Magneze said:
I vaguely remember reading how architecture could be fashist. buildings like that sometimes feel they're attacking you.
manhattan on thames: the skyscraper thread
- Thread starter guinnessdrinker
- Start date
I vaguely remember reading how architecture could be fashist. buildings like that sometimes feel they're attacking you.
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
agricola said:
It's only when you look at a detailed map that you realise how large the site occupied by the adverts actually is. And the new flats have no legal right to a view - only to light.
With Ken's attitude to highrise, and Lambeth having lost the appeal on their rejection of the nearby riverside tower next to St George's Wharf (at least the bits relating to the principle of a high building) I think Vauxhall will shortly be transformed into South London's answer to Canary Wharf.
on the Shard front, the Southwark News reports that apparently they were finalising the little details by the end of last year (taking a long time sinc the application was granted in 2003). apparently, they still have to buy the sites! things are not going too well, perhaps. IIRC, work was meant to start in 2005.
Harold Hill
Jay Emm forgot his p/word
the B said:
I think many firms who are the sole tenant might be looking at the long term picture. take barclays at their new hq at canary wharf. I would guess it is no more than 60/70% full. I would also guess that in the last 20 years each division has expanded.
Therefore if you move into a new tower, its better to have space free so when divisions expand its relatively pain free as they can use office space in their hq rather than renting elsewhere.
pakkers said:
[makes mental note not to meet this gentleman, lest I lose my temper]guinnessdrinker said:
Perhaps you need something more important to lose your temper over...? Or do you want to live in a city that has all the past to be a world player, but somehow doesn't seem to have a place for it in the future...?
jæd said:
why should have a city have skyscrapers in order to be a "world player"? is it all to be about to be about penises in the sky?
jæd said:One mans "penis in the sky" is another mans towering erection...!
are you saying you're spouting nonsense....?
jæd said:Only as much as you are...!
so what is nonsense which I spout, according to you?
Harold Hill
Jay Emm forgot his p/word
guinnessdrinker said:
Maybe we need them to block out some of the 60s shite.
Have to say some of the designs being planned for the city are very attractive.
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
Interestingly, someone told me that there are a few old highrise blocks that are now being used exclusively as accommodation for old people, with relative success.guinnessdrinker said:
Old people tend not to piss on the stairwell (well, at least not voluntarily), don't vandalise lifts, don't paint graffiti everywhere or make noise and otherwise indulge in what is now termed anti-social behaviour. The flats are relatively small, have no garden to tend and are cheap to heat. People living there have lots of people their own age nearby and, if support is required, it makes it easier for social services to visit one block rather than a lot of spread out properties.
lighterthief said:
I hope that the lifts don't break down when they come back from the shops.
and more tall buildings. in the southwark news this week, there is a planning application notice for an 80 metres tall 21 storeys mixed office building accompanied by a 15 storeys hotel on the new kent road of elephant road (at the back of the railway station). the other buiding would be at the Walworth Road.
Truepioneer
New Member
Skyscrapers can make very efficient buildings in cities. They're resourceful with land usage, create identity for a city and reduce commuting.
The problem is when their design isn't sensitive to the neighbourhoods around them. This occurs when they are clumped together and not properly distributed out, the design doesn't respect the other architecture it surrounds or it doesn't set a new standard for architecture already in the surrounding areas. Also, if the building can give back to the community with a public space that's always nice I find large clusters of tall buildings really take away the human scale in other cities.
Unless planned carefully they can be a burden for London like they have else where
mid-density flats would probably be the best way to go really.
The problem is when their design isn't sensitive to the neighbourhoods around them. This occurs when they are clumped together and not properly distributed out, the design doesn't respect the other architecture it surrounds or it doesn't set a new standard for architecture already in the surrounding areas. Also, if the building can give back to the community with a public space that's always nice
I find large clusters of tall buildings really take away the human scale in other cities.Unless planned carefully they can be a burden for London like they have else where
mid-density flats would probably be the best way to go really.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
Oh, not sure what that building on the riverfront is but it looks totally insignificant when swamped by all those towers.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2839TheBishopsgateTower_pic1.jpg
Sort of reminds me of the plans for the towers next to the old firehouse in Herbie
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2839TheBishopsgateTower_pic1.jpg
Sort of reminds me of the plans for the towers next to the old firehouse in Herbie
Reno
The In Kraut
Truepioneer said:The problem is when their design isn't sensitive to the neighbourhoods around them. This occurs when they are clumped together and not properly distributed out, the design doesn't respect the other architecture it surrounds or it doesn't set a new standard for architecture already in the surrounding areas. Also, if the building can give back to the community with a public space that's always nice
For me skyscrapers only ever work properly when they are restricted to particular parts of a city as in New York, where they are restricted to Manhattan or in San Francisco, where they are restricted to downtown. When they are all over the place they are in danger of intruding on older parts of a city where they aren't appropriate.
Reno said:
I agree. for me skyscrapers should be confined to Canary Wharf and to a certain extant, the city (bearing in mind that it is full of all kind of older buildings and close to St Paul. at the moment it seems a policy to have skyscrapers near bridges as if they were gateways to crossing the river.
Similar threads
