I'll be doing some new renderings over the next few weeks. Here are the first ones.

N.B. I'll be adding the Docklands towers later.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/London_skyline_2012_from_parliament_hill.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/London_skyline_2012_from_parliament_hill_bw.jpg

This view is from Parliament Hill, btw.

If anybody has any good distance shots/skyline views that would be good for 2012 renderings, please post them here and I might use them. I'm particularly keen to get a view that would include both DIFA and LBT together. In the shots above, LBT would appear just off the right edge.

Ohhhhh...... great renderings

how about these distance shots of mine???? ....

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/710/dsc011832rs.jpg

http://img302.imageshack.us/img302/926/panorama32ue.jpg

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6366/dsc011733sb.jpg
(i have a slightly bigger version of this pic if you want.....but im such a retard i accidentilly saved this smaller version over the extra large version that i had.....fucking computers)

Great pics NothingBetter. As usual WJ lovely piece of work. I personally however don't like the black and white versions of your work but hey thats my opinion. Wasn't there that picture that just begged for a 2012 render. It was the city viewed in between the two towers of Riverside South at Canary Wharf. :)

Great stuff WJ, and there are loads of shots knocking about that would be great, but I cant remember where they are :(

If your going to use my SSP drawings Will you could at least say where you got them from.

I've added all the Docklands towers - from left to right they are North Quay, Columbus Tower, Heron Quays West, Riverside South, Pan Peninsula and Crossharbour. This is the first rendering I've ever done that includes BOTH the Canary Wharf and City of London clusters in one view. As I said earlier, LBT would appear just off the right edge of the image. And thanks to Jonny 5 who drew the original SSP diagrams for Broadgate and Heron (sorry mate for nicking your work...).



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/london2012/25.jpg


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/london2012/26.jpg

WJ, if your aim was to make me come, you have succseded :drool:

:laugh:

Great work! Would the Heron Plaza tower (around 100m height?) be visible from here? What happened to that anyway? Not heard about it for some time..

EDIT: Oh hang on, I think I see it??

And also, is that the 288m or 307m version of The Bishopsgate Tower?

Cheers

impressive work, foxy. :)

Yes Bravo Will!! CW looks incredible.... in fact so does the city :eek: Shame about LBT maybe someone can go there next spring and find that tree and take another shot to join on to what we allready have ;)

@Shaun

Yes I've added Heron Plaza, which is 98m. The Bishopsgate Tower is shown at 288m.

Not bad not bad

Not bad not bad
Yes not bad not bad, but I can't see London ever looking like that. Its nice to see what London could be thought.

My thoughts exactly. Prime example Columbus Tower. It got everything going, paper work, signage everything. The only thing they had to do was to demolish Heartsmere House. Where are they now? The fucking Arab investor has run away. LBT - got PP ages ago. WTF happened? It still isn't up. And NQ, NQ can't even be in that rendering because its in redesign. I'm just pissed at London.

But I will say this, it is a fabulous render none the less.

Its scary to think though, regardless of what is built or otherwise.. Just how much they're beginning to look like different cities.. When so far apart on those images and both having big dense clusters, hard to believe they're both London, lol.

Where are they now? The fucking Arab investor has run away.

The 'fucking Arab investor' died, apparently.

Dont worry, i doubt all the investors/developers etc will die.

LBT - got PP ages ago. WTF happened? It still isn't up.

But I will say this, it is a fabulous render none the less.

That is mainly the fault of PWC. They have to move next year though, as their lease expires. Enabeling work is due first quarter of 06.

i say we ban all the fucking pessimists. Fuck off and go and bore other people. The world is in a bad state as it is right now.

fab render will. Stunning :)

Im not sure if its the angle but it looks to me that it would only take a couple of mid/tall rises in between both clusters to intertwine the two, making it one King Skyline. am i right... am i , am i :happy:

Im not sure if its the angle but it looks to me that it would only take a couple of mid/tall rises in between both clusters to intertwine the two, making it one King Skyline. am i right... am i , am i :happy:
Yes it could be the New York of england.

i say we ban all the fucking pessimists. Fuck off and go and bore other people. The world is in a bad state as it is right now.

fab render will. Stunning :)

:) Like I said, I am sure all of these will go up. Im just pissed at London overall. Doesn't make me a pessimist, although you may have been refering to someone else, but fuck it, we'll show those Parisians and Frankfurters who's boss by 2012. Especially Moscow - our new found enemy.


To reference to that render:
In comparison to Canary Wharf how big is Manhattan Skyline?

Im not sure if its the angle but it looks to me that it would only take a couple of mid/tall rises in between both clusters to intertwine the two, making it one King Skyline. am i right... am i , am i :happy:

A few would really bind the two, but not in a complete bind, they would still be two clusters, juts gently merging into each other

^^ yeah, thats what i thought - just like lower manhattan and upper manhattan :yes:

I need reminding what the large square building is between the clusters from that angle? Middlesex Street?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/Lower_manhattan_from_hoboken_light_rail_station.jpg/800px-Lower_manhattan_from_hoboken_light_rail_station.jpg


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/london2012/26.jpg

Woohh! Now that is some strong competition :yes:

In that pic of New York what is that square brown building to the right of the World Finance Centre?

EDIT: I think I've found it, its a ventilation shaft for the Holland tunnel

Thanks to Wjfox's rendering, i was able to do this:

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

I know which one i'll pick, but what about you guy's n gal's?

Notice how the Helter Skelter (Bishopsgate Tower) is our version of the Empire state building. And also how CW is our version of the left cluster of New Yorks skyline!

welll, not being bias, id have the London one, but it is certainly not clear cut. Ask anyone this 5 years ago they would have laughed, and now, although just an intelligent guess, we can see quite clearly London can do more than juuts keep up with the others

It's funny... I could always compare New Yorks skyline to a concrete mountain - might aswell be.

But ours, i could always campare it to something futuristic and outerspace-like, concidering the Americans were the first to the moon. :lol:

Lower Manhattan is still more impressive - the photo I've posted is rather deceptive as the cluster has more "depth" when you see a proper aerial view. Plus, it has classics like 40 Wall Street and American International, and by 2012 it will have the 1776ft Freedom Tower and accompanying 1000-footers around it.

