The Architects' Journal have reported that Land Securities (http://www.landsecurities.co.uk/) are planning a tower for the City of London.

Designed by Rafael Vinoly, it will be 45 storeys and will replace an existing 90m midrise built in the 1960's. The site is near the river, close to London Bridge, to the south of the main skyscraper cluster.

No official renderings have been released yet, but I've drawn the exact location of the tower, and the minimum height we can expect (see pics below).

Apparently the building will resemble a "huge curved television facing the Thames" or the 1950s Ericsson phone design.

The proposals are set to go before Corporation planners this summer.

According to sources working on the project, the design is "deferential" to the Tower of London and a nearby listed church, helping to appease the heritage bodies. It has also received positive comments from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE).



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/20fenchurchstreet/redevelopment/1.jpg


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/20fenchurchstreet/redevelopment/2.jpg


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/20fenchurchstreet/redevelopment/3.jpg

I'm okay with just about anything that would replace that butt-ugly highrise with the concrete hat.

This is great news, London City, If it keeps going on like this for a while, will have one of the top 5 skylines in the world by the time i'm 30!

This is great news, London City, If it keeps going on like this for a while, will have one of the top 5 skylines in the world by the time i'm 30!


I agree with you there Newcastle Kid.... :)

OH that's cool, I'm glad they are taking into account the Tower of London.

I must be the only one who actually likes the building thats there at the moment(except for the top bit), i love the way the glass seems to chage colour according to the sky. But another skyscraper for london is only good news, heres hoping for a design that can really justify being that close to the river.

When might there might be some renderings of the building, or a planning application?

I must be the only one who actually likes the building thats there at the moment(except for the top bit), i love the way the glass seems to chage colour according to the sky. But another skyscraper for london is only good news, heres hoping for a design that can really justify being that close to the river.
Yeah, I dunno why, but I quite like the current building as well. Maybe it's the slightly reflective cladding, as you say.

I work only a couple of streets away from it, actually.

Here's 2 photos I took:


http://www.willfox.com/images/london/3/6.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Fenchurch_street.jpg




When might there might be some renderings of the building, or a planning application?
The planning application is being submitted this summer, but the renderings might be available before then.

I quite like the building too, but hey, this is gonna be tall, and will stretch out the cluster :)

na its a shite building, a decent skyscraper in its place would look so much better.

This is Plantation Place, the building next door.

Super smooth shiny cladding - one of the highest quality facades in London in my opinion:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/St_margaret_pattens.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Plantation_place_2.jpg

a curved tv or phone? im not liking the sound of this and im just not gonna get too excited, doesn't seem London is reaching the skies with its current proposed/approved biggies... so i'll be all reserved for now (oh how british :))

London is going to look awesome with these new skyscrapers? Why don't you like skyscrapers in London, Wjfox2002?? I think they will look gr8!!

Why don't you like skyscrapers in London, Wjfox2002?? I think they will look gr8!!

Er... I never said I didn't. :)

I think you mis-read the title of this thread. I'm just saying it's unbelievable how many towers are being proposed here! :)

By 2012, London could - potentially - have around 35 buildings over 150m!! Not bad, considering it had just two prior to the year 2000.

I'm okay with just about anything that would replace that butt-ugly highrise with the concrete hat.

Totally agree, good to see a 60's eyesore being replaced rather than something classical.

hmmmmm..i'm gonna reserve opionion on this one

It looks as if it may be out on its ownsome, away from the very compact main cluster.

Also, i quite like the building that is there at the moment, its a fairly unoffensive 1960's building. There are many uglier monstrosities that i would rather see replaced. I think we should try and keep reasonaly good buildings from all era's in london. We dont want all the modern buildings in the city to be stainless stell and glass

And i REALLY hate plantation place, the cladding may well be high quality, but i couldnt give a rats ass how much it cost, because it looks so goddamned banal and dull. it is an ugly, hulking great lump of a building that looks totally squashed into a site that it too small for it, and from a distance it looks like a huge wall of green glass, paying no regard to surrounding buildings or skyline

hmmmmm..i'm gonna reserve opionion on this one

It looks as if it may be out on its ownsome, away from the very compact main cluster.

