There is an article in this weeks architects Journal on five skyscrapers by 'big-name' British architects on the drawing board close to the site of the controversial Broadway Mayalan Vauxhall Tower.

Cant be arsed to type out the full article but these towers consist of;

1. Squire and Partners 70,000m2 mixed use scheme for London and Regional properties
2. New tower scheme for Hampton House on Albert Embankment for a consortium of developers based off-shore
3. IDS Consultant's tower scheme for 28-246 Albert embankment (recently submitted)
4. CLS Holdings are supposedly employing an archiect to draw up a tower for their property on the corner of Bondway and Wadsworth Road.
5. In addition a tower in the vicinity of St George's Wharf is believed to be in the early stages of development according to CLS Holdings director Kevin Chapman.

Well I think we all knew this would be the start of a new cluster.

The problem is the hurdles the St Georges's Vauxhall Tower went through will no doubt be repeated again.

But I'm glad at least this will see something of a cluster that will take the attention off of that rather lacklustre tower.

But yeah, Vauxhall, Southwark, Elephant & Castle, The City, Canary Wharf, Croydon, possibly Stratford and maybe Euston/West End clusters ONLY please. Otherwise it will get ridiculous.

I did these renderings a while ago.

St George's Wharf:


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/vauxhallcluster/1.jpg



According to info provided by gothic, this is roughly what the cluster might look like with the additional towers:

http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/vauxhallcluster/6.jpg



And this is with Beetham & Wilkinson Eyre added:

http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/vauxhallcluster/7.jpg


Btw, these are viewed from St Paul's cathedral.

Of course, putting a 'masterplan' on the number and height of skyscrapers in an area is ridiculous, but I'd like to see maybe one more 'pinnacle' in the Vauxhall cluster, and then a serious effort to build up the surrrounding area with more medium height to give density but make the skyline slope upwards towards these peaks on the skyline.

I think this is one problem with the London skyscraper explosion, we're creating these clusters but they seem to just spring out of nothingness and apart from the City aren't really getting enough medium to low rise density to 'hold' the cluster and create a more uniform movement across the skyline for the eye instead of this 'BOOM there's a cluster' feeling I get currently.

I think this is one problem with the London skyscraper explosion, we're creating these clusters but they seem to just spring out of nothingness and apart from the City aren't really getting enough medium to low rise density to 'hold' the cluster and create a more uniform movement across the skyline for the eye instead of this 'BOOM there's a cluster' feeling I get currently.
Totally agree, in the case of the Vauxhall cluster this is very true.

I think there are too many clusters. We are making the same mistakes made with hi-rises before with them springing up all over the place in relative isolation. Darjole is also right that these clusters have no density around them. I am always suspicious of masterplanning as well, it rarely works out in the modern context.

My ideas for London though is the post-production fashionistas should be encouraged into new premises out of soho possibly fleet street or the St Pauls side of the city while those city firms should be encouraged to move around bishopsgate and the city fringe in new scrapers!!! Leaving Soho for more restaurants, bars and to enable some bits to be pedestrianised. Really all this is called is zoning.

But London is vast! The skyline is already dotted with an almost infinte number of towers; London can easily cope with a large number of clusters... it has to. Are you seriously considering lumping all the tall buildings that London will eventually need over the next 100 years into 2 areas, one which is full of historical buildings and the other which is well, almost full! A number of clusters is far superior to the random tower building of the past. I truely see a prospect of beauty in clustering in many places as it will echo the spires of London past.

I also want to see many areas protected from over-bearing buildings and dont want to see a sea of tower blocks, however, increasing the number of clusters will give the necessary safety valve to the building restrictions that are already in place and the inevitable restrictions that will be implemented in future. What we should be concerning ourselves with is the quality, both visually and in environment of any new building whether it is tall or not, but due to their size tall buildings should have more scrutiny and the visual beauty of the cluster as a whole should be considered, ie it should not look like a wall with a flat profile.