Let's give some credit to Canary Wharf though - its growth over such a short period is pretty damn impressive, and for a European city it's going to look amazing. From certain angles, such as this view from Parliament Hill, the cluster will appear to have incredible density.

it has classics like 40 Wall Street.

This has always been my favourite skyscraper.

Dont get me wrong its great architecture, but it's the type that goes out of date (unlike st. pauls but more like the triplet towers in the City of London).

Compare the colours, New york = brown - London = Blue, red, yellow, purple

Lower Manhattan is still more impressive - the photo I've posted is rather deceptive as the cluster has more "depth" when you see a proper aerial view. Plus, it has classics like 40 Wall Street and American International, and by 2012 it will have the 1776ft Freedom Tower and accompanying 1000-footers around it.

Let's give some credit to Canary Wharf though - its growth over such a short period is pretty damn impressive, and for a European city it's going to look amazing. From certain angles, such as this view from Parliament Hill, the cluster will appear to have incredible density.

Yeah, the picture of the manhattan skyline looks really empty from that angle. But once your there its really really dense.

By the way, my sister has a very close relationship with new york city and word got round that they arent building any towers there:

*Some say that that particular piece of land is rather undesirable for companies, for obviouse reasons.

*Some say that theres a debate about reasons why a building should and should go there.

*It should go there as a mark of power.

*It should'nt go there because people resent the fact that a huge, heavy building would bloack the souls and the natural resting place of the victims.

On a more upbeat note, CW should definatly hold a record for the fastest growing business complex, and have some type of an award for it :yes:

^^ Interesting points! Well with or without the tower that skyline is still immense in its height and density.

As for the Canary Wharf Group, they've done a great job. They should encourage more highrises in their area, but their progress has been amazing anyway. I was there the other day, and they were reclaiming more land south of 1 Churchill Place:

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/148/dsc027478vu.jpg

I took this picture of the Canary Wharf and wondered if it would be of any use:
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1340/dsc030273tf.jpg

Considering New York has been building tall for yonks, that a pretty favourable comparison.

NYC, no doubt but the London towers have better design. If that London render is to become realitry, we must understand that the NYC skyline also will be alot better by then..

yeah, lets also understand that its not about density is it? It's largely about quality.
as you can see...::...::...::

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

OMG are you guys comparing the New York skyline to London?
New York wins by a long way.

New York currently has 48 buildings that are over 200m with 13 more proposed or under construction.
London has 1 built and 11 proposed.

Yeah but rating it in the best lookin, who wins?

We all know that if we rate it in density, NY wil win!

Yes but a skyline is all the buildings in comparison with the others in that skyline. From those shots there a complete newcomer to buildings would have no idea that those towers are nearly double the height of the ones in London, because the buildings in London are of the same as the ones next to each other give or take 200ft, as is NY, juts give or take 400ft maybe

Yeah but ratin it in the best looking, who wins?

We all know that if we rate it in height, NY marginaly wins!

Its also not about height either becasue having very tall concrete buildings as a pose to mid rise glass and steel ones, its obviouse which will win.

Not even half that London skyline is built for heavens sake. It's not fair comparing New Yorks skyline to one that doesn't exist. The London render looks great but debate should be taken up when it's built surely.

Well the Columbus adds something major in the rendering, but that may never be built, so Turbosnail is right, unfortunately for London

This is a nonsense....comparing NY's skyline to London!

As for which looks better and London having the better looking towers well...Im speechless! New York is crammed full of fabulous skyscrapers, some hidden because it is so dense, others standing proud as iconic landmarks. The list of quality NY skyscrapers is endless.....from the classics such as The Empire State, Woolworth Building and Chrysler Building (perhaps the most beautiful skyscraper ever!) to the more recent additions such as the NY Times building and The Bank of America tower...both stunning modern glass towers that rival pretty much anything proposed for London right now (except LBT) that are UC right now. Yes UC....something of which there is precious little of in London despite all these wonderful proposals.

As someone said this is all based on London having these towers in the future, as of yet its all a fantasy. And if London looks like that by 2012...well I'll get my arse out in front of Buck House, if only LBT gets built I'll be happy as I think its the best of the bunch by miles.

I definitely know your not judging it from the architecture, its enviromental affects, or, which you'd rather work in or be around at ground level, becasue London's got the upper hand.

So since its not all about density, why dont you base it on something different?



Everybody much prefers Hong Kong's skyline (glass and steel, similar to london's forecast) than New York's, but does it have more density? no!

Camparing both skylines is absolutely fair, Turbosnail, whether lodon's one is in the future or not! The fact is, people prefer the futuristic looks of a skyline, which is obviouse why.

Everybody much prefers Hong Kong's skyline (glass and steel, similar to london's forecast) than New York's, but does it have more density? no!

Camparing both skylines is absolutely fair, Turbosnail, whether lodon's one is in the future or not! The fact is, people prefer the futuristic looks of a skyline, which is obviouse why.

Not everybody much prefers HK's skyline to HK's at all and no....not everyone prefers the futuristic look of a skyline such as say Shanghai's.

I think its ridiculous to compare the skyscrapers in NY to those in London. We only have one skyscraper of any international interest...Swiss Re. The rest are just dross that wouldn't warrant a mention and wouldn't even touch the sides if they were placed within NYC. Obviously London is the equal, and in some ways superior to NY but when it comes to big skylines and skyscrapers.....naaah.

Comparing NYC's skyline to London is insane! NYC wins by a hell of a margin!



Quantity - NYC

47 +200m buildings in NY in 2006 vs 11 +200m buildings in London in 2012


Quality - NYC

In 2012 London's best will boast Bishopsgate, SwissRe, Difa, Minerva and LBT compared to Chrysler, ESB, Bank of America, Woolworth, Freedom Tower, NY Times Tower, Hearst Tower, plus many more art deco classic.


Density - NYC

Errm.... yeah.....

http://www.kconnors.com/albums/NYC/skyline.jpg





Not to berate London, as I think we will have a wicked skyline... but let's be realistic here and not make impulsive claims that we accuse people from other cities, e.g. Dubai, of doing.

thats a fantastic picture , very impressive.