Also, i quite like the building that is there at the moment, its a fairly unoffensive 1960's building. There are many uglier monstrosities that i would rather see replaced. I think we should try and keep reasonaly good buildings from all era's in london. We dont want all the modern buildings in the city to be stainless stell and glass

And i REALLY hate plantation place, the cladding may well be high quality, but i couldnt give a rats ass how much it cost, because it looks so goddamned banal and dull. it is an ugly, hulking great lump of a building that looks totally squashed into a site that it too small for it, and from a distance it looks like a huge wall of green glass, paying no regard to surrounding buildings or skyline

Your confusing it with Palestra. Now thats a big lump of glass.

I agree with the comments about keeping the better buildings from the 60's. And 20 Fenchurch is perhaps one of the best from that era IMO. This design better be good, otherwise we could end up with something worse, that will date very quickly, and will be harded to demolish in the future ;)

So many proposals, so much construction... Sorry, but i'm sceptical.

So many proposals, so much construction... Sorry, but i'm sceptical.

Eh?

Do you mean "So many proposals, so little construction... "

Because if you do, then let me inform you:

Skyscrapers in 2000: 2
Skyscrapers in 2005: 11. (9 with another 2 U/C)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Fenchurch_street.jpg

The planning application is being submitted this summer, but the renderings might be available before then.

^ i was in that sainsbury's two days ago buying a ceaser salad - random fact for you all.

I must be the only one who actually likes the building thats there at the moment(except for the top bit), i love the way the glass seems to chage colour according to the sky. But another skyscraper for london is only good news, heres hoping for a design that can really justify being that close to the river.

When might there might be some renderings of the building, or a planning application?
You are not alone. Despite it's great to hear about news of new buildings (specially if they are designed by architects such as Viñoly), they could first demolish the low-rises!

Your confusing it with Palestra. Now thats a big lump of glass.

I agree with the comments about keeping the better buildings from the 60's. And 20 Fenchurch is perhaps one of the best from that era IMO. This design better be good, otherwise we could end up with something worse, that will date very quickly, and will be harded to demolish in the future ;)

No....both palestra and plantation place a ugly banal lumps of glass

Lol Eden, I always go in there for lunch after a walk round the city.

London has some great buildings going up. The skyline will be really unique ten years from now.

I do worry over how this skyline is going to emerge as reality.. it seems that developments are getting just a wee bit too much of a 'novelty'.. It needs more midrises before we through up a load of misc 200m towers...it will just look daft I think.
I hope time proves me wrong n eases the worries.

Nice. Vinoly is one of my favorite architects, this should be a great addition to the London skyline.

and will replace an existing 90m midrise built in the 1960's.

So a 90m building is called a midrise in London now :)

I can't wait to see renders of the building. :)

Great notices for london. Still working! :)

Good to see London buildings more skyscrapers. Long way to go though still before it can be consider one of the world's best. Keep it up.

Glad they're getting rid of the current building. Poor Austin Reed, they just finished refitting the store at the base!

^ yep, you can see the shop here:


http://i1.tinypic.com/oigbwp.jpg

Long way to go though still before it can be consider one of the world's best.

Ridiculous comment.

Eh?

Do you mean "So many proposals, so little construction... "

Because if you do, then let me inform you:

Skyscrapers in 2000: 2
Skyscrapers in 2005: 11. (9 with another 2 U/C)
Eh: cynicism? Let me inform you (correct me if i am wrong):

Since 2000:

- Londen Bridge Tower: approved 2003...
- Columbus Tower... ?
- Minerva Tower... ?
- Heron Tower: many years before construction...
- 122 Leadenhall: construction not before 2008...
- North Quay: no construction before 2007 or even later...
- Heron Quays West: no construction before 2010...
- Riverside South: approved in 2004, but that's it...
- Stratford City Tower: not before 2009?
- Skyhouse: never built
- 168 Fenchurch Street: never built
- Elizabeth House Redevelopment: never built

- News: Second tower at London Bridge? (http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=100831)
- News: Three new skyscrapers announced for London (http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=100312)
- News: Enron to build new UK headquarters (http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=100157)
- News: More towers planned for Canary Wharf cluster (http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=101193)
- News: Grand Union Building put on hold (http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=100738)
- News: 61-storey tower set to rise in Docklands (http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=101097)
- News: P&O propose skyscraper at Waterloo (http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/nc/ne/?id=101055)

- etc...

No one can deny that there is some reason to remain sceptical about London's major skyscraper projects and i am not the only person who is sceptical. There is no hurry when it comes to construction in London...

Every proposal in London is good news, but i am at the point where construction is regarded as better news.

;)

I will admit it has been abit slow. The only proposal definately starting this year is the 181m Vauxhall tower.