On a note about the Vauhxhall cluster I agree it needs a bit more drama, it looks too much like Canary Wharf in that artists impression, considering that this was master planned it is a bit worrying! A couple of soaring towers wouldnt go a-miss and Im presuming that once the towers are planned in the extra bulk will form around it?

Really all this is called is zoning.

But isn't that just another form of masterplanning?

What I love about Barcelona is how people work, eat, play and live all over the city. There isn't a central CBD so to speak with simply offices, everything seems to have an even spread. I know this is changing with trying to create a more financial centre around Glories with Torre Agbar and the Forum, but this still is a hugely residential area with future plans including a Hadid project for a cultural area.

Because of this the transport network doesn't feel the pressure of one way commuting, as this is more equal across the network. It just 'feels' like a nice, relaxed stress free place. I really wish this could happen more in London, we need to make people move back into the West End and city centre, but as well extend the West End into the financial City, meaning City workers won't need to use transport to get to the West End, and people living in the centre of town won't need to travel or commute from afar to their work.

I know a lot of people never believed it, but Canary Wharf really is going to surpass the City in ten to fifteen years in terms of its residential/commercial balance. You can already see it, Canary Wharf is packed on summer evenings, and during the day you're now getting a lot more people who live locally spending time there. Add more residents from the surrounding proposed residential towers, the increase in commercial premises and transport links and this place is going to rock.

So yeah, basically, we need to spread things out a bit more I think.

And yes - enough clusters. And none of this 'well it's part of the .... cluster' even when it's so far away it's painfully not.

well. could be awesome, could well be worth distracting the eye from the bean pole that is st georges wharf. but I know what you mean with no mid rises building up to it, its a bit 'whoops there it is'

....And yes - enough clusters. And none of this 'well it's part of the .... cluster' even when it's so far away it's painfully not.

But how can we limit the number of clusters? If we want to protect certain areas then we need to allow vertical growth in others. If we limit the number of clusters then we pretty much strangle the future potential of London especially if we want more people living centrally. I agree that limiting the number of clusters to start with is probably wise but I get the impression that the relatively small number of proposed clusters have been already carefully selected and there are unlikely going to be many more popping up in the near future.

I also dont think that we should put down a blanket ban on future proposals for iconic towers like LBT from popping up randomly either... again it is all down to the quality and visual appeal of the building and cluster. I would suggest that slim soaring buildings will contrast and sit bettter into the fabric of London than trying to slowly bulk up areas with mid-rises and sprawling ground-scrapers which seems to be the unfortunate side-effect result of the current well-meaning but poorly executed height limits.

Meanwhile I am waiting for the first skyscraper to take off the ground.

But isn't that just another form of masterplanning?

What I love about Barcelona is how people work, eat, play and live all over the city. There isn't a central CBD so to speak with simply offices, everything seems to have an even spread. I know this is changing with trying to create a more financial centre around Glories with Torre Agbar and the Forum, but this still is a hugely residential area with future plans including a Hadid project for a cultural area.

Because of this the transport network doesn't feel the pressure of one way commuting, as this is more equal across the network. It just 'feels' like a nice, relaxed stress free place. I really wish this could happen more in London, we need to make people move back into the West End and city centre, but as well extend the West End into the financial City, meaning City workers won't need to use transport to get to the West End, and people living in the centre of town won't need to travel or commute from afar to their work.


Interesting observation on Canary Wharf, it would pleasantly suprise many people if this area turned out so mixed in uses and allowed for local work and living! I agree that zoning would be a mistake in somewhere like London and more mixed cost residential places need to be created in central. The zoning of heaving industry is vital but office and retail and housing does not need to be zoned. If an area has a vibrant night life then a younger or single person neighbourhood is likely to evolve, you dont need to plan it in or zone it, just some consideration needs to be made for new applications.

I really do worry about the City being devoid of residents. If the City really can not stomach local politics then boundaries need to be redrawn, the River section of the City should be made residential so that some life is injected and it can build a lively community that crosses the physical boundary of the river. This is where a habitable bridge over the Thames would come in handy as it will be a symbolic with this new connection between the South of the River and the historical context of the City as the birth of London.