Quick delete the thread before someone from the world forums notices its existence! How can London's skyscrapers be mentioned in the same breath as New York's. What's even more ridiculous is we are compairing glass and concrete with pie in the sky.

yeah, lets also understand that its not about density is it? It's largely about quality.
as you can see...::...::...::

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

You can't do comparissions like that, all you scales are out.
:)

yeah, lets also understand that its not about density is it? It's largely about quality.
as you can see...::...::...::

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

You can't do comparissions like that, all your scales are out.
:)

What's even more ridiculous is we are compairing glass and concrete with pie in the sky.

LOL.....exactly!!

You can't do comparissions like that, all your scales are out.
:)
Are you some sort of parrot?

oh for fucks sake, shut up, these forums are literally dead at the moment, and those pictures give us something to aim for. Yes half of them probably won't go up, but who cares.

London is never gonna look like that, at least no in 2012, maybe 2025.

Not everybody much prefers HK's skyline to HK's at all and no....not everyone prefers the futuristic look of a skyline such as say Shanghai's.

I didnt say they did :sleepy:

You can't do comparissions like that, all your scales are out.
:)

you dont say :crazy: you do one then :D

London is never gonna look like that, at least no in 2012, maybe 2025.

Oh really? tell us more about the future :happy:

I didnt say they did :sleepy:


eh....you said everyone prefers the skyline of HK to NY....not true.

London is never gonna look like that, at least no in 2012, maybe 2025.

I posted this list in the world forum, let's see how many people agree with me here:-


London Bridge Tower 306m - demolition of Southwark Towers is scheduled to start later this year, and will take around 12 months, with actual construction starting in mid-late 2007.

Bishopsgate Tower 288m - likely to be approved in the next few months, construction could start in 2007.

Columbus Tower 237m - currently on hold, but not cancelled. Start date unknown.

122 Leadenhall 225m - the lease on the current building expires in early 2008. British Land will almost certainly start construction in 2008, and the tower will be completed by 2010.

Minerva 217m + 30m spire - this project has faced major difficulties, but IS still going ahead. They are changing the floorplates and layout to make the tower more viable. Start date unknown, but could be around late 2006/early 2007.

North Quay 1 216m - this tower is being redesigned, it's a fairly long-term project and I wouldn't expect this to start before 2008.

Beetham Tower 215m - likely to be approved in the next couple of months. The site has already been demolished and cleared, and Beetham always build their towers extremely quickly, so we can expect this to start by the summer.

Riverside South 1 214m - this will almost certainly be the next major skyscraper to start construction in Canary Wharf. I would expect a start date of around late 2006-mid 2007.

Heron Quays West 1 214m - a long term project, still in pre-planning. Unlikely to start before 2009.

North Quay 3 203m - this is part of a triple-tower scheme. See the details for North Quay 1, above.

Heron Tower (110 Bishopsgate) 202m + 40m spire - this project has been dragging on for years, but is definitely going ahead. There has been some progress recently, with the developer showing firm commitment to fund and build the tower, and there has even been a height increase. The current outlook would suggest a start date of somewhere between late 2006-mid 2007.

Riverside South 2 189m - this is part of a twin-tower scheme. See the details for Riverside South 1, above.

St George's Wharf (Vauxhall Tower) 181m - fully approved, after a lengthy legal battle. The site has already been demolished and cleared. I would expect this to start construction in 2006.

Suffolk House 180m - I have no idea when this will start. As a pure guess, I would say late 2007.

Vauxhall Bondway Tower 180m - still awaiting final approval.

Wilkinson Eyre Tower 176m - still in planning. If the nearby Beetham Tower is approved next month, it will massively increase its chances of going ahead.

Stratford City Tower 170m - a long term project; part of the regeneration in East London for the Olympic Games. I've no idea when this will start, but it should be completed by 2012.

Doon Street Tower 168m - yet to receive planning permission, but the approval of the Beetham Tower would certainly increase its chances.

Broadgate Tower 164m - recently started construction. The core should be rising by March/April 2006.

Grand Union Building 158m including spire - groundwork has already started, but has been on-hold for the last couple of years. I don't know when it will continue, but it can't be long now.

Heron Quays West 2 156m - this is part of a twin-tower scheme. See the details for Heron Quays West 1, above.

Pan Peninsula Tower 147m - recently started construction. The core should be rising in the next couple of months. It will be one of the tallest residential buildings in the UK.

Multiplex Tower 147m - likely to receive planning permission soon. Rumoured to be starting construction later this year.

People are being too impatient. Admittedly come 2012 all of these wont be built but alot of them have good prospects and most will be built eventually.

People are being too impatient.

Six years and counting to wait for the 42 storey Heron Tower for example to start construction is hardly impatience. Its actually a bit of an embarrassment to be honest. But it's out of our hands, so what can we do.

I posted this list in the world forum, let's see how many people agree with me here:-


London Bridge Tower 306m - demolition of Southwark Towers is scheduled to start later this year, and will take around 12 months, with actual construction starting in mid-late 2007.

Bishopsgate Tower 288m - likely to be approved in the next few months, construction could start in 2007.

Columbus Tower 237m - currently on hold, but not cancelled. Start date unknown.

122 Leadenhall 225m - the lease on the current building expires in early 2008. British Land will almost certainly start construction in 2008, and the tower will be completed by 2010.

Minerva 217m + 30m spire - this project has faced major difficulties, but IS still going ahead. They are changing the floorplates and layout to make the tower more viable. Start date unknown, but could be around late 2006/early 2007.

North Quay 1 216m - this tower is being redesigned, it's a fairly long-term project and I wouldn't expect this to start before 2008.

Beetham Tower 215m - likely to be approved in the next couple of months. The site has already been demolished and cleared, and Beetham always build their towers extremely quickly, so we can expect this to start by the summer.

Riverside South 1 214m - this will almost certainly be the next major skyscraper to start construction in Canary Wharf. I would expect a start date of around late 2006-mid 2007.

Heron Quays West 1 214m - a long term project, still in pre-planning. Unlikely to start before 2009.

North Quay 3 203m - this is part of a triple-tower scheme. See the details for North Quay 1, above.

Heron Tower (110 Bishopsgate) 202m + 40m spire - this project has been dragging on for years, but is definitely going ahead. There has been some progress recently, with the developer showing firm commitment to fund and build the tower, and there has even been a height increase. The current outlook would suggest a start date of somewhere between late 2006-mid 2007.

