London skyscraper developments

[beeboo]

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?

The thing with the City twats lording it about on yachts and expensive holidays - yeah that was it

Dunno - the impression I got (and yeah was hardly intellectual programming but...) was that it's a global industry which could take place anywhere but the fact it happens here means we get the benefit of being able to tax them.

Can't say I've got any really understanding of how that kind of finance works TBH!

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.

I'm sure it IS taken into consideration in as much as any mistakes which made the WTC excessively vulnerable structurally etc will have had to be considered. But you can't terrorist-proof a city.

 

[ELO]

Apart from costing millions, what will these proposed "landmarks" going to do for the ORDINARY people of London, eh?

Higher house prices, more traffic, more pressure on the hideously overcrowded tube system.

All sounds good to me

Oh, and I hope they have plans to generate more electric,there were already blackouts last summer in the heatwave.

 

[ELO]

quite like it meself. more the merrier etc

OK the Gerkin and Canary wharf are 'landmarks', but surely they will lose any 'wow' factor they may have, the more you build?

 

[newcastle guy]

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.

So you ARE a fan of tall buildings as opposed to lowrise buildings then?

they often make for unpleasant work environments (the Gherkin, for example, may have become 'iconic' but apparently it's a shit place to work)

I've NEVER heard anyone say that, and I've been researching this stuff for nearly 2 years.

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

London skyscrapers are widely regarded as some of the best in the world. You say boring, someone else said wacky. I'd say unique, yet elegant and architecturally significant.

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

This shows that you know VERY little about the propsed Skyscrapers in comparison with 1960s/1970s urban architecture. No one in the know would compare them (Other than English Heritage of course)

 

[ELO]

This shows that you know VERY little about the propsed Skyscrapers in comparison with 1960s/1970s urban architecture. No one in the know would compare them (Other than English Heritage of course)

Well I must confess to being a bit of an English Heritage fan....<whispers very softly (and I'm in the National Trust as well )

 

[Guineveretoo]

The OP reads a bit like an advert for someone who sells skyscrapers

Not at all sure what it has to do with direct action or protest, either? I note that there is a similar thread in London and South East, so I shall go and have a look there, too!

 

[Guineveretoo]

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?

Gosh, I didn't realise the gherkin was popular, other than as an eyesore for tourists to photograph. Weren't there problems letting, or did I imagine that?

 

[Streathamite]

OK the Gerkin and Canary wharf are 'landmarks', but surely they will lose any 'wow' factor they may have, the more you build?

not necessarily, dependes on location and design standards. ain't happened in NYC or LA, as yet

 

[Guineveretoo]

Seconded.

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.

Because London has many beautiful lowrise buildings, one of which is St Pauls

 

[kyser_soze]

There were problems letting it for about 5 seconds.

But the Gherkin is extremely popular - along with the Eye it's quickly become a genuine London landmark - much more so than Canary Wharf, which really does consist of 'bog standard' high rise office blocks.

Bring 'em on is what I say - while I can see why a body like UNESCO would be interested in preserving the heritage setting of the ToL (IIRC it's a WHS) but I think they are wrong here.

 

[kyser_soze]

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.)

1. 'Ordinary people' do not pay for these buildings

2. Who exactly are these 'ordinary people'?

 

[ELO]

not necessarily, dependes on location and design standards. ain't happened in NYC or LA, as yet

But this isn't NY or LA, and I would hardly think either of them suitable examples to follow.

Still, it's your city. If a clone of New York is what you want, go for it........................

 

[Crispy]

I think the gherkin is the most beautiful skyscraper of the last 20 years. It contains not one vertical line on its exterior, which is a first, I think.

It hasn;t sold particularly well, but that's the fickle nature of the City property market. Clients want very specific spaces, but that need changes with the size of companies and fashionable management strategies. When the gherkin was planned, the 'petals' on each floor were just what were selling well. When it was completed, big flat empty floorplates were more popular. Happens all the time - and also explains why there's always so many empty offices in the City.