... and I do not understand what is meant by 'too many clusters": I know one cluster in CW and that's all. There are two skyscrapers in the City of London - that's hardly a cluster -and we don't know whether the proposed schemes will eventually be built. Everyone can come up with a 150+ proposal and obtained pp. The real question is whether the developer actually plans to build or not. At this point in time, not a single developer has yet announced the starting date of construction. Therefore, and unless we are talking about what London may look like in 2076, I believe it premature to talk about "too many clusters".

Some perceptive points here, especially Potto on the need for more clusters and Darjole on how a more even residential/work mix can ease transport pressures and add more vitality. So much attention is given to improving public transport and not enough on expanding cities to encourage more walking.

As for the Vauxhall cluster illustrated by wjfox2002, I like the slender buildings, especially compared to the fatter stumpy towers of Canary Wharf. I also like the way it rises from nowhere, that gives it drama and also helps people orientate themselves. If it was surrounded by lower rise towers there would be less definition there, and it would cluttered and confusing to read.

I am now in favour of lots of small clusters. I never used to be but I have changed my mind. Right now the skyline of Vauxhall offers nothing interesting to view. Soon it will offer something. That's an improvement in my view. So long as they keep them away from Big Ben/Parliament and the West End then I am happy for towers almost anywhere in London. One exception is that tower proposed immediately next to the Millennium Dome - completely spoiling views of one of the finest buildings of the modern age.

Be serious:
- Columbus Tower : dead
- Minerva Tower : failed to attract a single pre-let after 20 months of marketing.
- Heron Tower : dead
- Revised Heron Tower : if granted pp, will not start construction before 2009
- Leadenhall

Be serious:

- Columbus Tower: dead

- Minerva Tower: failed to attract a single pre-let after 20 months of marketing. Possibly the new board will scrap it once and for all.

- Heron Tower: dead

- Revised Heron Tower: if granted pp, will not start construction before 2009 if ever (after lease expiring and demolition of existing building).

- Leadenhall Building: failed to attract a single pre-let after one year of marketing. Will not start construction before 2009 if ever (after lease expiring and demolition of existing building).

- London Bridge Tower: failed to attract a single office pre-let after 2 years of marketing.

I am afraid that there is now more chance we are informed a project is scrapped rather than a project will start construction.

but still we need to have careful plans or at least an image of where we can locate tall buildings in London even if nothign comes of it in the next 20 years

Interestingly those are office developments, perhaps high-rise living aiming at all of the single people or couples have more prospect? These tall mixed use and residential towers need to be clustered as much as the office proposals

I am now in favour of lots of small clusters. I never used to be but I have changed my mind. Right now the skyline of Vauxhall offers nothing interesting to view. Soon it will offer something. That's an improvement in my view. So long as they keep them away from Big Ben/Parliament and the West End then I am happy for towers almost anywhere in London. One exception is that tower proposed immediately next to the Millennium Dome - completely spoiling views of one of the finest buildings of the modern age.

Exactly Vauxhall, apart from the Arch Bishop of Canterbury residence is just a stumpy wall of not very attractive 50s blocks with the MI5 building giving some relief. The fact that there is a large railway line restricting the space means that towers are a good solution. I would like to see a bit more variation in the height of the buildings, not necessarily mid-rises, to create an interesting profile of the cluster.

In response to Jef’s suggestion. I think every one of the posts on this thread is serious.

No matter how many projects don’t get built, even if only one or two of them do, it could still have an impact on our lives. As it is, with increasing population in London and the Olympics, many more than one or two will be built.

Hope you're right!

I think its a crying shame that large parts of the west end and particularly soho and covent garden are devoted to post-production and fashionista companies surely they would be better served in more modern facilities, like is it necesary for Nickelodeon to be based just off Oxford st, or 20th Century Fox on Soho Sq, or the FA for that matter. Imagine a pedestrianised Soho with cafes, restaurants and bars lining Soho Sq.