Riverside South 2 189m - this is part of a twin-tower scheme. See the details for Riverside South 1, above.

St George's Wharf (Vauxhall Tower) 181m - fully approved, after a lengthy legal battle. The site has already been demolished and cleared. I would expect this to start construction in 2006.

Suffolk House 180m - I have no idea when this will start. As a pure guess, I would say late 2007.

Vauxhall Bondway Tower 180m - still awaiting final approval.

Wilkinson Eyre Tower 176m - still in planning. If the nearby Beetham Tower is approved next month, it will massively increase its chances of going ahead.

Stratford City Tower 170m - a long term project; part of the regeneration in East London for the Olympic Games. I've no idea when this will start, but it should be completed by 2012.

Doon Street Tower 168m - yet to receive planning permission, but the approval of the Beetham Tower would certainly increase its chances.

Broadgate Tower 164m - recently started construction. The core should be rising by March/April 2006.

Grand Union Building 158m including spire - groundwork has already started, but has been on-hold for the last couple of years. I don't know when it will continue, but it can't be long now.

Heron Quays West 2 156m - this is part of a twin-tower scheme. See the details for Heron Quays West 1, above.

Pan Peninsula Tower 147m - recently started construction. The core should be rising in the next couple of months. It will be one of the tallest residential buildings in the UK.

Multiplex Tower 147m - likely to receive planning permission soon. Rumoured to be starting construction later this year.


Will -pretty much agree with all that-

I reckon NQ & Columbus will be bogged down with crossrail- I saw on TH masterplan for the whole of that area (I posted it on some other thread -cant remember which) that NQ was way off (around 2015)- Shame really as the government looks like to be draggin its feet over Xrail-again & it see doubtful at this present moment.

122 LH- should start in 2008 when all the leases run out
Heron - whenever Norton Rose move- late 2007/2008- All the shops on hte ground floor are closed now.

Beetham- Ifs it gets through in Feb Ok then I reckon it would start mid-2006
If it gets the go ahead then The Land Secs scheme will go in for planning. Same for Doon St

LBT- hopefully the latter half of 2006- depends on what happens with PwC- I'd say 50% on this one.

GUB paddington- No idea- I think the developers have ditched this & appointed one of the big US firms (remamber vaguely from estates gazzete months back)- they are developing 1/2 million sq ft inn the next stage of paddington so doubt this would start anytime soon. The 22 storey winding resi tower shuold be under construction according to development Sec website but AFAIK this hasn't started either.

St georges tower -should start in the 2nd half of year.

Heron Quays west & Stratford towers- ver long term- prob 2010 at earliest

RS South- Not sure- It would seem CW are going to finish the Churchill place buildings first so would depend on a big pre-let- 2008 maybe

Minerva- not sure- depends on how soon they start there Cannon/Watling st scheme- 50% chance of 2008 start.

Bishopsgate- depends on if they get planning in the spring- If so then I would say 2007 (depends on if theres any tenants-anyone know what he tennat situation is??) .They have been plannig a tower in this area for a fair few years now so I would guess they are eager to start ASAP to catch the upturn in the property cycle.

Vauxhall bondway & L& R properties twin towers- depends on how they get onin planning or if Lambeth get arsey again- 50% chance of L&R properties in 2007. Bondway no idea?!!?

Theres also Marsh wall towers -this should have Planning permission now or very soon & would expect it to start 2nd half of 2006 according to the developers- They have had this site for years so I would guess they want to cash in on the resi tower boom here before Ballymore start anything else.

Ballymores towers in Crossharbour- 2007 & Arrowhead Quay - I reckon that will go in for a redesigned taller scheme as since it got approved a couple of years ago things have gone taller around here & this is a rpime location for a taller scheme. Lets say 2008.

Wood Wharf- Resi towers should go in for planning this year but when it starts depends on how Ballymore & CW are doing with their other schemes- Such a shame British Land didnt get this commission as they would prob have started much sooner.lets say 2008 to be built.

Elephant & C Multiplex- I would expect as soon as this gets planning Multiplex will wanna get the debacle of Wembley behind them & build this- they are experts at building tall resi's & have built loads in Oz. The Whole 10 yr E&C masterplan has now started so this should get going in say 2007 & we should see a few more tall ones for the E&C.

Seeing as 2012 is 6 years away I would expect to see loads & loads more schemes- Remember we've been getting a tall proposal on average once every 2 months the last couple of years so if this rate & the economy continues growing that will be a hell of a lot of new proposals :)

Six years and counting to wait for the 42 storey Heron Tower for example to start construction is hardly impatience. Its actually a bit of an embarrassment to be honest. But it's out of our hands, so what can we do.

People should look at other projects around the world & see how long of them take to start- The WFC in shanghai for example was due to start in 1997 but due to the Asian crash it has only just started inthe last 6 mths.

Six years and counting to wait for the 42 storey Heron Tower for example to start construction is hardly impatience. Its actually a bit of an embarrassment to be honest. But it's out of our hands, so what can we do.

Quite, your impatience is understandable, but hopefully things will on the upturn soon.

Do you know how long it took for the likes of New York Time Center to go up?

It took 6 years. It was published in 1999, and has only started contruction the the later half of '05.

Heron was published in '01-'02. Its hardly been 4-5 years yet.

LBT was pub. in 2001. it hasnt been long yet.

People are being too impatient.

Agree.

Do you know how long it took for the likes of New York Time Center to go up?

It took 6 years. It was published in 1999, and has only started contruction the the later half of '05.

Heron was published in '01-'02. Its hardly been 4-5 years yet.

LBT was pub. in 2001. it hasnt been long yet.

very good point, London

things will on the upturn soon.

Thing are actually on the upturn. In 2005 a whole 11.5million sq ft was let. The highest since 1999. :yes:

And when you compare all the 4 quaters in 2005, you see a blatent upturn in every consecutive quater (so, Q4, is better than Q3. Q3 is better than Q2. Q2....etc)

Q4 will be published online soon, but in the mean while, take a look (http://www.colliers.com/Markets/UnitedKingdom/MarketReports/Office/) for yourself :)

very good point, London

Thank you :colgate:

Once you start to understand how things work, it becomes obviouse why most things dont get built.

