Broadgate is behind the biggies from that angle.

So basically, the entire 'new cluster' will form between the two towers we see there now... looks stunnning....


What about that broadgate tower? Any impact from here?

i command the bishopsgate tower to begin..

Bishopsgate tower wrks wonderfully well from this view... If City Airport gets their evil ways I will cry cause even a slight height decrease will ruin the aesthetic of the cluster

they dont own it, sellar owns it and they have a tenancy agreement. if it says they must vacate the building on a certain date there's not much they can do. they are doing basic business sense though which is be obstructive to get improved conditions. as long as sellar has a good contract, and in my experience good contracts are vital with ALL business, he can enforce it.
maybe im totally wrong but im sure i heard somewhere tha pwc where moving in the more london development.. anybody know if this is true

Heron quay tower is approved, not proposed.

maggie, its ernst and young.

Heron quay tower is approved, not proposed.

Only this old design is approved.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/131HarperMackayBuilding_pic1.jpg

And I doubt CW will be wanting to go with a tiny building on that site now.

In case anyones interested, Lee Polisano president of Kohn Pederson Fox (architects of Heron & Bishopsgate towers) will be looking at how Londons newest skyscrapers respond to the citys history &culture, and asks how they affect Londons status as a world city in a talk titled ' Height: Tall buildings & London'

London School of Economics, Houghton St London, Thursday 6.30pm 90207-7955 6043)

i would love to go, who else is going?? might be worth milling for a quick drink... but is it worth it? I would have to travel alllllll the way from oxford...

Bit quiet round ere in'it

Found this report by knight Frank about the most recent quartely review on office takeup- Its quite encouraging sayig take up space is decreasing & that should mean schemes starting in the next few quarters.

http://www.knightfrank.com/webui/ResearchReportDir/10756.pdf

What we really need is a new tower to come out of the wood work to stop us getting bored- anybody care to speculate when we are likely to see a new big scheme revealed :)

I think that we will see the next biggie (220m) plus before March.
I think there could be another super tall proposed before next autumn if Difa gets approval. That will show to developers everywhere that London is finally moving into the 21st century and accepting the scraper (bit late like, but who am i to judge? :) )

god that would be brilliant if that were to happen :yes:

The Shard skyscraper should be built in WEST END.Skyscrapers most feel at home in heart of the city - where is the highest concentration of shopping,entertainment,office.That's why skyscrapers in midtown Manhattan "feel" much better than those in lower Manhattan.

London isn't Manhatten and should never try to emulate the Big Apple.

London isn't Manhatten and should never try to emulate the Big Apple.

well said DarJoLe, London is really a series of cities and towns in one, so there is no reason, why skyscrapers won't work in different parts of the capital.

Col- Im assuming your new to the forum- why would you want to stick a 1000ft skyscraper in the middle of the west end whic is predominately small streets & victorian & georgian architecture. LBT is next to the worlds biggest international financial centre where demand for large amounts of office space is evident in the tall buildings there already.

And as Darjole says- Londons not NY so you cant compare like with like.

Having mostly agreed with the responses, I would rather see a mixed-use elegant 'Shard' at the end of Oxford Street than a dinosaur office block that is Centre Point!

The Shard skyscraper should be built in WEST END.Skyscrapers most feel at home in heart of the city - where is the highest concentration of shopping,entertainment,office.That's why skyscrapers in midtown Manhattan "feel" much better than those in lower Manhattan.

I love a bigger cluster round the BT tower etc, but sightlines would prevent that.

"worlds biggest international financial centre"

umm new york hold that title

dont start that again!

Col, have you been to the West End?

That would the worst place place for the shard, the west end should be devoid of skyscrapers most the the current ones except for BT tower and Centre Point (maybe im on my own here, but I've always liked it) are terrible. London bridge is the perfect location, opposite the city and it will also detract from the awful guys tower.

I walked across Hungerford Bridge and back across Waterloo Bridge tonight, and as I did tried to imagine Beetham, Coin Street and this so called 'cluster' that people are saying will appear on the South Bank, as well as the future City cluster.

Tall skyscrapers on the South Bank just won't work. You have a low-rise north bank, which doesn't have any noticeable spires of any distinct 'pierce' into the skyline, and then on the south bank you'll have this massive leap upwards. The only saving grace is how St Paul's begins the movement of the eye upwards from the North Bank to the City pinnacle.

Taking it from Waterloo Bridge, you'll have a cluster (or more a wall) of towers bearing down hard on the north bank across Blackfriars and Temple. It will be incredibly unbalanced for people going along the Thames. A bit like how the London Eye bears down on you when you're in the pool of Westminster, but much harder. LBT won't have this, because you'll have a tall cluster on the north side, balancing things out.

The current South Bank is fine - medium rise buildings which are only slightly taller than the north bank - this gives a much more coherent and defined river basin. King's Reach and the former LWT tower are fine as say, 'markers', but this is all I'd like to see. The only way I'd support Beetham and Coin Street as well as this 'cluster' is if we see a similar transition of skyscrapers on the north bank. This won't be allowed, therefore I can't support these tall South Bank towers.

Having mostly agreed with the responses, I would rather see a mixed-use elegant 'Shard' at the end of Oxford Street than a dinosaur office block that is Centre Point!

Don't diss Centrepoint, a beautiful piece of architecture IMO.

i am with potto... centre point vs. lbt???? dont even bother...

Oxford Street is london's biggest let down... should be sorted out or wiped off the tourist trail...

yeas, so much could be done with it, but so little is...

"worlds biggest international financial centre"

umm new york hold that title

London is the crossroad between the US and Japan, along with China. Daily turnover exceeds that of New York and Tokoyo put together.

"worlds biggest international financial centre"

umm new york hold that title


No they don't. New York, London, Tokyo are all the three leading economies. As said below, London DOES have an average turnover of that of both cities COMBINED! It just doesn't look like it because we aint got scrapers to back office space.

There's an article in EGi today entitled 'Plans for Transformation of West End Unveiled.' Does anyone have access to the full thing? Is it the West End of London... or maybe Glasgow?

More new proposals I see, but nothing actually getting built. Same old story.

London: all talk and no action.

The Coin Street tower looks okay to me. It's set further back from the river than Beetham, which is good, and it's a better height/scale. The design isn't too flashy or attention-grabbing either. It just seems like a nice, 'normal' skyscraper that will add some height and density to that part of the skyline without being O.T.T.

So yeah, it's okay I think. We'll probably have to wait at least 4-5 years for it to even start construction though, just like virtually every other proposal in London. I think the only thing which stands any realistic chance of starting in the near future is the Broadgate Tower.

^^ :happy:

:cucumber: :cucumber: :banana: :banana: :dance: :cucumber: :cucumber: :banana: :banana:

You're back!

Welcome back WJ!

Come on london - get your shit together!

More new proposals I see, but nothing actually getting built. Same old story.

London: all talk and no action.



oh please, at least word it differently. :sleepy:

nice to see you back, but we'd rarther have you back in a better mood.

London: all talk and no action.

^^Fits like a puzzle

Thing is at the moment, I don't see any talk, but see action. I.e Wills, Ontario, Wembley, T5, CTRL, White City, Chiswick Business Park, Dome Rebirth, Emirates, Millharbour etc etc

oh please, at least word it differently.

nice to see you back, but we'd rarther have you back in a better mood.
Thing is at the moment, I don't see any talk, but see action. I.e Wills, Ontario, Wembley, T5, CTRL, White City, Chiswick Business Park, Dome Rebirth, Emirates, Millharbour etc etc
You're right Peyre, there's tons of stuff being built at the moment, and some of the stuff is pretty damn impressive (like the examples you've listed)... but let's not skirt around the truth here. The fact is, it's all lowrise, or midrise. Being a skyscraper enthusiast, I want to see buildings that make a real and noticeable impact on the skyline - buildings that actually, physically change the cityscape and views of London; one of the world's greatest, most visited, and most photographed cities. Practically nothing has been happening since Churchill Place and SwissRe topped out in the summer of 2003... that's around 2 and a half years of nothing happening, despite around 25 towers of 150m+ being proposed (which is more than most North American or even Asian cities). I'm tired of waiting, and to be honest I could probably leave this forum for another 6-12 months, come back, and there'd still be nothing happening except the Broadgate Tower. So yes, it's the same old story. Sorry if the truth hurts. :)

You're right Peyre, there's tons of stuff being built at the moment, and some of the stuff is pretty damn impressive (like the examples you've listed)... but let's not skirt around the truth here. The fact is, it's all lowrise, or midrise. Being a skyscraper enthusiast, I want to see buildings that make a real and noticeable impact on the skyline - buildings that actually, physically change the cityscape and views of London; one of the world's greatest, most visited, and most photographed cities. Practically nothing has been happening since Churchill Place and SwissRe topped out in the summer of 2003... that's around 2 and a half years of nothing happening, despite around 25 towers of 150m+ being proposed (which is more than most North American or even Asian cities). I'm tired of waiting, and to be honest I could probably leave this forum for another 6-12 months, come back, and there'd still be nothing happening except the Broadgate Tower. So yes, it's the same old story. Sorry if the truth hurts. :)

market conditions are down, EVERY one knows that. It will pick up in 2007. This forum is still full of great stuff. Well in the UK section at least.

what were you watching pre-2000??