And it is totally a landmark of London. A tourist's london skyline goes Big Ben, Eye, St. Pauls, Gherkin.

 

[newcastle guy]

Gosh, I didn't realise the gherkin was popular, other than as an eyesore for tourists to photograph. Weren't there problems letting, or did I imagine that?

You didn't know the Gherkin was popular? You obviously don't have access to a very wide range of opinions then do you.

People who don't like something tend to be MUCH more vocal than people who do. But there is huge support for the Gherkin. It is known in mnay countries across the world, it is featured in most panoramas of London and has been featured in a number of films. I have heard hardly any bad words against it, but I have heard LOTS of positive words for it. It won the RIBA Stirling prize in 2004.

The fact that you yourself called it an 'eyesore' shows exactly where you stand. You can bet that if someone planned it demolished, there would be significantly more support against it's destruction than for it. I can prove this if you want.

And the Gherkin had some problems letting yes, but it is now full. It sold recently for more than double it's construction cost at £600,000,000.

 

[ELO]

1. 'Ordinary people' do not pay for these buildings

Only in the most superficial sense. There is the house price inflation, pressure on roads/rail I outlined above.

Also, in a deeper sense,if these buildings are gonna be occupied by banks etc there is the issue of where the money *ultimately* comes from.......



(reflects on the fact that, for someone who intends to vote Cameron next election, I can be quite left wing sometimes )

 

[newcastle guy]

Because London has many beautiful lowrise buildings, one of which is St Pauls

St Pauls isn't lowrise. It's 130m tall.

 

[newcastle guy]

Well I must confess to being a bit of an English Heritage fan....<whispers very softly (and I'm in the National Trust as well )

Theres nothing wrong with being a fanin most cases. It's just when they blow all their money fighting high quality towers with no care for quality (only height) while old buildings are being knocked down in London and replaced with stupid little buildings that maxamize the floorspace they can get off the site.

 

[editor]

*Duplicate threads merged.

 

[Guineveretoo]

St Pauls isn't lowrise. It's 130m tall.

Indeed, but it is lowrise compared to the proposed skyscrapers!

 

[ELO]

*Duplicate threads merged.

Thank you

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I'm torn.

I fear change and welcome development.

 

[beeboo]

And it is totally a landmark of London. A tourist's london skyline goes Big Ben, Eye, St. Pauls, Gherkin.

innit! I think it is very cool that two of the current 'icons' of London have been built in this millenium.

Although I guess it is fickle - the BT Tower used to an icon but it's status is somewhat faded these days. Be interesting to see what remains iconic in 100yrs time.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Surely the Eye was built in the last millenium? Wasn't it to celebrate the end/beginning of such a millenium?

Or were you thinking of a different icon?

 

[exosculate]

innit! I think it is very cool that two of the current 'icons' of London have been built in this millenium.

Although I guess it is fickle - the BT Tower used to an icon but it's status is somewhat faded these days. Be interesting to see what remains iconic in 100yrs time.

I think Tower Bridge has been overlooked there.

 

[Reno]

Many people subscribe to the Prince Charles Little Englander mentality that London should stay in the past with new buildings ideally being pastiche architecture which copies what went before (usually incorperating hideous PVC double glazing ). I feel that would be extremely embarrassing for a modern city like London and would turn it into some kind of Disneyland which doesn't reflect the present.

Any decade should contribute its own best achitecture while preserving what is worth keeping of the past. I find the mixture of different styles of architecture in a large city exciting and I love the contrasts. These high rise buildings are part of this. I feel a little bit of pride about living here when I see an example of London architecure I enjoy and this includes anything from Big Ben, to the Barbican, to the Gherkin and I'm sure I'm going to feel like this about some new buildings in the future.

 

[newcastle guy]

^^ Smartest thing I've heard in this thread

 

[Cid]

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

True enough, I heard that quite soon after it was finished, so there may have been early problems that are now sorted.