But Zoning isn't master planning, it already happeneds with having to apply for a change of use planning permission. When i say master planning i mean when one firm designs the look for entire city quarters, zoning allows more diversity and leaves it up to the markets on what kind of office sector or retail sector sets up.

Again I blame westminster council for their complete lack of foresight.

If you worry about views potto worry about the Cross river tram which will run straight over waterloo bridge with big power lines and ugly trams ruining THE single best view in London.

But i think the protectic view thing is rubbish anyway.

I'm actually undecided on this.. I dunno if I want another cluster (especially of such height).. if thats going to become half the reality it could be.. it at leasts needs some midrises to bring it in touch with the groundscape.

If you worry about views potto worry about the Cross river tram which will run straight over waterloo bridge with big power lines and ugly trams ruining THE single best view in London.
What??? I never knew about this.

From where I'm sitting at the moment (top floor of the Empress State) the only clusters of any note are Canary Wharf and Paddington. Most other tall buildings are dotted all over the place

Therefore, and unless we are talking about what London may look like in 2076, I believe it premature to talk about "too many clusters".

But this is one problem with a lot of cities, they don't look far enough ahead to see these problems. I'd love to see London is 2076. Fair enough, it might be completely underwater, but I'd like to think that over the seventy years it grew as organically and as haphazard as it has in the previous seventy, but, and this is what we've learnt, with a forward looking idea of what we want London to continue to be - a vibrant, exciting, forward-thinking city but one that has learnt from its mistakes with regards to its population.

prizemada- you cant just tell companies where to move to it happens organically- Soho is partly how it is due to companies like Post production , advertising & media/film -Most of these industries have always been around here & just north of Oxford st. Also Soho does have a sizeable residential community & loads fo cafes/bars etc. Its the complete opposite to the City which ,due to Coporation of planning, has gone from being the focal point of London for hundreds of years crammed with housing to 95% offices & a sterile atmosphere you see in the evening and at weekends.

What the city of London needs is more mixed towers or resi towers to bring back a bit of life to the area. There would also be more chance of them being built as residentials would sell in this part of the city. Im amazed that the Mayor et al has allowed the Corp to totally ignore increasing residentials.

As far as Vauxhall & clusters go I'm all for a tall residential cluster in Vauxhall. Theres not much but a large transport interchange & busy roads so its nto as if the area will suffer. It would also look quite good especially when travellin gto vicotria/waterloo by train as you would pass right by them with the City & CW clusters onthe horizon.

Imagine a pedestrianised Soho with cafes, restaurants and bars lining Soho Sq.

I'd like Soho to be a mix of both to be honest. The problem is the attractive parts of Soho contain office sites. Soho Square I'd love to see pedestrianised, as well as the roads leading off of it. Remove the railings around the park and let the people free. The problem is Soho Square needs animating at these newly pedestrianised areas - and all it has is something like a Subway and a Cafe Nero in one corner. This is why I really really wish ground floors of office buildings were given over to commercial premises and not these fucking huge reception areas that piss me off.

I know I go off on one again, but people love Barcelona and Paris because there are independent cafes and outdoor eating everywhere, and this is the one thing that pisses me off about London when it comes to alfresco dining - it's shit. We now have gas heaters to keep people warm, and people love sitting outside in a traffic free environment. Now imagine say Soho Square and Golden Square as I described, pedestrianised, opened out, cafes and restaurants on each side spilling out onto the square, it would be fabulous.

I wouldn't want the whole of Soho like that, it needs it's main trafffic arteries and I certainly don't want it gentrified, but a coherent plan it really could be in the similar vein to Barcelona's Gothic Quarter, which is just this really happening, curious, lively place with some amazing piazzas with great little bars and restaurants.