When you see New York and London, you might think "how on earth is London competitive with New York when it has no skyscrpaers?" (wait....read on)

As soon as we look at a skyscrpaer in NY, you might assume that its fully let. But no! It was a mark of wealth for a property tycoon to own a skyscrpaer (it was a NY phase). It was cheap and econmically satisfying.

For the investors to earn a profit, the building need'nt be fully let (or 90% let) it only needed to be 48% let(on average).

So it only seemed smart for them to bite off more than they could chew, becasue it was Tesco Value prices.

it's happening to london now. Why do you think the Gherkin isnt eager to get their building fully let (to the point were they acually reject tenants) because they're already earning a profit.

Why do you think LBT wants to at least gain a 44% let of the building. cos they would earning a prpfit.

The same with Minerva - 50% needed to be pre-let before they would start construction.

SO thats why London doesnt have many skyscrapers - becasue instead of building tall and have half the building empty, they just supplied on demand, which lead to a barcade of Huge low-rises in ''the square mile''.

Lets not forget the considerable battles that were focused around several public inquiries. This is something that has added several years to some of our key projects, but which will not factor in future applications. For example; 201 Bishopsgate which got permission comparitively quickly and the likely approval of Bishopsgate tower in under a year.

Towers are built for tenants. During an economic downturn (2000-2003) or moderate growth (2004-2005) supply outweights demand from tenants and rents decrease, hence the potential profit from the development of these schemes, and the probability of them being built.

However, the market is improving. Prices and rents are increasing again. Foreign investments in the City and the Docklands are booming. A couple of big pre-lets have howeveryet to materialise. Fingers crossed. The future looks bright.

problem is that there might not be enough slack for office space in the not too distant future - i think thats why british land have such eagerness. they are about alone in being able to afford to do some huge investments and build speculatively.

The skyline of London in 2012 will be different from the way it is today! IE: there will be some more tall buildings.

That is great news for a fan of tall buildings like me

It is not great news for a lot of people in London that are not (lets not forget why WE are all here on this forum).

NY citizens do not have a choice...Tall buildings are NY, with other features too of course, but NY is thought of around the world as tall buildings in the extreme.

London, is not and will almost certainly never be that (apart from individual projects) and thank god!

So ......great....things are going to plan...are'nt they?

London is never gonna look like that, at least no in 2012, maybe 2025.
Do you have anything positive to say?All the time I hear from you only ONLY negative things like "London is never gonna look like that","St Pauls is dirty","Streets in London are narrow","London has no trees" and so on...Whats your problem huh? :gaah:

originally posted by London


Once you start to understand how things work, it becomes obviouse why most things dont get built.

When you see New York and London, you might think "how on earth is London competitive with New York when it has no skyscrpaers?" (wait....read on)

As soon as we look at a skyscrpaer in NY, you might assume that its fully let. But no! It was a mark of wealth for a property tycoon to own a skyscrpaer (it was a NY phase). It was cheap and econmically satisfying.

For the investors to earn a profit, the building need'nt be fully let (or 90% let) it only needed to be 48% let(on average).

So it only seemed smart for them to bite off more than they could chew, becasue it was Tesco Value prices.

it's happening to london now. Why do you think the Gherkin isnt eager to get their building fully let (to the point were they acually reject tenants) because they're already earning a profit.

Why do you think LBT wants to at least gain a 44% let of the building. cos they would earning a prpfit.

The same with Minerva - 50% needed to be pre-let before they would start construction.

SO thats why London doesnt have many skyscrapers - becasue instead of building tall and have half the building empty, they just supplied on demand, which lead to a barcade of Huge low-rises in ''the square mile''.

This is why I like you, you explain things for those who dont know :) cheers :cheers:

Do you have anything positive to say?All the time I hear from you only ONLY negative things like "London is never gonna look like that","St Pauls is dirty","Streets in London are narrow","London has no trees" and so on...Whats your problem huh? :gaah:

You only point out the bad things i have said about London, i have said many positive things about London as well, i have been curious and asked about skyscrapers and other buildings etc...I´m sorry if that´s the picture you have of me, i don´t hate London, it looks like a wonderful city, one of the best in the world!

You only point out the bad things i have said about London, i have said many positive things about London as well, i have been curious and asked about skyscrapers and other buildings etc...I´m sorry if that´s the picture you have of me, i don´t hate London, it looks like a wonderful city, one of the best in the world!
Every post i have seen has been negative Lime street tower is going to be tiny the thames is not that nice st pauls looks dirty.

SuomiPoika - with all due respect, I have to agree with these guys. You do seem overly-negative towards London.

P.S. Look at my new signature ;)

Yeah, try to be more positive - and first of all: visit london.

I don´t deny i have said all these things (i didn´t mean to offend anyone, i just said my opinion, a little critisism doesn´t hurt anyone, does it?) but it only means i have interest in London. I think it´s better to say both negative and positive things about a city rather than saying nothing, belive me, i don´t hate London, and tommygunn don´t worry, limestreet is fine (i don´t know/remember why i said it was tiny).

"Yeah, try to be more positive - and first of all: visit london."

I´m going to, and i look forward to it. :)

I have seen Suomi alot around the forums, and i think that he/she (im not sure which) is a very big fan of London. Every city has its bad parts, and they need to be pointed out so that people can focus more on making them better. Suomi is probably one of the biggest foreign London fans here.

^^ Thx, mate

btw i´m a man:)

and first of all: visit london.
:applause:

I could not possibly comment, but one sign of having a love for a place, even if you have not been there, is to critisize it:

"there is one thing worse than being talked about..it is NOT being talked about "

Oscar Wilde

I suspect you have a real affection for our city! So please comment away...just be gentle with us!

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

a good way to lighten the spirits, with a brilliant render!

I actually did that rendering a while back, but I lost the original file.

Well, I was searching for stuff on Google just now, and it happened to turn up in the search results. :)

wow, that was luck then. All thanks to google. Although wouldnt it be on your uploader holder (online) and your computer?

Basically, I lost the image from my Hard Drive, and I have 1000's of files stored online so it would take me forever to find its URL. I was doing a search for "London Bridge Tower" on Google Images and it turned up on about the 3rd page.

Beetham looks so good there! the true spire through the heart of London ;)

I wish i was that lucky sometimes, Wjfox.

Yeh, potto, beetham tower looks so independant from that angle and perspective :yes:

Is it just me, or does it look like Beethams fighting with LBT to obtain the title of ''king of the skies''?

I think it acts as a bridge between the two clusters

I fantasise about being on a boat full of tourists all gaping at Beetham then turning around the bend of the river to suddenly reveal an epic vista with LBT and DIFA as too river guardians and a gateway to the resurging East and hearing their gasps of astonishment

I also fantasise about that. And do you know what, i went on a ''Citicruise'' boat that took me and my mates from vauxhall to CW, and the skyline is Beautiful already (not particularly the skyline, but the architecture). Although some tourists say that it was dissapointing :eek2:

But it only cost us £2.50 each. We just use it like a bus... it takes us from our houses to the London eye, were we go to the arcades :colgate:

^^ But don´t get too excited, if LBT, bishopsgate or any other tower(s) are cancelled you will be very dissappointed.

LBT wont be cancelled, the developers are too determined and it now has LOTS of backing. DIFA is very likely to be approved and go ahead, 99.99% apparently. The only ones that are likely to be cancelled are Columbus and Minerva. Columbus because its investor died, and Minerva unless it gets a huge prelet or they rearange the floor plans.

Minerva is just redesigning the layout of their current building to fit multiple tenants on floors.

We should find out in about a month, whether Difa is approved or not.

LBT is going to be built, just not yet.

122 Leadenhall is the most likley out of all of 'em. Not even a pre-let is required by BL to build it. Although they've had many potential tenants already.

Heron is really active of this project.

^^

Yeah, they did seem really commited to Minerva and acted angrily after rumours of it being cancelled.

We should see work on the site of the shard around september hopefully, and enabeling works before June. It will happen this year.

hmm i don't think Minerva will see the light of day even with the redesign unless they sell it on to another developer...

To be honest... i have strong faith in Minerva. They're a world renound company and is a top player in finance n business :yes:

I heard the investor of Columbus is dead? Now what? What will happen with this project?

Columbus will remain quiet until the developers and the current owners of the site, Heartsmere House want to do something with it.

I've got a strong strong feeling Colombus will perish, well it already has, but the strong feeling is this:
With the success of Pan Peninsula something tall but residential will go there. I don't think it'll be the height of Columbus but it'll be around 150 - 180 m. I think we may if possible see this in 2008.

I'm confident we'll see something tall there eventually... whether it's the original design for Columbus Tower I don't know, but look at it this way - that site is a prime piece of real estate, sitting next to a major business and financial district, and it's already had planning permission for a 237m tower.


http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/3575/canary16hd.jpg

I love that pic, I hoped to get one last time I flew into LHR , it was a perfect summers morning but we came in from the West over Staines instead :doh:

The site were the blue and red fun thing is, looks like a great site for either another skyscraper, or a beautiful green garden.

Im sure the Colombus tower is going were that white building is (the one that looks like the Smith tower)

Is there anything tall goin opposite to HSBC tower thats just across the little river?

Also, that picture is beautiful, but dont you think it makes CW look messy and mudled. If they wanted to expand, were would CWG expand to?

It looks like they could go left or right from there, there isnt that much around it.

The site of Columbus got sold a couple of months ago - the new owners cant afford to develop it as they seem a small company- they will probably hang onto the site & sell it onto a developer who has the ambition & cash to develop it.

As Will says- its on a prime site & has permission for a 237m tower so something tall should be built on this site eventually.

The site were the blue and red fun thing is, looks like a great site for either another skyscraper, or a beautiful green garden.
15 Canada Square is going there I believe. It should be around 80-100m.



Im sure the Colombus tower is going were that white building is (the one that looks like the Smith tower)
It's the lowrise building which touches the top-right corner of West India Quay.



Is there anything tall goin opposite to HSBC tower thats just across the little river?
Yes! North Quay 1 (214m), North Quay 2 (120m) and North Quay 3 (203m).




If they wanted to expand, were would CWG expand to?
They'll probably continue to the south I would imagine. That's a long way off yet though. They'll have to build all the current proposals and have them fully let, which is 10+ years away. Don't forget, however, there's also Wood Wharf (http://www.woodwharf.com/) immediately to the east, which will practically double the land area of the cluster.


http://www.pipers.co.uk/source/models/gallery/gallerypics/wood_wharf_01.jpg

the insane thing about columbus is they didnt apply to have use changed to entirely residential and then flog off the apartments to rich arabs. look at 1 millharbour to see what they could have done had they wanted.

When will 15 canada square start/end construction? It looks like the north quay towers could start construction very soon, since the site seems to be cleared.

Is there a schedule for wood wharf? Construction start?

Will peninsula be visible in the pic wjfox posted?
I like the canary wharf skyline and it would be nice to see some newscrapers. With the two peninsula towers, wood wharf, the north quay scrapers and other mid/low-rises CW will improve greatly!

no

It looks like the north quay towers could start construction very soon, since the site seems to be cleared.

The site has been like that since the original warehouse buildings were demolished decades ago. There was a plan to build a hotel on the site when it was known as Shed 35, but this never happened.

Canary Wharf is having troubles with the site because it is needed to house building works for the Isle Of Dogs Crossrail station, and until that is built can't build anything on the site. Crossrail is still up in the air and so Canary Wharf are annoyed they can't progress with the marketing of the site.

when is the crossrail station completed?

when is the crossrail station completed?

How long's a piece of string...

Now just imagine that picture of CW with all the projects in place. It'll look stunning!

One dissapointment is North Quay Towers won't sit at Canary Wharf any time soon because of the "Mayor's Dissaproval with the Tower's Design." :bash:

Edit: When will Wood Wharf be going ahead?

Edit 2: Nicked this of google:

http://tecfa.unige.ch/~nova/img/9wood_wharf_massing.jpg

When will 15 canada square start/end construction? It looks like the north quay towers could start construction very soon, since the site seems to be cleared.

Is there a schedule for wood wharf? Construction start?

There was never a heavy build up of buildings here after WWII. The area was a dock and the primary target for German Bombers. It was more or less levelled by bombs (and also the surrounding area, which, apart from slum clearance, is why there are so many modern housing estates) and the warehouses were only patched up after the war. The end was already in sight for this dock, as container ships were docking much further east at Tilbury etc.

If anything I'd like to see the towers at North Quay given a height reduction similar to the height of Heron Quays, simply to balance the cluster and give a better height lift from the very low rise Poplar area to One Canada Square.

Yep... I like the idea of a pinnicled cluster too. Its not happening yet, nor is it planned as far as I can see

A height reduction would also reduce the amount of floorspace and therefore increase their chances of actually being let/built.

Thank god for the Mayor's disapproval of the North Quay designs. It looked as if Canary Wharf wanted to dump as much floor space on the site as physically possable. The building designs were the usual docklands detrius and present a wall of glass to Poplar.

WJFox makes a very good point about the heights and if London is lucky we will get a shorter redesign that has more ambition than a couple of glass boxes with a hint of curves.

^ Agreed, I've never liked these buildings, I wish CW would be a bit more adventurous with thier designs. CW is great an all, but if they're not careful some of these buildings will look very dated in 20 to 30 years time.

^^ a couple of buildings on the estate already do look dated.......

^^ eg Heron Quays

And 25 bank street does IMO

A proposed tower for St. Katherine's Dock:

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8148/sdock18lw.jpg
(scanned from newspaper)
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/8255/sdock0012jd.jpg

The reason no one visits is because they can't see it because of the bloody awful Thistle Hotel!

A tower isn't needed here. The piazza in the rendering already exists, it's part of the hideous K2 development that has blighted this edge of the Dock.

Perfect. I like St.Katherines dock already and this development looks to address shortcomings and add a bit more residential to boot.

The reason no one visits is because they can't see it because of the bloody awful Thistle Hotel!

A tower isn't needed here. The piazza in the rendering already exists, it's part of the hideous K2 development that has blighted this edge of the Dock.
What's wrong with K2?

I agree about the Thistle completely. With luck that will be going eventually as there is a snowball of hate getting ever larger and heading towards it.

this is a ten minute walk west down the river from my place...

the only thing that needs changing about st. katherine's dock is the dicken's inn, which needs renovating so that internally it's as impressively as it is externally, and the tower thistle (now part of the guoman hotels group), which needs flattening or, at the very least, recladding. what happens to the tower hotel is out of the hands of the st. katherine's dock people, though, so we'll have to hope guoman hotels see sense and come up with the dosh necessary to provide something truly worthy of the site. i doubt they will though. not only is it a matter of money, but they probably wouldn't be able to get planning permission for something as tall as is already on the site.

as for that proposed tower (currently the site of a small, two-storey starbucks) - it's awful and totally out of touch with the rest of the area. it needs to be half the height, and even then architecturally it stinks.

A tower again? it's getting irritating. Developers are obsessed. This is not a place for towers.

Indeed. The only "towers" that belong around here are Tower Bridge and the Tower of London.

The floodgates are wide open, this is what some of us have hoped for a long time.

A U-turn against towers cannot be ruled-out. Some restrictions must prevent developers from building tall anywhere as public opinion may change.

I'm not turning into an EH fan, but tougher rules must insure the best urban fabric in fine.

I really dislike the idea of turning this side of town or the south bank into a "menagerie" of tall buildings.

There is already in Central London : the City (+midtown+city road basin), CW (+Blackwall+central part of Isle of Dogs), Vauxhall (very promising backdrop of the Parliament from Embankment) and the LBT area.

Paddington would have been great but Westminster council don't share this view.

It's not so much 'a tower' I'm against in St Katherine's, it's just the fact it's on this location, and isn't particularly something that is going to raise the tone of the area anymore than it is already. If it was situated on the edge, possibly by the new set of apartments on the eastern block of the Estate, or on the southern side it would be fine.

If anyone has been to this site, there is a 2 storey coffee house that is situated in a small round building that was dedicated to the Queen's Silver Jubilee. The thing is, this site is tiny, and I just don't know how they are going to fit this tower on that site without it overhanging the dock and the pedestrian route though the area.

I like the new proposed pedestrian route which will run along the western edge of the dock, desperately needed as nothing exists there at the moment.

I don't think the tower is that tall, I doubt it will even be visible behind the Thistle Hotel. Which kind of begs the question why it's needed in the first place.

What's wrong with K2?

It destroyed a lovely small Japanese garden and ampitheatre that existed on the site with the walkway to the Tower and replaced it with a dull concrete plaza and 'hemmed in' the walkway making it now a very unattractive walk between the two sites. I can't fault the retail at ground level though facing the Dock - something that was strangely missing from the old building and indeed the Dock itself.

The building is of course better than what was there before, that's not question. Although I still feel it's looks out of place, like an out of town data processing centre dumped where it is. I'm also concerned the so called 'atrium' that faces over a World Heritage Site actually works in the way Rogers supposed it would.

Well I could be wrong and the render is at a very advantageous angle. I see this tower akin to that white one in Shad Thames that sticks up above the warehouse buildings, but looks perfectly in place and overshadows nothing.

From what I can see there is nothing wrong with that tower as it is just a baby that partially obscures the Tower Hotel from the dock.

I think it will work out ok aesthetically, these single width rotund residential unit towers seem to work well at this height, look at the one near the Tate for example it looks great, adds some visual play almost like a medieval hill town. As it is residential there will be a lot of detail shown through, ie internal decor, curtains etc.

I read an article about this last week and I was sooo hoping that the Thistle hotel would be demolished because it sited that the developers had the cash to replace architectually inferior buildings in the dock. I feel traumatised that this isnt happening... Councils should offer cash incentives to demolish poor achitecture.

In fact I would think that on a purely short-termist developers point of view that demolition would be VERY cost effective... this building actually blocks the entire St Katherines dock off from view of the crowds of cash laden tourists that wander around the Tower of London looking something more out of the area before they cross the bridge or head back to the tube (the tower is located in a bit of a soul less bit of London).