Someone mentioned Terminal 5, apparently the biggest single building project in Europe? The building is bigger than the whole of Heathrow Airport's existing buildings put together! Are there any threads where I can see construction pics please? Or can we start one?

Terminal 5 thread (http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=251780)

Can someone confirm if Ropemaker Place is under construction or not because it says on Skyscraperpage that it is.

Yes, there's a whole thread on it.

Can someone confirm if Ropemaker Place is under construction or not because it says on Skyscraperpage that it is.

nope, the site is totally cleared down to what seems to be a 2nd basement level (and was done by Keltbray), however the site is empty, no activity at all at present, not sure why construction hasn't started, but a model of the tower was on display at the Building Design Centre as part of the changing face of London display, so I'd expect they'll be on with it sooner rather than later.

Yes, there's a whole thread on it.

I know that, but the thread doesn't say it was under construction tho. If it did I missed it.

thanks Sikario !

I know that, but the thread doesn't say it was under construction tho. If it did I missed it.

Well there is currently a tidy hole in the ground but no activity on site, not even a single man in a high-vis jacket

Terminal 5 thread (http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=251780)

didnt realise it was so advanced, its come along quickly hasnt it

Yes I've driven past it and to say it's huge would be an understatement.

Aïe, Aïe, Aïe ....

Legal row engulfs plan for the 'Shard of Glass'
By Jenny Davey
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9064-1872121,00.html

THE property developers behind plans to build Europe’s tallest skyscraper, near London Bridge, are embroiled in a bitter legal dispute about ownership of the ambitious project, The Times has learnt.

The case, which commenced in the Royal Court in Jersey last month, involves some of the most colourful characters in the property industry, including Irvine Sellar’s Sellar Property Group; Simon Halabi, a multimillionaire private investor; and CLS, a listed property company run by Sten Mortstedt.

The developers formed a consortium to build the skyscraper, popularly known as the “Shard of Glass”, but now are locked in a battle over the allocation of stakes in the potentially lucrative scheme. Mr Halabi issued legal proceedings against his joint venture partners over claims that his stake in the project was wrongfully reduced.

Mr Sellar and CLS deny his allegations.

In a counter-claim, Sellar Property Group and CLS allege “fraudulent misrepresentation” or “negligent mis-statement” against Mr Halabi. They say that misrepresented the involvement of his backers, including the Irish Nationwide Building Society, and in the process gained a larger stake in the deal.

Mr Halabi rejects these allegations and denies any suggestion that he acted fraudulently.

Last night the parties were in talks designed to resolve the dispute in an out-of-court settlement.

The case is scheduled to resume at the end of this month.

All the parties involved declined to make any official comment on the legal battle. Mr Sellar would say only: “Any issues we have will in no way affect the development of the project.”

The scheme, which is earmarked for a site near London Bridge station, is 1,016ft (310 metres) tall and has been designed by Renzo Piano, the Italian architect.

It took four years to obtain planning permission for the project, which will have a gross area of 1.3 million sq ft and will become the first mixed-use tower in London, containing apartments, offices and a luxury hotel, operated by the Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts.The Asian hotel group signed up this year to operate a 195-bedroom hotel at the project, occupying floors 34 to 52 of the iconic structure.

If the project proceeds, the hotel will offer some of the best views in the capital.

On the 72nd floor of the tower there will be a public viewing gallery, which will have 360-degree views of the London skyline.

The scheme will also include luxury apartments on storeys 53 to 65, with the best flats occupying two entire floors of the building.

The developers hope that the project will attract almost two million visitors a year.

now isnt the time to start fighting!

The positive view is that they are fighting to obtain a larger stake in this project - not to get out of it - because it is potentially highly lucrative. Also positive is that the Irish Nationwide Building Society is backing the deal.

Good news: Barratt gets the go-ahead for its Docklands towers.

which ones? elektron?

Heu ... I first thought it was the two proposed towers at 22 Marsh Wall. But indeed the site is owned by Redwell Investments, not Barratt, unless they work on their behalve.

Apparently, KPMG is considering to pre-let the 50,000 sq ft they need in order to consolidate their operations in London - as Deloitte did. What buildings in London with planning permissions could accomodate such a large office space? Riverside South? The Shard? What else?

Jef, I assume you mean either 50,000 sq m or 500,000 sq ft.

In the City Minerva, Heron Tower and Broadgate could accomodate the proposals could'nt they? At Canary Wharf, apart from Riverside South, you've got that site between HSBC and Barclays which is already built up to the ground floor level. The other sites to the East of Barclays can accomodate 750,000 sq ft in short order.
Paddington can accomodate some new build of that size.
Post 2007 Kings Cross easily accomodate several such requirments.

Jef- Redwell Marsh wall site is not barrett- I'd assume it must be elektron which , I think the site has been cleared for a while so i'd assume construction would be imediate (does anyone get the dlr past East India as they would be able to see right into the site). Theres quite a few proposals that have ogne in or have pp including 22 marsh wall, reuters towers (whatever happened to them??) & elektron.

Maybe the front page needs updating as its quite out of date- While wer at it is anyone gonna update the UK thread as that is well out of date- Especially as its been a bit slow on the forums news wise in recent weeks- it would be good to see how much the bigger schems have progressed around the UK since March.

Yep the site is clear and ready to go, as is the reuters site which has portocabins on it now....

I wish we would get more multi-tenanted towers, more hassle, but greater chances of getting people in and also isn't it the area of the market seeing strongest growth.

Jef, I assume you mean either 50,000 sq m or 500,000 sq ft.

Yes that's it.

In the City Minerva, Heron Tower and Broadgate could accomodate the proposals could'nt they?

Yes Minerva was initially designed to be HQ. Reg. Heron and Broadgate I thought there were designed to be multi-tenants.

At Canary Wharf, apart from Riverside South, you've got that site between HSBC and Barclays which is already built up to the ground floor level. The other sites to the East of Barclays can accomodate 750,000 sq ft in short order.

Songbird won't start neither 15 CS nor 5 CP nor NQ until the issue with CrossRail is solved (see the petition). The only slot is 10-20 CP that could indeed accomodate up to 60,000 sqm. However, State Street Bank is in negociations to pre-let up to 320,000 sqft + speculative for the rest. The only site they could prelet in CW is RS.

Paddington can accomodate some new build of that size.
Post 2007 Kings Cross easily accomodate several such requirments

Hope KPMB won't go for that. I would prefer either Minerva or RS. Thanks for your input Rational Plan.

Invesco Real Estate has bought two office blocks at Canary Wharf in east London from the Songbird Consortium for £206.5m. I will post the announcement as soon as it is released. Songbird is probably increasing the cash it needs to start building the next round of buildings (10-20 CH?).

There was an article in the Wharf last week (I didn't keep the copy and I expect the new one is out now) that was talking about locals on the Isle Of Dogs complaining about a 7-storey residential development being too high. Apparently it is in an area on the Isle designated as a historical area that has protected sightlines or something.

I wish I'd have kept it because reading it was bizarre and opened a whole new can of worms about the beginning of a rather large local (and vocal) backlash against any more large scale developments in the area.

