If you care about London’s future, then please support the Shard of Glass and the Bishopsgate Tower. You can do this by signing my petition which is going directly to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone:-

    >>> <<<

    I’d appreciate your comments on these planned skyscrapers as well. Trust me - if you like the Gherkin, you’re going to LOVE these new towers.

    Many thanks

    Will Fox




  2. untethered

    untethered For industry & decency

    London doesn't have to develop this way, does it?

    It's being developed this way because it makes the most money for the developers and generates the most "prestige" for the architects.

    Interesting how you think that a building that will be the tallest in western Europe will be sensitive and not insanely over-tall. How does that work?

    Sorry my friend, but you sound like a developer's press release.
  3. wiskey

    wiskey Albatross Admirer

    i trust you get overtime for working on Sundays?
  4. editor

    editor hiraethified

    I rather like 'em myself.
  5. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    Do you have to cross-post this?
  6. wjfox2007

    wjfox2007 New Member

    I don't work for a developer and I have absolutely zero interest in the monetary side of these towers! I'm just an architecture enthusiast who's been following their progress, and I think they'll make a stunning addition to London. The Gherkin has already established itself as one of the most popular new buildings in the UK; these new towers will be even better (in my opinion).

    The City most certainly needs these towers - if you read the (very logical) points in my petition then you'll see why.

    And no, the Shard won't be "insanely tall". It's only going to be 300 metres or so - which is less than the Eiffel Tower, and only about 15 floors taller than Canary Wharf in the Docklands. By comparison, there are dozens of 500-800m towers being built all over Asia, including the world's tallest going up in Dubai (850m). Anyway, why shouldn't developers in London strive to make a profit?
  7. wiskey

    wiskey Albatross Admirer

    i would much rather have non-uniform shapes and designs, but i worry that glass will look shit in 50 years (if it lasts that long) like concrete does now.
  8. untethered

    untethered For industry & decency

    Your argument for the economic necessity of these towers is completely unsupported.

    Firstly, there is no demonstrable imperative to intensify the City. There is considerable scope for expansion in Docklands and other parts of London, not to mention other parts of the UK.

    Secondly, it's quite possible to achieve a similar increase in density without building these kinds of buildings should such a thing be required or desirable.

    New ideas - good. New architecture - good. This is not good architecture and I don't see any evidence of particularly original thinking other than "let's make it bigger and wackier than the last one".

    To me, that is insanely tall. Canary Wharf is enormous.

    People in Asia can make their own decisions about how they develop their cities according to local conditions. This kind of thing is neither necessary or desirable in London right now.

    I'm happy for developers to make a profit but not for every other consideration to be sacrificed to allow them to maximise their profits.
  9. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

    Fuck the city.

    I love the gherkin though.
  10. lighterthief

    lighterthief Well-Known Member

  11. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Love the shard, and the cheesegrater. not so sure about the curly-wurly though. Have you seen the base of it? ug-ly :)
  12. Streathamite

    Streathamite ideological dogmatist

    quite like it meself. more the merrier etc
  13. beeboo

    beeboo geek chic

    I heard something the other day about how much the financial industry and specifically the City contributes to the national economy via tax etc (can't remember the figures but they were boggling).

    Which helps explain why the Govnt is so keen to court the City and ensure that financial business (which given it's increasingly global nature could be conducted anywhere, it doesn't have to in London or this country). So ensuring that there are adequate and attractive offices in and around the City is quite a high priority.

    Not saying 'that makes it all OK', but it's just a bit of context :)

    I rather like some of these new towers. And I love the Gherkin (but doesn't everyone - it must be one of the most popular buildings in London!) - every time I see it I think 'ooh!'.

    I think the glass shard at London Bridge could be a bit of a 'stunner' as well
  14. Belushi

    Belushi 01 811 8055 R.I.P.

    I love skyscrapers so no objection to them per se, although Im swayed by the case that they should be concentrated in the Docklands rather than the City, Im also concerned that views of the wonderful Gherkin are going to be compromised.
  15. jæd

    jæd Corporate Hooker

    How...? The point of a skyscaper is that its a building that contains lots of people crammed into a small physical footprint. How are you going to do the same with a four-story building...? :confused:
  16. Cid

    Cid 嗯嗯

    Tbh I have no desire for more glass penises, they often make for unpleasant work environments (the Gherkin, for example, may have become 'iconic' but apparently it's a shit place to work) and these ones aren't especially interesting in design terms. Aside from that there are the environmental issues presented by that amount of glass, as well as the fact that the systems for such high buildings are particularly uneconomical.
  17. beeboo

    beeboo geek chic

    I agree the environmental credentials (both in building and maintainance) of new structures - be they glass shard or maisonette -should be scrutinised more and there should be higher standards against which they are assessed.

    I thought people liked "workin' in the Gherkin" but I could be wrong :)
  18. Dask

    Dask Rebel Intelligence

    Bring on the skyscrapers! London needs to move into the 21st century.
  19. PacificOcean

    PacificOcean Unhinged User


    Why is there always this almost luddite approach to tall buildings?

    I have never understood the argument against tall buildings regarding them spoiling the view of St. Pauls. Unless you are standing next to it, there are very few places in London you can see it anway.
  20. Reno

    Reno The In Kraut

    I know someone who works there and loves it. I got to go and visit there once and loved the inside. I suppose the word "apparently" can be used to support any old opinion ;)
  21. dash

    dash New Member

    The Bishopsgate Tower is an interesting shape, the other ones just look boring to me.
  22. tim

    tim Well-Known Member

  23. exosculate

    exosculate a stagger with a beat

    I hate property developers, they never ever have the holistic needs of the wider society at heart.:mad:
  24. beeboo

    beeboo geek chic

    Do you think you could have made the point without the picture - it makes me go cold just to look at it :(

    (E2A - picture converted to a link :) )

    I think it's a fairly weak argument against tall buildings TBH - nobody suggested we should shut down the tube after 7/7.

    I think some of the current proposed builidings had to go back to the drawing board post-9/11 in order to ensure that evacuation was easier and that the structures were more robust.
  25. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    wjfox2007 is really ken livingstone and i claim my five pounds
  26. Streathamite

    Streathamite ideological dogmatist

    two excellent points
  27. Tom A

    Tom A Goat among sheep

    Apart from costing millions, what will these proposed "landmarks" going to do for the ORDINARY people of London, eh? (There are still a few of AFAIK, albeit as an endangered species being forced out by yuppies and gazillionaries.) :rolleyes:
  28. lighterthief

    lighterthief Well-Known Member

    I'd rather the city built upwards rather than outwards, tbh.
  29. ELO

    ELO Banned Banned

    You were proberbly watching the same thing as me-'excess in the city' wasn't it?

    I would question, though, whether this is 'real' money. Obviously it is real in the sense you can count it at the end, but is it real in the sense of wealth generation or is it purely what has been syphoned off from other, more tangable aeras of the economy?

    Well obviously he could have made the point without, but the image certainly brought the risk home to us. It shouldn't be used as the main argument against tall buildings, but it is something to be considered.
  30. ELO

    ELO Banned Banned

    What, by further continuing the failed planning policies of the 20th??

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice