These towers have been through some of the toughest, most rigorous, most detailed planning procedures in the world. The City is one of the most difficult places in the world to build a skyscraper. These days, only towers of absolutely top-notch quality are allowed to be built in the Square Mile, and they have to satisfy an incredibly long list of criteria. These proposed towers are certainly top quality - all issues relating to transport and overcrowding, the surrounding environment, overshadowing and downdrafts, historic conservation sites, the public realm, etc. have been dealt with in the fullest and most comprehensive ways possible. In addition, measures have recently been introduced for residential towers, whereby a significant percentage of the accommodation needs to be classed as "affordable housing". Developers are required to contribute to surrounding local improvements as well.
In addition, these new skyscrapers will be incredibly green and eco-friendly. The Shard at London Bridge, for example, will use around 40% less energy than a typical office building, while the Bishopsgate Tower will be almost entirely clad in solar panels! You can't get much greener than that.
To read a typical planning report, see this example on the Corporation of London website. Some of these towers even went through public inquiries, after English Heritage tried to stop them - wasting tens of millions of pounds in the process, which could have been spent on restoring beautiful old buildings and heritage sites elsewhere. These skyscrapers will stand together around the existing Natwest Tower, at the very centre of the Square Mile, literally next door to each other, forming an extremely tight cluster. It's not like they're going to be built anywhere near St Paul's or the Tower of London. The buildings they're replacing are completely forgettable, drab, 60's concrete carbuncles. Absolutely nothing historic will be demolished or harmed in any way.
It therefore has to be said that some of the posts I'm reading in this thread are - to put it bluntly - total and utter bollocks. Really, it's quite depressing for an architecture enthusiast like myself to read them. If you can't appreciate world class architecture like the Shard of Glass, Bishopsgate Tower or the Leadenhall Building, then frankly I pity you. I can't believe somebody actually called the Gherkin an "eyesore"... that's just flagrant nonsense. It's clearly a very popular and much-admired landmark.
London isn't a "museum city" like Rome or Cairo. It's a dynamic, vibrant, cutting edge metropolis that is constantly evolving and reinventing itself. The mixture of historic and modern architecture forms the very essence of this great city. In the last few decades we've seen the BT Tower, Lloyds Building, Tower 42, the London Eye, the Gherkin, Canary Wharf, Millenium Dome, Thames Flood Barrier, Wembley Stadium, City Hall, Millenium Bridge, Hungerford Bridge, Charing Cross station, Waterloo International, improvements to Piccadilly Circus, Tate Modern, the Great Court at the British Museum, etc...
Can you imagine London without these striking modern landmarks? I can't.
These skyscrapers are just another step forwards in this evolution, and they are coming at just the right time. Firstly, they will be completed in time for the Olympics, when the eyes of the world will be focussed on London. Secondly, our financial services industry is booming at the moment. It's a major asset to the UK economy, and it's widely acknowledged that the City is beginning to overtake New York to become the #1 centre of global finance. A few links which prove this -
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/r...9758-080CCE86A36C/0/BC_RS_compposition_FR.pdf
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-2378565.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2081283,00.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2081045,00.html
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/7186/print
Only last month, JP Morgan submitted a requirement for a new 1 million square foot headquarter office in the City. Several other massive requirements have also been announced recently by a variety of companies seeking office space in London.
Now, would you honestly prefer to see a hulking, fat, lowrise "groundscraper", with massive floorplates and a lack of public space, which completely dominates the street level environment and drowns out neighbouring church spires, etc...
...or would you prefer a slim, elegant, soaring tower that adds drama and verticality to the skyline, has plenty of space and permeability around its base, and a public observation deck on the top floor? I know which I'd prefer!
Please, try to accept that skyscrapers are a part of modern urban life. They don't have to be impersonal, corporate office blocks - they can also be eye-catching, inspiring landmarks... and symbols of progress. A huge city like London is easily capable of incorporating them into its urban fabric. If you read forums like SkyscraperCity.com, you'll see that London's proposed skyscrapers are amongst the most admired and talked about in the world right now.
Once again - please sign my petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html
In addition, these new skyscrapers will be incredibly green and eco-friendly. The Shard at London Bridge, for example, will use around 40% less energy than a typical office building, while the Bishopsgate Tower will be almost entirely clad in solar panels! You can't get much greener than that.
To read a typical planning report, see this example on the Corporation of London website. Some of these towers even went through public inquiries, after English Heritage tried to stop them - wasting tens of millions of pounds in the process, which could have been spent on restoring beautiful old buildings and heritage sites elsewhere. These skyscrapers will stand together around the existing Natwest Tower, at the very centre of the Square Mile, literally next door to each other, forming an extremely tight cluster. It's not like they're going to be built anywhere near St Paul's or the Tower of London. The buildings they're replacing are completely forgettable, drab, 60's concrete carbuncles. Absolutely nothing historic will be demolished or harmed in any way.
It therefore has to be said that some of the posts I'm reading in this thread are - to put it bluntly - total and utter bollocks. Really, it's quite depressing for an architecture enthusiast like myself to read them. If you can't appreciate world class architecture like the Shard of Glass, Bishopsgate Tower or the Leadenhall Building, then frankly I pity you. I can't believe somebody actually called the Gherkin an "eyesore"... that's just flagrant nonsense. It's clearly a very popular and much-admired landmark.
London isn't a "museum city" like Rome or Cairo. It's a dynamic, vibrant, cutting edge metropolis that is constantly evolving and reinventing itself. The mixture of historic and modern architecture forms the very essence of this great city. In the last few decades we've seen the BT Tower, Lloyds Building, Tower 42, the London Eye, the Gherkin, Canary Wharf, Millenium Dome, Thames Flood Barrier, Wembley Stadium, City Hall, Millenium Bridge, Hungerford Bridge, Charing Cross station, Waterloo International, improvements to Piccadilly Circus, Tate Modern, the Great Court at the British Museum, etc...
Can you imagine London without these striking modern landmarks? I can't.
These skyscrapers are just another step forwards in this evolution, and they are coming at just the right time. Firstly, they will be completed in time for the Olympics, when the eyes of the world will be focussed on London. Secondly, our financial services industry is booming at the moment. It's a major asset to the UK economy, and it's widely acknowledged that the City is beginning to overtake New York to become the #1 centre of global finance. A few links which prove this -
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/r...9758-080CCE86A36C/0/BC_RS_compposition_FR.pdf
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-2378565.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2081283,00.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2081045,00.html
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/7186/print
Only last month, JP Morgan submitted a requirement for a new 1 million square foot headquarter office in the City. Several other massive requirements have also been announced recently by a variety of companies seeking office space in London.
Now, would you honestly prefer to see a hulking, fat, lowrise "groundscraper", with massive floorplates and a lack of public space, which completely dominates the street level environment and drowns out neighbouring church spires, etc...
...or would you prefer a slim, elegant, soaring tower that adds drama and verticality to the skyline, has plenty of space and permeability around its base, and a public observation deck on the top floor? I know which I'd prefer!
Please, try to accept that skyscrapers are a part of modern urban life. They don't have to be impersonal, corporate office blocks - they can also be eye-catching, inspiring landmarks... and symbols of progress. A huge city like London is easily capable of incorporating them into its urban fabric. If you read forums like SkyscraperCity.com, you'll see that London's proposed skyscrapers are amongst the most admired and talked about in the world right now.
Once again - please sign my petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html