[QUOTE=jef]

Songbird won't start neither 15 CS nor 5 CP nor NQ until the issue with CrossRail is solved (see the petition). The only slot is 10-20 CP that could indeed accomodate up to 60,000 sqm. However, State Street Bank is in negociations to pre-let up to 320,000 sqft + speculative for the rest. The only site they could prelet in CW is RS.



[QUOTE]
I thought the Cross rail construction would only affect North Quay. On the Cross rail web site it shows the proposed station works entirely to the north of the Dock. Those other sites are pretty self contained and surrounded by existing buildings. While those other buildings are designed to be mutilet I doubt they would turn away a major pre let. Especially a tenent of such good covenence. I certainly hope such a large pre let kicks off a tower rather than a ground scraper. I suddenly remembered are'nt there some big ground scraper proposed around Cannon street?

@ Joe (Tubeman)

The status thread could do with a major update: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=190527

Ratinonal- Cannon st is due to be redeveloped next year according to the developers (hines) & also pp has gone in for some new buildings on the site of te mondial house (i think thats what its caled- the big white typrwriter building next to cannon st).

Darjole-could this be the residential yo read abvout- its on the leamouth penisula & is on ballymores website.
http://icthewharf.icnetwork.co.uk/thisweek/news/tm_objectid=16378663%26method=full%26siteid=71670%26headline=regeneration%2dplan%2drethink%2dnecessary-name_page.html


Theres also an interesting article about past & future construction at the wharf
http://icthewharf.icnetwork.co.uk/thisweek/news/tm_objectid=16378685%26method=full%26siteid=71670%26headline=the%2d%2dwhite%2dknuckle%2dride%2d%2dblood%2d%2dsweat%2dand%2dtears%2d%2dof%2dthe%2dwharf-name_page.html

[QUOTE=london lad]Theres also an interesting article about past & future construction at the wharfQUOTE]

The Wharf is not a reliable source according to me. Remember: they said the developer of Columbus had signed S106 and concluded an agreement with CrossRail for construction of the tower to start. Now, they report that CW could start building 15CS and 5CP. Wrong again. CWG sent an official petition to the governement. They made it clear they won't start building neither 15CS nor 5CP nor NQ as long as the row with CrossRail is not solved. Only 10-20 CP are up to be built.

well they had signed the S106 jef... but the agreement on crossrail appears to have been incorrect.

capital & provident have updated their website- they have 2 big schemes planned for the docklands- they look better than discovery dock & I hope they arn't as bad as that development.

http://www.capitalandprovident.com/index2.htm

Theres a feature on Jason Hawkes- an aerial photographer who has done some amazing shots of london.


check out his website

http://news.jasonhawkes.com/archives/2005/09/aerial_photogra_7.html

Theres a feature on Jason Hawkes- an aerial photographer who has done some amazing shots of london.


check out his website

http://news.jasonhawkes.com/archives/2005/09/aerial_photogra_7.html
Stunning pics...

yes is must be very difficult to get the images sharp !!

not really... i get an exposure of 1/50th of a second if the aperture is f1.8 and the iso is 400 and that means i can take hand held without the need for a tripod if i so want. the end result is this sort of thing -
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/81Citypoint_pic2.jpg

article inthe FT about the trend to go highrise in the UK- heard it all before but nice to see a positive article.

stand out stats are Savills reports theres 127 towers of mroe than 20 storeys are at planning or construction stage & that the average height has increased from 24-27 since 2004.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a73cf0f4-57c6-11da-8866-00000e25118c.html

well thats a bollocks figure. only 127. lol.
we have 28 u/c.
61 approved.
91 proposed.
total = 180.

37 at pre planning (definitely more missing).

@ Joe (Tubeman)

The status thread could do with a major update: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=190527

Could you give me a few alterations that need to be made, I trust your knowledge a lot more than mine!

will can do it himself now... hes a mod here too!

will can do it himself now... hes a mod here too!

I've updated construction photos & edited a couple of "statuses" (stati?)

Any other amendments etc let me know

I just found this impressive looking tower on the architects' website. Anyone know its status?
http://************/fw3kmr.jpg

30 storey tower.....

looks pretty good in my opinion

Revision of Gargoyle Wharf project, Wandsworth. A very sleek 18 storey tower is now included.
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/eqdmsfkzqpyi3xc4ewxqmigf3bzr4gjlaondjcrnp5iaxwh4eo5uxcn5h75vfviqlmc4fmg6exw4lora7vqynsaoulh/plnews0905.pdf

Gargoyle Wharf continuation looks very good. I don't think the council will be happy with the level of affordable housing, though.
http://************/fwn807.jpg
Site in May 2005
http://************/fwn85d.jpg
From behind
http://************/fwn86s.jpg

looks nothing like the renderoids :(

Someone should update the front page. Broadgate is now under construction:)

I quite like the way Wansdworth council sends out these PDF updates for any new devleopments- gives us all a sneaky peak of whats planned- other councils should take note.

Looks quite nice & it would appear theres a few tall resi's planned for this area.

yes it looks like them, just different white balance.

cheeky bastards :(

I just found this impressive looking tower on the architects' website. Anyone know its status?
http://************/fw3kmr.jpg

I found an article by the Guardian on google, which says that the estate is off the Walworth Road, roughly between Peckham and Elephant and Castle.

The gist of the article was that residents were complainging about gross over development. The current estate is a system built monster which Southwark estimates needs to have £350 million spent to bring its 2,700 units up to good working order. The only solution the council can think of is to demolish the estate, sell off half the land to developers for high rises. At the end of the deal almost 5,000 units will occupy the same site. The residents complain of the whole community being disrupted, years of construction etc, and they are afraid they will end up with smaller flats.

There's yet another article - in this week's Economist - about pending high rise projects!

There's yet another article - in this week's Economist - about pending high rise projects!

Well, yes, there is paper in The Economist about the City Skyscrapers. As usual, The Economist is well informed. Here are the main points of the paper (posting is illegal)

London reaches for the stars-and prepares for the next property boom

1. The Shard is plagued by legal wrangles about its ownership. The Sellar Property Group, led by Irvine Sellar (see the paper in the London times).
2. There is some fuss between Sellar, again, and the developer of the Bishopsgate Tower, referred to as the Helter-Shelker. The fuss is about the title of the Europe tallest building. Sellar claims that its Shard is the tallest with 310m. Rubbish say the developer of the Bishopsgate Tower: the Shard got pp for 306m, not 310, and the 4m spire that tops the ventilation did not receive pp. Hence, they claim, it is the Bishopsgate tower that is the Europe talllest, 307.25m, not the Shard. However Sellar said he will build his tower up to 310m anyway.
3. Tens of project are in the pipeline, with pp, and others that will come up: Jean Nouvel, a French visonnary and Vinoly, finalist of ground zero constest, are said to work on huge schemes in the city.
4. The Economist writes that the City of London must propose skyscrapers. Why? a. Because of the competition with Canary Wharf. The city don't want to loose any more tenants to Canary Wharf. If they don't build skyscrapers, "the City will suffer". b. Because the developer expect higher rents - the board are willing to pay more to be higher and to have the best view around. Hence, these skyscrapers are not only viable: they are potentially highly lucrative.

However, it is not that simple. In addition to the fuss about the Shard (not to over-estimate however) mentioned above, the City has to face three major problems:
1. EH: they oppose the new viewing corridors, which are shorter, and which would sheer height, they claim. The Economist made it clear EH wants to fight back. Already, the City of Westminster lodge a complaint about the new Beetham tower.
2. To get pp, that is to convinve EH, the proposals must be interesting. However, if they are too interesting, they deter tenants (e.g. The Gerkin, which was on the market at the wrong time, recession, and whose cigar-like shape is not appropriate for offices). typically, large corporates do not want "extravagant "buildings.
3. The tenant market is weak at the moment. But the City of London as well as Canary Wharf are prepared to build as soon as some tenants line up for pre-letting - next property cycle.

The paper finishes on saying that British Airports (?) and London City Airport lodge a complaint about the height of Bishopsgate tower: it would have to loose at least 20m (it is implicit in the Economist that this complaint does not have much sense), hence the tallest will eventually be the Shard anyway (with or without its 4m spire) - if it is ever built.

Tens of project are in the pipeline, with pp, and others that will come up: Jean Nouvel, a French visonnary and Vinoly, finalist of ground zero constest, are said to work on huge schemes in the city.


The Nouvel design opposite St. Paul's must be coming up for decision soon, wouldn't you say?

Anyone know what Vinoly's involved with? I like his stuff.

Vinolys working on the redevelopment of 20 fenchruch st (i think thats the correct address) - the 20 odd storey building near plantation place for Land Secs. From what was mentioned from Land Sec earlier in the year they should be reasling plans by the end of the year.

Nouvel is also working wiht Foster on the redevelopement of L&G's Hq Bucklesby house (the huge site of 60's shite next to Bank). It would be doubtful we'd see anything on this soon though as L&G wont be moving out to there new HQ till 2007.

Nouvel is also developing One New Change next to St Pauls.

2. There is some fuss between Sellar, again, and the developer of the Bishopsgate Tower, referred to as the Helter-Shelker. The fuss is about the title of the Europe tallest building. Sellar claims that its Shard is the tallest with 310m. Rubbish say the developer of the Bishopsgate Tower: the Shard got pp for 306m, not 310, and the 4m spire that tops the ventilation did not receive pp. Hence, they claim, it is the Bishopsgate tower that is the Europe talllest, 307.25m, not the Shard. However Sellar said he will build his tower up to 310m anyway.What would be even funnier is if someone else came along with another 300m+ tower at 320m or something like that :laugh:

Yep, DIFA argues that this 4m spire that tops the ventilation is not part of the building that got pp. Difa wants its Bishopsgate to be the Europe's tallest skyscraper (307.25 vs 306 m instead of 310m) and apparently that 's important for them as well as for Sellar.

It sounds like Sellar is going to win that battle however: if built the Shard will stand 310m above ground level which will in any cases be higher than 307.25 (if approved).

The Economist said other proposals will come up in the future (Noubel, Vinoly, etc.) but as far as I understand, the Shard, if built, will remain the pinnacle of London for a very long time period.

Bishopsgate will not be reduced in height. They just need to stand firm and prove the Airport wrong.

yeah, if someone stands upto the airport and wins, more and more will do that, and then the airport will be nothing more than a little hurdle rather than the bloody massive brick wall it is now

Quoting Economist: To get pp, that is to convinve EH, the proposals must be interesting. However, if they are too interesting, they deter tenants (e.g. The Gerkin, which was on the market at the wrong time, recession, and whose cigar-like shape is not appropriate for offices). typically, large corporates do not want "extravagant "buildings.


Great! Typical bean-counter mentality there. The sort of mentality that ruined vast swathes of our towns and cities. The Gerkin was not extravagant! Extravagant is a gold leaf palace in the image of a giant fruit bowl that turns so the occupant can see the sunrise and set from his or her bed.

A Development that puts some thought into the design, is uplifting and considerate and responds to the area as a whole is not extravagent! It is good building.

well said that man

All this talk about the "tallest in Europe" is meaningless anyway. Neither the Shard nor the Bishopsgate Tower will claim that title.

Moscow has the 340m Federation Complex already under construction, plus a further 4 towers over 310m which are being talked about.

And let's be clear here: Moscow is part of Europe.

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?13965652

Valencia in Spain also has a 308m tower going up:

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?13965825

All this talk about the "tallest in Europe" is meaningless anyway. Neither the Shard nor the Bishopsgate Tower will claim that title.

Moscow has the 340m Federation Complex already under construction, plus a further 4 towers over 310m which are being talked about.

And let's be clear here: Moscow is part of Europe.

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?13965652

Well if Moscow is part of europe, that means russia is, well how come europe is considered the second smallest continent, if russia was a part of europe then we wuold be one of the largest

Valencia in Spain also has a 308m tower going up:

http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?13965825

And the latest plans, though not precise, for a 400m tower in La Défense.

Have a look at L&R Properties website, it takes u to a front page that says the site is currently undergoing a major redevelopment & it has some pictures of its properties flash across the screen- If you wait a while it has a pic of the vauxhall tower with a twin tower, taller development behind it- I dont know how to save a copy of the screen shot- so if anyone can post it here.

http://www.lrp.co.uk/

It's a vision though, Manuel... not a firm proposal.

For London you could include things like the Vortex, 80-88 Bishopsgate, Goodmans Fields, etc.

the one in spain is only a proposal, although im sure there planning process must be faster and simpler than ours.

Fricken' lasers!!!

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a87/johnmhinds/vauzhalltwin.jpg

Have a look at L&R Properties website, it takes u to a front page that says the site is currently undergoing a major redevelopment & it has some pictures of its properties flash across the screen- If you wait a while it has a pic of the vauxhall tower with a twin tower, taller development behind it- I dont know how to save a copy of the screen shot- so if anyone can post it here.

http://www.lrp.co.uk/

Hmm... nice.


http://************/fz0z2f.jpg

Fricken' lasers!!!

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a87/johnmhinds/vauzhalltwin.jpg

lol, good lord. most interesting. well if Vauxhall Tower is going to get built, then it would make sense to have a couple of nicer looking towers alongside it. Quite like the opposite facing nature of the glass towers. Is this the first we've seen of these, and is it the site next to the railway tracks (Vauxhall Station) that was sold recently? Bah, too many questions, but hey, those could look funky.

^^looks like Ontario and Columbus towers face to face ;)

For London you could include things like the Vortex, 80-88 Bishopsgate, Goodmans Fields, etc.

What was the final deal with Goodman's Fields? I know the long-term proposal was for an 80+ storey tower that was taller than LBT, but did anyone ever see any designs?

they are two towers planned for nine elms lane

The taller tower of the two in that pic must be at least 200m surely?

2. To get pp, that is to convinve EH, the proposals must be interesting. However, if they are too interesting, they deter tenants (e.g. The Gerkin, which was on the market at the wrong time, recession, and whose cigar-like shape is not appropriate for offices). typically, large corporates do not want "extravagant "buildings.
3. The tenant market is weak at the moment. But the City of London as well as Canary Wharf are prepared to build as soon as some tenants line up for pre-letting - next property cycle.



I remember reading somewhere, about a senior bod at Canary Wharf taking a swipe at the inefficient grand designs in the City. While we decry the boxiness of Canary Wharf, it does appeal to tenants. Space planning is easy, which mean the frequent office re organsiations can be done relatively quickly. Awkwarkadly shaped floors are harder to plan. Broadgate and Heron towers should be relatively easy to let. I'm not sure how Leadenhall and Bishopgate look on a cross section. If each floor is different how easy will it be to move staff around without having to make half baked compromises.
I suppose proof will be in the pudding when these schemes are in competition and how quickly they are let.

You've already probably seen this from the Bishopsgate Tower exhibition in the summer, however, I thought it looked rather fine, and gives yet another contrast of the towers planned for the City of London. No Broadgate though, or heightened Heron Tower. Hang on a sec, am I seeing something I've missed over the past few months. Behind Heron, and in the gap between Bishopsgate and 30 St Mary's Axe there appears to be another 170-190m tower. Or a wooden model of such a tower. How the smeg did I miss that previously??????? Anyone any idea what it is?

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4369/img01105ny.jpg

Thats 122 Leadenhall you numpty.

ah, perchance its a very out of scale Willis Building, its got that sort of curved design to it. If so, then the model seems to be nearly as high as 30 St Mary's Axe, which certainly shouldn't be the case. V confusing. One can prognosticate all evening, or perhaps, a more sensible option for a Tuesday at 2230, go to bed and await another mind numbing work day. Bah.

Thats 122 Leadenhall you numpty.

alright smart arse, I recognise the flat backed 122 Leadenhall Street, its the one between that and Swiss Re - see previous post.
:runaway:

But the 51 Lime Street model looks nowhere near 180-200m. 30 SMA is 180m and it's shorter than that.

It does look a bit tall though. The second set back is higher than St Helens when it should be about the same height as Lloyd's.

two eliptical towers planned by squire and partners. announcement should be made over the coming months. ill write stuff on it tomorrow as ive got quite a bit of info.

But the 51 Lime Street model looks nowhere near 180-200m. 30 SMA is 180m and it's shorter than that.

It does look a bit tall though. The second set back is higher than St Helens when it should be about the same height as Lloyd's.

Fair do's, but on this model 51 Lime Street looks nearly as tall as the Gherkin. You can see St Helens peaking out on the right handside of Heron. Can we summise from this evenings discourse, that there is nothing new on this model, save an out of size 51 Lime Street popping up and confusing the hell out of us? Marvellous. Glad it was all worthwhile.

two eliptical towers planned by squire and partners. announcement should be made over the coming months. ill write stuff on it tomorrow as ive got quite a bit of info.

In the City?

Well if Moscow is part of europe, that means russia is, well how come europe is considered the second smallest continent, if russia was a part of europe then we wuold be one of the largest
only half of russia is in europe, the other half (siberia) is in asia

Further confirmation of an upturn in the office market from GPE results.

Unless your really into the figures & yields all that would be of interest is on pg33 which says Allies & Morrison are working on there large holdings in Bishopgates still on for 2011. Also pg 33 gives us more info on ther recent purchase in Blackfriars & states they could go for a 200,000 sq ft scheme

http://www.gpe.co.uk/presentations/Interims%20Nov%2005.pdf

I found some information on the office take-ups per quarter. It has hit an all time high in four years.

Look here (http://www.research.joneslanglasalle.com/download.asp?DocumentID=3298&LanguageID=1)

oh, it'll be good if you register - doesnt take long. You dont get any junk emails from them. And plus, the forth quarter is still to come. It's always nice to stay up-to-date with the london office take ups.

Fricken' lasers!!!

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a87/johnmhinds/vauzhalltwin.jpg

Ah superb, St Georges thang looks stupid on its own and the skyline of those existing residential blocks next to it look too forced when viewed from say Hungerford Bridge, these are def needed

http://xs56.xs.to/pics/05473/georges1.jpg

A guess at their profile... they might overlap or seem further apart depending on their exact location
http://xs56.xs.to/pics/05473/stgeorges.jpg

I remember reading somewhere, about a senior bod at Canary Wharf taking a swipe at the inefficient grand designs in the City. While we decry the boxiness of Canary Wharf, it does appeal to tenants. Space planning is easy, which mean the frequent office re organsiations can be done relatively quickly. Awkwarkadly shaped floors are harder to plan. Broadgate and Heron towers should be relatively easy to let. I'm not sure how Leadenhall and Bishopgate look on a cross section. If each floor is different how easy will it be to move staff around without having to make half baked compromises.
I suppose proof will be in the pudding when these schemes are in competition and how quickly they are let.

He sounds like a prick, its about time that businesses got into their stupid heads that they are not the sole purpose of our lives. If they can not adapt to a curved wall then god help us all... some of the most sort after and expensive office space are old georgian town houses or Grade II listed buildings!

Anyway basically this great goon is proudly saying that our urban landscapes should be dicated by the efficiency drive of Staples and other purveyors of fine laminated desks. Coming to think of it I've never worked in an office where desks are put up against walls... isnt open plan all the rage?!

Originally Posted by Jonny 5
Fricken' lasers!!!

cool!
renders for new skyscrapers! thank ye gods!
they're allright aren't they, lets hope there a good height, is this part of the 'london nascent skyline' thread that was mooted months back, or are these new developments we haven't heard of before?

Further confirmation of an upturn in the office market from GPE results.

Unless your really into the figures & yields all that would be of interest is on pg33 which says Allies & Morrison are working on there large holdings in Bishopgates still on for 2011. Also pg 33 gives us more info on ther recent purchase in Blackfriars & states they could go for a 200,000 sq ft scheme

http://www.gpe.co.uk/presentations/Interims%20Nov%2005.pdf

Whoops -mentioned pg 33 twice- I meant pg 33 & pg 51-52

yup that cluster would look a whole lot better, but you will get the moaners saying it ruins the view of parliament.

If London wants to recreate this 'skyline of yesteryear' than it needs to start getting in the fashion for spires on its skyscrapers.

didnt millbank ruin views of parliment? i think they're awesome,
well done squire!

If London wants to recreate this 'skyline of yesteryear' than it needs to start getting in the fashion for spires on its skyscrapers.

Their profiles are almost a play on the spires and domes of pre war London, however I would like to see more finese, something that LBT had at the top

*cough*

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=285511&page=1&pp=20

http://xs56.xs.to/pics/05473/stgeorges.jpg

that looks stunning. i'm SO looking forward to the vauxhall cluster!!

Hmm... forgive me for sounding like English Heritage, but I'm worried it will detract too much attention away from the H.o.P.

i disagree.. i think it makes the HOP look more prominent and 'relevant' by being in the same view (so long as there is distance for perspective, as there is) as those nice towers...

More modern and exciting, more density... i dont think there is detraction...

They are too tall in the rendering potto posted
They should only be a smidge taller that Millbank Tower from that angle.

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=6558&drawingID=15278 http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1948&drawingID=20824

*cough*

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=285511&page=1&pp=20

http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/70755/200.jpg

;)

I think those towers look fantastic, compliment H.o.P and make the whole view from the river a much better one :yes:

They are too tall in the rendering potto posted
They should only be a smidge taller that Millbank Tower from that angle.

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=6558&drawingID=15278 http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=1948&drawingID=20824

Yeah they dont look quite right, also the two new towers could appear overlapped or further apart from here which could have quite an impact on the quality of the view

http://xs56.xs.to/pics/05474/stgeorges3.jpg

From City Offices.net

Looks like we might get some movement on Drapers Gardens which has sat forelorn for quite some time. Adds more to the sheer volume of redevelopment in the City at the moment (though most of it low rise).

Offices for Brook Street
Gracemark Investments and Oppenheim Property Fund, the property investors have submitted plans for the redevelopment of the vacant £11m Melbourne House, 8-12 Brook Street, London, W1. The scheme envisages a 1,860 sq m (20,000 sq ft) refurbishment to include 1,626 sq m (17,500 sq ft) of offices, plus two floors of retail. The refurbishment has been designed by DP9.

Manchester Square refurbishment
The Portman Estate has submitted a planning application for the internal office refurbishment and extension of 10-12 Manchester Square, London, W1. The buildings comprise around 2,323 sq m (25,000 sq ft) and were formerly partly occupied by property adviser Colliers CRE. The architect is Feilden + Mawson.

Jewry Street redevelopment delay
Sir John Cass's Foundation, the inner London educational trust, is still in negotiations with the City Corporation for a redevelopment behind the 1899 façade of 31 Jewry Street, London, EC3. The new teaching and laboratory space and office planned would amount to 8,560 sq m (92,139 sq ft) on six storeys. The application for renewed permission was withdrawn from last weeks planning committeee for further negotiations. The architect for the latest scheme is Chapman Taylor

Consent for Drapers Gardens
The Royal Bank of Scotland has at last received planning consent for the redevelopment of its Drapers Gardens site bounded by Copthall Avenue and Throgmorton Avenue, London, EC2. The existing building is 32,996 sq m (355,168 sq ft) and the current proposals, submitted in April 2004, are for a stepped building of between five and 16-storeys, providing 37,452 sq m (403,733 sq ft) gross floorspace. The office element of the scheme will be on 13 floors and amount to 30,761 sq m (331,111 sq ft) gross external. There will be 131 sq m (1,410 sq ft) of retail space on the ground floor. The architect is Foggo Associates and Drivers Jonas is the development advisors.

When you remove Drapers Gardens from future skyline renderings it really does make a better impact for St Paul's, defining it and the City cluster as two seperate entities that can share equal attention. I hope EH are watching.

Although 16 office stories (+ plant ?) will be very noticable on the skyline and give, at least, a gradual stepping towards the city.

see http://www.gle.co.uk/onelondon/Gvine.htm

NB: the source is The Economist.