What the city of London needs is more mixed towers or resi towers to bring back a bit of life to the area. There would also be more chance of them being built as residentials would sell in this part of the city. Im amazed that the Mayor et al has allowed the Corp to totally ignore increasing residentials.


I don't really see why the city needs to be lively at night/weekends there are plenty of other places in London to go out that are much nicer for a few beers/food.

Yes but itsn't it sad that was the centre for nearly 2000 yrs is now nothing but office blocks that add nothing to the area- The city still has some lovely old streets & alleys & victorian buildings. If it was any other city in the UK or Europe these little ,historic alleyways & areas with some grand buildings like St Pauls the area around bank, monument etc are just throughfares for office workers & tourists. You walk around the city on a weekend & its like a ghost town especially when you consider this is the centre of London.

It's the financial centre of London not the real centre...it's too far east to be that.

Charing cross and trafalgar square is the real centre (or at least what most people consider to be the centre)

No, it is the historical centre, it was where everyone lived and worked before spilling out into the countryside and swamping the bits where the posh people lived; Westminster was just a pad for royalty. Look at the evocative names, moorfields, shoreditch, spittafields, these were literally moorlands, bogs and fields circling the city in medieval times. See where all the once great markets were located to provide food for the population of the City and you can see it was always the centre and heart of London, but sadly now depopulated although equally as important.

What??? I never knew about this.

Unless they are battery powered i will be against trams in central London or any other attractive urban area for that matter

In any other city, The City would be considered the old town. It would be were the history is, there would be protection orders on a lot of the building, the remains of the surrounding medieval wall would be tourist attractions and nothing woul dbe allowed to be built around them.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) London moved on. We built over, replaced, destroyed, defaced a lot of the old City. It has changed vastly over the last thousand years, and now is the most famous financial centre in the world. This is where people used to live - if you were born within the Bow Bells you were a true cockney. I doubt anyone is even born one now.

What??? I never knew about this.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiatives/crt/map.shtml

good idea but please let it be battery powered!

I don't really see why the city needs to be lively at night/weekends there are plenty of other places in London to go out that are much nicer for a few beers/food.

In fact the city could be the ideal place for bars and nightclubs due to the fact it has only 6000 residents.

But i wasn't suggesting forcing companies out of soho you just do it gradually through the planning system. But Soho only recently was post-production and media when the indepedent sector was given a boost, surely better locations would be close to the BBC, or film studios in purpose built buildings rather than crammed inot buildings that were originally houses or apartments.

It has changed vastly over the last thousand years, and now is the most famous financial centre in the world...
What? More famous than Wall Street? I doubt it IMHO.

In fact the city could be the ideal place for bars and nightclubs due to the fact it has only 6000 residents.

But i wasn't suggesting forcing companies out of soho you just do it gradually through the planning system. But Soho only recently was post-production and media when the indepedent sector was given a boost, surely better locations would be close to the BBC, or film studios in purpose built buildings rather than crammed inot buildings that were originally houses or apartments.

I think they all rather like being in Soho rather than out in shepherds bush

What? More famous than Wall Street? I doubt it IMHO.

Yes, I'd say so. There was a financial centre in London long before New York was founded. We brought international finance to the world, albeit from ideas borrowed from the Dutch.

I think numerous clusters would be a good idea, it would add a real epth to the skyline, and maybe when developed further, a few new tourist attractions

I think they all rather like being in Soho rather than out in shepherds bush

Im sure they do, but my point is maybe it would be better if they moved, allowing rents in Soho to come down and the creation of a new piazza in London around Soho sq. There are always so many nay-sayers.

Great to see so many new proposals around Vauxhall. This could be a top new district. With luck the gap between the power station and Vauxhall will be bridged a whole new waterfront developed.

Soho is a great district, but as DarJoLe says opening up some of the squares and a few pavement cafe's wouldn't go amiss. A don't think the companies should be encouraged out though. Soho is genuine mixed use and is working!

Should the city be forced to increase its resident numbers? I really don't know on this one. Theoretically I'd say definitely yes, BUT the sqaure mile is enormously successful and common sense says don't mess about with the golden goose.