You really can not get any indication that this beautiful dock exists even if you stand 30 metres from the nearest boat. Crazy. Even if you felt adventurous the St Katherines Dock and the bland unimaginative elongated office building facing the tower of London provide too much of a barrier to the imagination as well as the eye.


http://www.milesfaster.co.uk/gallery/london-images/st-kath-thistle.jpg
look at the monster!!

would you believe that the main entrance into the dock from the Tower of London is in that right hand corner between the concrete hotel and that red brick mundanity... you really do not want to walk between the two lest you find yourself in the service entrance

http://www.milesfaster.co.uk/gallery/london-images/st-kath-3.jpg

http://www.milesfaster.co.uk/gallery/london-images/view.jpg

you really have to hand it to 70s architects, managing to corrupt such effortless beauty!

Thanks to Wjfox's rendering, i was able to do this:

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

I know which one i'll pick, but what about you guy's n gal's?

Notice how the Helter Skelter (Bishopsgate Tower) is our version of the Empire state building. And also how CW is our version of the left cluster of New Yorks skyline!

I wouldn't compare yourself to New York :)

^^ London DOESNT WANT to look like New York! London wants to be unique!

New York and London are two very different cities, and even though they are probably the two most powerful in the world, the architecture is in no way similar

I wouldn't compare yourself to New York :)

London and New York are both equall world class cities, neither is better and to try and say one is better than the other would be silly.

A hugh amount of skill and time has gone into that render. I think London trying to look like NY would be like granny trying to look like her niece. They both have old and new clothes, but Granny has lived longer and retains the scars...both good and bad!

I wouldn't compare yourself to New York :)

You mean skyline right? Yeah, i kno. but instead of viewing it as a competition, why not view it to as a great example of what London could potentially look like.

I fully understand that you cant compare the two skylines. They're both like chalk and chease - but in this case, concrete and glass, post-modern and modern... etc :colgate:

A hugh amount of skill and time has gone into that render. I think London trying to look like NY would be like granny trying to look like her niece. They both have old and new clothes, but Granny has lived longer and retains the scars...both good and bad!

lol

if london is a granny then it must be the sexiest granny ever :naughty:

If London is the granny then the granny's getting botox.

She'll need to see Majorie Doors at "Fat Fighters" if she keeps piling it on with great lumps like Broadgate.

Exactly! Lots to be said for facelifts...Im considering myself! :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/London_skyline_2012_panorama.jpg




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/London_skyline_2012_large.jpg

^^ fantastic rendering.......but doesnt that show the original Difa tower before the height reduction?????

surly it makes more sense to show the height reduced version

:):););)

DIFA is shown at 288m.

Excellent work WJ..........and very much appreciated!!

good render but you didn't include Broadgate Tower :cry:

and shouldn't Heron be a tiny bit taller? :dunno:

DIFA is shown at 288m.

Oh cool.....it still looks huge

good render but you didn't include Broadgate Tower :cry:
I've calculated it would barely be visible in this view.


and shouldn't Heron be a tiny bit taller? :dunno:
No, it's just the perspective - Heron will be further away than Tower 42, which is why it appears 'shorter'...

Fabulously accurate. So glad the step up of Lime Street is visible from this view.

yes I think the Limey really adds to that :)

I thought Broadgate would be to the left of St Pauls, and just about visable?

Im sure when I read the Mayors planning decision on Broadgate tower that it wouldn't be visible from waterloo bridge as it would be directly behind the dome of St Pauls

Brill render! If you can spy out the little church in the forground of the city then you see just how big these things will be. Request: Could you add kings reach reclad and beetham? And maybe show where Wilkinson eyre would be?

thats a good point. The view from the top of that church would be awe inspiring. Not sure if you can go up it, or how safe it is up there.

I'm still trying to work out the place, where Spooks used for a scene, Harry was chatting with another high up spook, and they were on a balconey somewhere, with an amazing backdrop of a the city. And i'm pretty sure it wasn't St Pauls

Brilliant render there WjFox. It really does make London stand out more and plus it gives a message we have good weather here too :)

I strongly believe however 51 Lime Street should be a bit wider and a bit taller than the one in your render.

Brilliant fantastic render however.

Yeah fantastic render Will :)

Thanks for the comments guys.

Btw - you might notice I've removed the groundscrapers in front of 6-8 Bishopsgate, as these are being demolished in the next few years (along with Drapers Gardens). Can't quite remember what the building(s) are called, but anyway, this will improve the view of Leadenhall, and make both St Helens and 6-8 Bishopsgate look slightly more prominent.


http://i1.************/o79g83.jpg

Btw, London Bridge Tower could do with a few more votes:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=319284

;) :D

^^it's winning :happy:

Yes, but the (massively overrated) Fordham Spire is catching up.

Yes, but the (massively overrated) Fordham Spire is catching up.

ooooh... Youre a real bitch sometimes will;)

When is it finished?

I came across this old image from HayesDavidson.com of an imaginary pic of London in 2020 done in 1996.

Doesn't look that far fetched these days does it.

If they only built the ones we know about in 2006- Minerva, Heron,122LH, 20FC, DIFA, Broadgate, LBT, Beetham, then it wouldn't be far off there image for 2020- And who knows what would be proposed between 2006- 2020!!! :)

http://i2.************/qys8cg.jpg

^Isn't the same woman in the Shangri-La LBT pool rendering?

Edit: Yup.

http://shardlondonbridge.com/information/downloads/lowres/sp027-pool-city.jpg

Same red chair, windows, lights and flooring as well.

Pleeeeeeesssseee build the Difa tower, god this really would be a spire for the 21st century. does anyone know what the real chances of the beauty being built are? am too scared to log on these days incase i read like Columbus etc "It's over" london needs the shard and Difa badly.

It won't happen before the Olympics and I doubt they'll easily find a tenant what with the irregular floorplates.

I hope to be proved wrong though.

It won't happen before the Olympics
As I understand it, part of the current building has already been vacated. And it's very lowrise, so demolition won't take long at all. Plus, this tower is unlikely to face a public inquiry as Heron, the Shard and Vauxhall Tower did. Also, remember that DIFA have already been planning this tower for 3-4 years now, so why would they leave it dragging on again and being delayed still further?


I doubt they'll easily find a tenant what with the irregular floorplates.
On the contrary - the irregular floorplates could actually be an advantage. It could make the building appeal to a wider variety of tenants. That's assuming DIFA want the tower as multi-tenanted. Hopefully they'll do this. If you look at buildings like Tower 42 and Citypoint (which are occupied by numerous different companies), they've been enormously successful.