City towers could be ‘too interesting’; the Economist looks at what it calls the City’s “rush of high-rise extravagance” with “Trophy architects” thick on the ground. It says that is partly because tenants will pay more for a boardroom with a view and the City wants them not just because it fears competition from rival financial districts such as Frankfurt and Paris but Canary Wharf as well, which has already poached several big banks. The City wants to be ready for when the market eventually picks up and it has an ally in Ken Livingstone, London’s mayor, who thinks tall buildings add to the capital’s prestige. However the conservationists are fighting back by attacking the new guidelines on protected city vistas. The Economist thinks that the mayor and the city authorities may be trying too hard. After losing ground to Canary Wharf by being too conservative, central London is becoming ultra modern in its architecture. If the towers aren’t built the area will suffer. If they aren’t interesting, they won’t win planning permission. But if the buildings are too interesting they risk offending conservationists and deterring tenants. Iconic tower buildings like Lord Foster’s Swiss Re have been slow to find tenants because its environmentally friendly ventilation system and cigar-like outline produce an awkward shape. Economist 19.11.05

Therea e mention of DIFA in one of EH meetings- Doesn't say much thogh. What is interesting though is a small paragraph in 'item 5' 1.4 which it mentions one of the committie Graham Morrison ( of Allies & Morrision) wasn't ask to leave room when DIFA was discussed even thouhg his firm had just won a comp to design a tall building in the city

Interesting- now I can only guess that this would be GPE 80 Bishopsgate, in which case they kept that competition quiet.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/LAC_minutes_may05.pdf

Iconic tower buildings like Lord Foster’s Swiss Re have been slow to find tenants because its environmentally friendly ventilation system and cigar-like outline produce an awkward shapeHealthy happy employees, presitge AND good for the planet. Just how dim-witted are these numpties that they can't plan an office with a curved wall??? I don't get it. When I've been involved in a re-org of a company departments or teams have to look for a quantity of desks grouped together. This could be 2, 10 or 100 desks and at no point does a perpendicular set up make that easier. Even the most dynamic of companies only undergo major re-orgs once every couple of years. How is this such an issue????

oh and great to see the Vauxhall news. St.George's benefits greatly with a couple of neighbours.

Healthy happy employees, presitge AND good for the planet. Just how dim-witted are these numpties that they can't plan an office with a curved wall??? I don't get it. When I've been involved in a re-org of a company departments or teams have to look for a quantity of desks grouped together. This could be 2, 10 or 100 desks and at no point does a perpendicular set up make that easier. Even the most dynamic of companies only undergo major re-orgs once every couple of years. How is this such an issue????

I know it is worrying to think that the innovative thinking required to arrange some desks escapes the capabilities of UKs best companies! Also just to add Ive never worked in a company where desks are anywhere near a wall instead preferring to go the open plan route of desk clustering

What is interesting though is a small paragraph in 'item 5' 1.4 which it mentions one of the committie Graham Morrison ( of Allies & Morrision) wasn't ask to leave room when DIFA was discussed even thouhg his firm had just won a comp to design a tall building in the city

Interesting- now I can only guess that this would be GPE 80 Bishopsgate, in which case they kept that competition quiet.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/LAC_minutes_may05.pdf

I thought KPF were working on 80-88 Bishopsgate.

80-88 is pre-planning isnt it???

Further confirmation of an upturn in the office market from GPE results.

Unless your really into the figures & yields all that would be of interest is on pg33 which says Allies & Morrison are working on there large holdings in Bishopgates still on for 2011. Also pg 33 gives us more info on ther recent purchase in Blackfriars & states they could go for a 200,000 sq ft scheme

http://www.gpe.co.uk/presentations/Interims%20Nov%2005.pdf

Will- GPE confirmed Allies & Morrision are working on it

For those who want the picture:
http://************/hsoz11.jpg

It's the building on the left edge of this image:


http://www.willfox.com/images/london/1/21.jpg

Does this project now include Ellerman House?

So glad that Foster project for that site got the can.

Darjole- yes it does- Its quite a big site if you look attehimgake jake posted it take up almost a whoe sid of the street.

is Pan Pen now 147meters to roof?: http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=107

'* Plans have seen a revised tower 8 metres taller proposed for the site with a slightly different roof profile and no spire. Much of the change is at ground level with greater thought given on integrating the two towers.'

Is this going to happen for definate or...

Who'd like to do some depressing reading?

I was at Canary Wharf station this evening. The station had to be shut because of overcrowding on the platforms (due to delayed trains) and in the ticket hall due to the barriers closed to stop people getting down to an already dangerous platform level. Canary Wharf is the largest station on the network, and was designed to cope with the traffic created by the expansion of the Estate over the next twenty years (when it was believed Crossrail would be available).

I've just found this. 358 petitions against Crossrail. Nice reading.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/001/001pet.htm

There is no depressing reading there at all. You could have the largest station on the planet, but if no trains are leaving it will fill up! Should all stations be designed to hold an entire evenings worth of passengers just in case the trains don't run???? This is more to do with our high quality safety practices rather than incompetance.

And Crossrail does have 358 petitions against it, yes. So??? It affects tens of thousands of residents and businesses. There is nothing unexpected there at all. Just the usual negotiations of each party wanting the best out of the development.

On the optimistic side we have a new signalling on the way for the Jubilee line and a 7th carriage. Next month CW and Bank are connected directly to London City Airport.

Talk about seeing the world as a glass half empty!

There was a small paragraph/articel in the standard about Land Sec submitting a 2.3million sq ft development in the Victoria area which will include offices, shops ,leisure facilities & homes & possibly a new bus station.

No renderings or anything, in fact a very small article. Although I did read in Eg the other week that Land Secs have got SOM to design there next big office block inVictoria.

Anyone know anything else on it

Update the front page! it still says that Broadgate is Proposed.

I've had a look at some of those petitions and lots of those are corncerned about the purchase of the subsoil beneath their buildings, other are from residents concerned about the noise from building work. Several are pro development but just don't want to be disturbed. One is from the Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce, they are pro Crossrail and and want is extented to Reading instead of Maidenhead.

What happened in Victorian times when railways were being built? I don't think we should have people turfed out of their homes but they should look at the bigger picture.

I found the press release on Victoria- I got my big name US practises mixed up- Its KPF not SOM

http://www.landsecurities.co.uk/websitefiles/Victoria%20masterplan%2022%2011%2005.pdf

What happened in Victorian times when railways were being built? I don't think we should have people turfed out of their homes but they should look at the bigger picture.
Well a lot of our cities were created because the railways were built. London's population jumped several thousand percent over the Victorian era.

I read a Biography of I K Brunel and when surveying the route for the Great Western railway he also rode up to the landowners and negotiated purchase of land himself. Mostly they were quite keen though as the railway was an oportunity for them to make loads of cash. There were far fewer people owning their property at the time so perhaps this made it easier too.

CW needs Crossrail badly if the estate wants to further develop.

London could use some help here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=287407&page=2

I dont know howe dubai even ot there, many people are wondering the same...

Cant remember if this was ever posted but BDP was appointed to design thet 1st phase of the resis for Wood Wharf- I'd imagine we will something sometime next year

http://www.bdp.co.uk/flash/index.asp#newsArticle

whoops -doesn't seem to work on flash

try again

http://www.bdp.co.uk/html/news/2005/BDP_for_Wood_Wharf_Development_134.asp

Compromise over Stratford City; a compromise has been reached between the London Development Agency (LDA) and the developers behind the Stratford City Development. The LDA had threatened to include the 180-acre site, which is to be used for part of the Olympic Village, in a compulsory purchase order being issued for the site of the Games.

Under the terms of the compromise the developers must start construction of the first phase of Stratford City, comprising the booking hall of the new Stratford International Station, a giant shopping complex, as well as residential and leisure facilities by the end of June 2008.Provided the developers keep to the date they will be excluded from the CPO. If they do not, it is thought that they will be excluded from beginning work on the shopping centre until after the Games in 2012. Regeneration reports that another issue that is emerging is that the LDA is considering moving the venues of more sports, such as cycling, on to the site to enable the Games to be more compact. An announcement is expected before Christmas. Times 15.11.05, Regeneration 18.11.05

Stratford City
The development site covers 73 hectares across rail lands, which have become redundant with the decline of industrial use of the railways.
The development totals 13.5 million square feet (1,300,000 m²),
Stratford City is planned to include 4,500 homes for 11,000 residents, commercial office space of 465,000 square metres and a 150,000 square metre town centre comprising three department stores and 120 shops and cafes.

http://www.stanhopeplc.com/image/{5342DC8C-A40D-4158-951E-CDA638BF1919}.jpg
http://www.fletcherpriest.com/p070B.jpg

That map of Stratford City is a little bit old - obviously with the Olympics the size of the project has decreased somewhat to accomodate the Olympic Village. What worries me is the conflict between LOCOG and Stratford City development - both need to be managed together to be successful. They are part of each other and any arguing between the two would spell doom architecturally.