 

[ELO]

Many people subscribe to the Prince Charles Little Englander mentality that London should stay in the past with new buildings ideally being pastiche architecture which copies what went before (usually incorperating hideous PVC double glazing ). I feel that would be extremely embarrassing for a city like London and would turn it into some kind of Disneyland which doesn't represent current times.

Any decade should contribute its own best achitecture while preserving what is worth keeping of the past.

Of course there is something in what you say.

The question is whether we, or rather you, Londoners, need these type of new developments at all. Of course there is a need to make use of vacant land, but do you want to encourage thousands and thousands more workers into the city, given the pressures it already faces? The additonal road traffic alone would wipe out any questionable gains already achived by the Congestion Charge for example.

Shouldn't this land be used in a way that benefits people already in the city? Leisure centres, independant shops (and not just upmarket bootiques either), possibly housing- are they possible uses? Are any of the buildings currently on the land worth saving?

All questions I'd want answering if it was my hand on the rubberstamp.......................................

 

[Cid]

Many people subscribe to the Prince Charles Little Englander mentality that London should stay in the past with new buildings ideally being pastiche architecture which copies what went before (usually incorperating hideous PVC double glazing ). I feel that would be extremely embarrassing for a city like London and would turn it into some kind of Disneyland which doesn't represent current times.

Any decade should contribute its own best achitecture while preserving what is worth keeping of the past. I find the mixture of different styles of architecture in a large city exciting and I love the contrasts. These high rise buildings are part of this. I feel a little bit of pride about living here when I see an example of London architecure I enjoy and this includes anything from Big Ben, to the Barbican to the Gherkin and I'm sure I'm going to feel like this about some new buildings in the future.

But our best architecture is really not found in skyscrapers, the age of the skyscraper climaxed with Mies et al, its now moved into the realms of giant status symbols with each city competing for the prestige of 'biggest in...' markers.

If anything the skyscraper is innapropriate for the upcoming era, it's symbolic of vast capital investment with little regard to environment. Of course contemporary architecture is what we should be building, but these proposed skyscrapers are incredibally lacklustre. I'd like to see existing derelict office space (of which there's a hell of a lot) converted innovatively. A kind of realisation of the ideas of people like Lebbeus Woods, Eisenman, Morphosis etc.

And, along the lines of what ELO just said, we shouldn't really just be building new offices in the centre, I would much rather see London opening new galleries, parks etc and new offices being built either out in East London or in completely different cities where the investment is needed.

 

[AXISPAW]

well there are indeed plenty of reasons why the city requires these buildings, and they go as follows
1. The City is one of the (if not thee) worlds biggest financial districts and in order to stay that way it needs huge multi-national corperations to be based there.

2. No.1 wont happen if the city is full of groundscrapers, because if a huge american or asian company are setting up their european headquarters, they would rather pick a high-rise in la defense or frankfurt rather than a groundscraper in the middle of london.
Plus there simply is not enough room for groundscrapers in the city anyway hense one of the reasons these towers are proposed

3. London has an outstanding skyline and it needs to keep moving that way. look at how the london eye has changed londons skyline internationaly. the shard or bishopsgate could do for london what the empire state building and twin towers done for new york. or the eifel tower for paris. these designs belong in the city and not canary wharf because their designs are completley different and together these new proposels almost make one iconic structure. if you look at future photos with bishopsgate, ledenhall, heron and willis in them it almost looks as if these buildings are as one and make an iconic monument that will boost londons skyline internationaly again. and instead of hindering the tower of londons skyline, it would boost it. lets face it, they who live or have been to london know that london is excellent at merging old with new.

4. Financial reasons aside, these towers are of such quality that in years to come they themselves may be as iconic and prestigeous as say the tower of london, st pauls etc. the public have welcomed these towers more so than some of the other developments around london that have been built so that alone gives a pretty damn good reason to build them.