Im sure they do, but my point is maybe it would be better if they moved, allowing rents in Soho to come down and the creation of a new piazza in London around Soho sq. There are always so many nay-sayers.

I don't see why that couldn't happen anyway...why does it matter what sort of company is based there, or do you mean residential rents?

But Soho has always been a centre of the British Media. In recent years as Soho has become to cramped for some companies they have moved North of Oxford street into Fitrovia around Charlotte street, where you can now find Nickelodeon and Saatchi and Saatchi etc. In recent yaears a new media cluster has grown up in Chiswick Business park. Cable TV and other new media companies have fled to the lower rents. Without the Media Soho would be unlikely to attract other tennents. Soho with its louche air might be fine for Music, TV and Film types, But no blue chip repsectable company would want to be there. The only reason to be there is to be close to other fashionable people and hope some rubs off on you.

im not suggesting that Soho becomes a base for blue chips but for bars, nightclubs. The lack of use of soho square other than for the FA and Fox is a scandal.

Soho has not always been the centre of the media, it was originally a working class nieghbourhood with a large italian population. Just like Fitzrovia was a slightly better housing area, I hate the fact there are very few old georgian houses in central London that actually have people living in them. Lets create viable urban neighbourhoods again.

But Soho has always been a centre of the British Media.Fleet Street?

im not suggesting that Soho becomes a base for blue chips but for bars, nightclubs. The lack of use of soho square other than for the FA and Fox is a scandal.Why? Soho Square would be like Leicester Square if it were full of bars. I quite like the way it's quiet and peaceful.Soho.... was originally a working class nieghbourhood with a large italian population.It is more famous for the French Huguenot population. It was a French speaking enclave for more than a century.

After visiting many other birtish cities, the lack of dynamic pedestrianised areas in London is appalling!! But the west end is dersigned in a grid, where would you suggest pedestrianisation? I think it would be fantastic if Regent Street, capturing carnaby street through some of soho, would be pedestrianised. London needs a grand pedestrian centre, Leicester square simply is not enough.. as good as it is..

yeah, that would be fantastic :yes:

Yes I agree. It would also relieve Oxford Circus – currently hell for pedestrians, where they squeezed into narrow corridors like cattle.

The problem with pedestrianising Oxford Circus/Regents Street is where would all the buses go? SO many buses take that route

Back to the topic, I think Vauxhall would be a great place for a resisdential cluster, great transport links, edge of zone 1, plenty of good sites that wouldn't interfer with sightlines and some of the building that face the Thames and Albert Embankment are terrible. Vauxhall has real potential, my mate has lived there for two year, theres plenty of bars, two big supermarkets nearby, plenty of off licences that do after hours sales, one small and one medium sized park, and parts of area have real charm, there's plenty of typical (but nice) 3/4 storey victorian terraces.

Tall residentials should defineatly be encouraged in City Fringe areas like Barbican, or just outside like Shoreditch, Whitechaple, St. Lukes and Finsbury, these areas have already been scared by nasty looking 60s tower blocks some well designed slender residential towers can only improve thing IMO and im sure there would be a big demand from City workers

pedestrianise Oxford St and the buses can still u se regents st and wigmore st which runs parallel to Oxford St.

Why would soho square be like leicester sq? Old Compton street for example is full of bars gay andf straight yet it isn't as nasty, tacky or violent as Leciester square can be. Drunk macho idiots tend to stay away from Soho. Soho square is a prime area that we could show off cafe culture at its best, think Bar Italia not the Hippodrome.

Should the city be forced to increase its resident numbers? I really don't know on this one. Theoretically I'd say definitely yes, BUT the sqaure mile is enormously successful and common sense says don't mess about with the golden goose.

If it really is too painful for them then the boundaries should be redrawn, either shrunk or moved east. Perhaps not the historical boundary but the electoral wards so that housing can filter into the city by the river an area that suits small residential units more than offices.