I'm going to start a very detailed Olympic Park thread very soon - have been a rather busy boy over the past few month gathering a lot of information from London 2012 and the Stratford area so keep your eyes peeled.

For those interested to read the humble petition of CWG in respect of Crossrail

www.publications.parliament.uk/ pa/cm200506/cmbills/001/94.pdf

Latest Mayoral planning decsions are online- some interesting schems here including 201 bishopsgate, 1 new change, ballymores leamouth penisula proposal & westminster roundabout

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/2005/20051018.jsp#1

That map of Stratford City is a little bit old - obviously with the Olympics the size of the project has decreased somewhat to accomodate the Olympic Village. What worries me is the conflict between LOCOG and Stratford City development - both need to be managed together to be successful. They are part of each other and any arguing between the two would spell doom architecturally.

I'm going to start a very detailed Olympic Park thread very soon - have been a rather busy boy over the past few month gathering a lot of information from London 2012 and the Stratford area so keep your eyes peeled.Cool, looking forward to it. It's only the Olympic villiage that conflicts isn't it? And on the Stratford city plan that was housing anyway.

Pretty much the jist of it.

So has 1 new change been approved? IMO it's a pile of crap, the building that is there now, whilst not being spectacular is a nice red brick 30s thing. Why oh why, are we redeveloping nice buildings when there is so much 60s & 70s crap? Also why does everything has to be clad in glass? It really pisses me off!

No, not approved yet, but the report reveals that the planning office is minded to recommend approval.

Idiots!

This time tomorrow I'll be standing in a room in the City approximately 400ft above the streets... and I'll have my camera with me.

Can anyone guess where I'll be? :D

Skyscraper fears for London views (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4393224.stm)

This time tomorrow I'll be standing in a room in the City approximately 400ft above the streets... and I'll have my camera with me.

Can anyone guess where I'll be? :D

Your beloved Natwest Tower by any chance?

Your beloved NatWest Tower by any chance?
I believe it was renamed a while ago and is now known as Foxy Tower. ;)

Found a bit of news on another proposed Vauxhall tower-

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view.php?ArtID=1877

I can't see Lambeth Council approving anything tall here. It's right by the river and close to Lambeth Palace. Anyone got any pictures of the building? I'm guessing this is a lovely brick building that I wouldn't want demolished.

Found a bit of news on another proposed Vauxhall tower-

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view.php?ArtID=1877Good find. I dunno though. This is quite bit closer towards the houses of parliament.

Click on this link and you'll see it is nearly a km away from St. Georges Vauxhall tower and more importantly a km closer to Lambeth palace and the Houses of Parliament.

What is it with these developers? There are loads of plots of land to the west of vauxhall station ripe for development.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=530523&y=178781&z=0&sv=SE1+7SD&st=2&pc=SE1+7SD&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf

er... they are going to be developed bob. i can think of no less than six residential projects over 150m for the area.

can someone tell me if St George's Tower in Vauxhall will rise up next to Big Ben in the view from Trafalgar Sq?

I'd say not:

http://************/i3rzsy.jpg

Anybody see that render of that 150meter tower they want to build in Elephant & Castle? WOW! It's in today's (Friday 2nd) Evening Standard. It looks amazing looks like something from Shanghai. Anybody have a pic?

Ooh I'll get one on the way home.

Anybody see that render of that 150meter tower they want to build in Elephant & Castle? WOW! It's in today's (Friday 2nd) Evening Standard. It looks amazing looks like something from Shanghai. Anybody have a pic?

I NEED PICTURES!!!

ME TOOOOO

hmmm maybe my dad brought one home...

nope :(

Renderings are in the relevant thread now.

bit of news about North Quay - the mayor has refused planning permission - not impressed with energy issues and its use of renewable energy.

Planning issues have been resolved for this baby in Croydon.
Altitude 25
26 storeys.Not bad.
http://www.devereux.co.uk/images/Altitude_125px.jpg
http://www.devereux.co.uk/images/Altitude_concept.jpg
http://www.devereux.co.uk/images/Altitude_entrance.jpg

bit of news about North Quay - the mayor has refused planning permission - not impressed with energy issues and its use of renewable energy.

Boooo! But it was a bit of an ugly brute! Maybe more passive systems will force the design to be more elegant (thinner floorplates etc etc). we can all hope :)

bit of news about North Quay - the mayor has refused planning permission - not impressed with energy issues and its use of renewable energy.


I thought it already had PP, CW were just waiting for the right time to build? Personally I really liked this one but I aint dissapointed of it going because I know it wouldn't be built after a long time.
Will CW team up the architects again, Ceaser Pelli isn't it? Redesign the place?

bit of news about North Quay - the mayor has refused planning permission - not impressed with energy issues and its use of renewable energy.

Thats a bit sly of the Mayor :sly:

Is that just an excuse to prevent Canary Wharf from developing, giving the City extra time to become more competitive? After all, that is one of his policies - to make the City more competitive with CW. Smart move mayor!!

Go Mayor!!

Impact of City road Basin towers on the skyline (strategic views).
http://www.islington.gov.uk/pdf/environment/cityroadbasin/crbmp_appx_g01.pdf

A detailed application has been submitted (novembre 05) for the smallest of the two proposed towers. (28 storeys)
http://www.bennettsassociates.com/
Some updated renderings as well

The site today
http://www.miller.co.uk/uploaded/project_ims/developments/CityRoadBasinaerial.jpg

The smaller tower
http://www.miller.co.uk/uploaded/project_ims/developments/CityRoadBasin_webupdateApril2005_2.JPG

In context with the other one
http://www.miller.co.uk/uploaded/project_ims/developments/BWBIslington_Model_April2005.jpg

Is it just the picture, or is that council block in the first picture sloped?

I think it's the picture

Not quite the right place to put it...but I can't think of anywhere else...


http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6536/skyscraper3fs.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


What is the building I have circled?

10 trinity square.

Thanks.


I've never seen it before, it's beautiful.

any more renderings?

This has probably been mentioned before, but once we get to about 2008 I don't think you'll see many buildings starting construction. Cranes on the skyline would cripple potential views for the olympics.

I don't agree with this, I think cranes on the skyline represent a city's willingness to advance regardless of image, but I know London, it has a tendency to make ridiculous decisions like this..

So for me this not only means that there will be a pause in the surge of skyscraper construction, but also, if developers don't pull their finger out quick, current buildings could potentially be delayed so that they start construction after the olympics..

But hey, what do I know?

yeah what do you know ;)

Well, in response to what Remusable said, by 2016 London will need an additional 100,000,000 square feet of office space. On an annual average thats 9 million square feet (thats 9 minerva buildings for the city!). As we know, buildings like Bishopsgate tower and Heron hold considerably less than a million sq ft which is why its important that these projects get off the ground. Its obviously evident that we will expect a greater number of proposals in the not so distant future.

From the ambitious actions from British Land, we can see that they a preparing for the significant upturn in the markets from the construction of Willis and Broadgate. Their innovative 122 leadenhall building, which, has captured a wide interest from capable tenants already is obviously the peak of their personal business achievement forecast!

The high and mid-rise delevelopments that we know about today come nowhere near supplying a years worth of tenants.

All im going to say now is, this is just 2005. Red Ken only introduced the 'London developent plan' in mid 2004 (a plan to create a skyline of tall office building in the city to achieve economic growth - one of Ken's policies). Now, plans for skyscrapers that we dont even know exist are being drawn up as we speak. We know it takes years upon years to create a skyscraper. So expect a flood of new proposals in 2007 from companies from around the world who want to make a prensence in London through the success of the Olympics.

This is just a warm up

As we know, buildings like Bishopsgate tower and Heron hold considerably less than a million sq ft

Bishopsgate is quite close, around 950,000sqft.

Seriously? 100 million square feet by 2016? Woah...

Thats somethin to make the Parsians jealous;) :jk:

Can someone explain this to me? Are they still making the shard 310m, because I heard that they said that even though they didnt have planning permission for the extra 4m they are still gonna put it on?

This has probably been mentioned before, but once we get to about 2008 I don't think you'll see many buildings starting construction. Cranes on the skyline would cripple potential views for the olympics.

I don't agree with this, I think cranes on the skyline represent a city's willingness to advance regardless of image, but I know London, it has a tendency to make ridiculous decisions like this..

So for me this not only means that there will be a pause in the surge of skyscraper construction, but also, if developers don't pull their finger out quick, current buildings could potentially be delayed so that they start construction after the olympics..

But hey, what do I know?

Thats are rather strange comment to make- Cities evolve regardless of what is or isn't planned & a city as huge London woudln't say -right no more new buildings from 2008/9 cause it will ruin the skyline for the olympics. There is no way a developer could be stopped from developing needed office space, residential space or whatever cause an event happening near Stratford. Economics, development & politics ,especially in London dont work that way.

Then again if they ban cranes in London from 2008 I think it may make it slightly difficult to build most of the Olympic projects not unless they have some very tall builders ;)

Glad to hear that North Quay was refused, the site deserves something much, much better than these unimaginative glass boxes. I hope the London Fire Bridgade HQ is redeveloped as it's another one of those plesant 30s buildings, also not a good site for high-rises, as mentioned before, too far from Vauxhall and too close to the Houses of Parliament and Lambeth Palace.

Give it a clean and I think it will look fine.

http://************/i5psea.jpg

Bishopsgate is quite close, around 950,000sqft.

but now... a good 5 floors have been withdrawn :(

Seriously? 100 million square feet by 2016? Woah...

Thats somethin to make the Parsians jealous;) :jk:

I know... its a tremendous load of space. At present, only 27.4 million space is in the City. It begs the question... ... were the hell are the tenants all being shuved? I mean, a 9million sq ft growth average p.a is far more than what New York's 7.6million is, or Tokyo's 7.7milion is.

Its amazin... 4x the space? do you think we could geta ny 350m+ towers proposed by 2012?

Here you go guys:

shame it couldnt have been bigger:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c165/Lesferris06/alllondonfinal.jpg

Are they supposed to be in the wrong place?

Crap. Which ones?

Crap. Which ones?

Er...all of them...

Thats are rather strange comment to make- Cities evolve regardless of what is or isn't planned & a city as huge London woudln't say -right no more new buildings from 2008/9 cause it will ruin the skyline for the olympics. There is no way a developer could be stopped from developing needed office space, residential space or whatever cause an event happening near Stratford. Economics, development & politics ,especially in London dont work that way.

Then again if they ban cranes in London from 2008 I think it may make it slightly difficult to build most of the Olympic projects not unless they have some very tall builders ;)

Well I think temporarily ceasing construction to portray a more clean cut image of a very image-conscious city seems like a much more reasonable decision to make than capping heights for a piddly little run-way, or cancelling projects all-together because they'll spoil views of St Pauls, but both of those are happening right now - the city of London has a tendency to make some fairly absurb judgements, never under-estimate it..

Has the vauxhall tower managed to make an appearance in Wapping or is that the news international tower?

whether they are in the wrng place or not, its a pretty fantastic portrayal of what London will be like :yes:

Bit of good news for CW in Egi- Thompsons financial have apparently turned down space in 201 bishopsgate for a new building in CW & also Aon are finally going to make a choice between stating in the city or moving to CW - They have a large requirement if I remember rightly.

Bit of good news for CW in Egi- Thompsons financial have apparently turned down space in 201 bishopsgate for a new building in CW & also Aon are finally going to make a choice between stating in the city or moving to CW - They have a large requirement if I remember rightly.

Blimey. Aon was a massive one if I remember and were linked to taking Minerva before it went belly up. RS here we come.

As of October 2005:
- Thompson Financial has an active office requirement of 150-300,000 sq ft
- Aon has an active office requirement of 250-275,000 sq ft

Other current requirement include those of Transport for London (up to 600,000 sq ft), KPMG, PWC (up to 400,000 sq ft), State Street (under offer at 10-20 Churchill Place), Addelshaw Goddard (150,000 sq ft), City and Guilds (200,000 sq ft).

Future key requirements include those of JP Morgan Chase, Société Générale, UBS Warburg, Henderson, Benfield, Calyon, CommerzBank, Deutsche Bank, etc.

Even if Aon stay in the city it should be good news for both the city & CW as even if CW get just thompson & State st in CW its reported they are being offered new build HQ's so that'll be 2 new buildings in CW which would go up pretty quickly as most of the foundations of the churchill place buildings have been built or are being built now ready for construction.

Same for Aon - If they wantr a new HQ they will take a big chunk of office space in either theh city or CW so whouls hopefully mean another new build starting :)

The buildings around Churchill Place could easily accomodate both Thompson Financial and State Street (to take occupation in 2008). However imo these buildings lack prestige: they do not offer spectacular view as the Riverside Scheme would provide. Another point is that if these deals are successfully concluded, this would leave few spare capacity in the estate and Canary Wharf would have sooner rather than later to expand its capacity, which would in turn increase the probability for the Riverside scheme to start construction in the near future and of course more residential developments would have to follow. Fingers crossed.

Re. Aon, they have been looking for new london HQ for years: it is now time for them to take a decision!

whether they are in the wrng place or not, its a pretty fantastic portrayal of what London will be like :yes:

Thanks, Frag :)

:) its true though, the odd cm doesnt matter in a good rendering about the size of a piece of A4 paper does it?!

Er...all of them...

you do it then.

at least give him some constructive criticism.

As mentioned, it gives us a good enough indication.

I'll do it then if theres gonna be an argument.

p.s. didnt mean to get involved :|

Has the vauxhall tower managed to make an appearance in Wapping or is that the news international tower?


Ha Ha Ha! I think it might be in Shadwell there. It's defo Vauxhall Tower tho.

does it require a complete re-render or does it just need some running repairs

None of them are in the right place.

3 of them(Broadgate, Beetham Tower and Vauxhall Tower) wouldn't even be visable in that shot.

As of October 2005:
- Thompson Financial has an active office requirement of 150-300,000 sq ft
- Aon has an active office requirement of 250-275,000 sq ft

Other current requirement include those of Transport for London (up to 600,000 sq ft), KPMG, PWC (up to 400,000 sq ft), State Street (under offer at 10-20 Churchill Place), Addelshaw Goddard (150,000 sq ft), City and Guilds (200,000 sq ft).


That's a staggering amount of floorspace... surely at least ONE of those will go for a landmark high-rise HQ??

PwC in particular... you would've thought the world's largest professional services firm would want a skyscraper for their headquarters.




Future key requirements include those of JP Morgan Chase, Société Générale, UBS Warburg, Henderson, Benfield, Calyon, CommerzBank, Deutsche Bank, etc.

CommerzBank already have their 260m tower in Frankfurt - let's hope they choose a skyscraper for their London HQ. :)

Benfield were rumoured to be taking 122 Leadenhall.

Not sure about the others but those are some massive, highly prestigious corporations listed there...

Pwc dont want one single office for reasons of conflict of interest, and the fact that if there was a bomb and a single office....

The new proposals for Bishopsgate

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a331/tijjan/twister.jpg

yuk! :sly:

Hmmmm.

@London: I can't see the new proposal. Where did you find it? Is it posted on Skyscraper Page?

Loses some of its elegance. Damn it.

Are you sure thats the new proposal as it looks the same height as thE previous one (even look taller IMO)- The bit that matches the top of 122 LH is still there & the rest to tip looks taller.

:? Looks like he has photoshopped it. :?

yeah. i know...

Another news: the main operating subsidiary of Songbird Estates, Canary Wharf Group Plc, sold 25 North Colonnade (Canary Wharf) and 200-202 Aldersgate (City) for a total of around £300 million.