- Londen Bridge Tower: approved 2003, current building demolition in 4-6 months, construction starts 2006
- Columbus Tower... Pretty much dead (like the Arab guy who was planning to build it:()
- Minerva Tower... Floor plates undergoing redesign to appeal to more tenants.
- Heron Tower: Construction 2007 (Don't believe me? Check their site)
- 122 Leadenhall: construction IN 2008...
-Beetham London- Being redesigned, good chance for a 2007 start
- North Quay: Being redesigned for a better quality developmet
- Heron Quays West: no construction before 2010, still in detail design
- Riverside South: approved in 2004, awaiting a tenant. Looks good for 07 or an 08 start.
- Stratford City Tower: What The hell is Stratford city tower?
- Vauxhall Tower: Starts September-ish

Of course that isnt all of them. there is DIFA, The Vauxhall twins, Doon street, The new 200m tower proposed yesterday, etc... etc..

Well it looks like the core of the Heron Tower won't rise until Nov 2008 at the earliest

I will admit it has been abit slow. The only proposal definately starting this year is the 181m Vauxhall tower.
The final phase of St George's Wharf is being marketed later this year - we can't be 100% sure it will actually start construction though. It does seem quite likely now, however. And the site has already been demolished and cleared. The Multiplex Tower in Elephant and Castle is another one that should start later this year, if the developers are to be believed. And of course, demolition should start on the site of Shard London Bridge. Everything else though will have to wait until next year, except for a few midrises - see my list of "Other Projects" in the summary thread for more info.

you have some fantastic pics will :applause:

Interesting but the thread title is just too stupid.

Interesting but the thread title is just too stupid.

Hmm, and why exactly is that?

Can I ask what you do for a living wjfox...its always interested me what people on these forums do for work, and the responses are often varied and as different as each guy....I always get an image of you as an unidentifiable guy sitting behind a desk in an office block, ordering more coffee from your assistant while drawing architectural plans on a computer :dunno: :)

Hmm, and why exactly is that?

Because we are all skyscraper fans.
We love them. We don`t call the plans for a new skyscrapers a ridiculous act.

It is very good with a new skyscraper, but it is bad that they need to demolish another highrise.
I don't think the existing building is bad, since it has reflecting glass.
I prefer to add new skyscrapers instead of replacing them.

Because we are all skyscraper fans.
We love them. We don`t call the plans for a new skyscrapers a ridiculous act.

WJ was just refering to how crazy it is getting with having SO many proposals in London. He certainly isnt anti-skyscraper

I think possibly a refurb of the current tower..... a more user friendly vase and crown would make it quite a nice building. If all the midrises go it will look like a wall of building... much like Canary Wharf is looking. We have a few new midrises though. Was walking past the hole that will be broadgate tower yesterday.... and of course lime street.

I think possibly a refurb of the current tower..... a more user friendly vase and crown would make it quite a nice building. If all the midrises go it will look like a wall of building... much like Canary Wharf is looking. We have a few new midrises though. Was walking past the hole that will be broadgate tower yesterday.... and of course lime street.
London has already over 1100 skyscrapers. This is a good starting base to build taller skyscraper.

Because we are all skyscraper fans.
We love them. We don`t call the plans for a new skyscrapers a ridiculous act.
Like many people on here, you're taking me far too seriously...

Can I ask what you do for a living wjfox...its always interested me what people on these forums do for work, and the responses are often varied and as different as each guy....I always get an image of you as an unidentifiable guy sitting behind a desk in an office block, ordering more coffee from your assistant while drawing architectural plans on a computer :dunno: :)

I work for a medical journal near London Bridge, as a typesetter/artworker which involves designing and laying out pages in Quark, editing images in Photoshop, etc. then sending them off to print. I've done this kind of work for around 3 years but I've been using Photoshop for much longer - more like 8 or 9 years, since college really.

^^ kool! How do you like it? And...what's the pay like? ;)

:cheers:

Like many people on here, you're taking me far too seriously...

Aren`t you too long in this forum to make such weird thread title?

Aren`t you too long in this forum to make such weird thread title?
Dude...what is your problem? I think you seriously misunderstood the meaning of 'ridiculous' in the thread title! In this sense, as everyone else who came on this thread knew, the word is used as something of an ironic joke, and I would go into explaing this better but it would be lost on you no doubt. WjFox is one of the most skyscraper crazy blokes I've come across on these forums, and in no way does he mean that he thinks skyscrapers in London are a bad thing! You've just misinterpreted the thread title. Stress less my friend!

:cheers:

It's great, I love it - the work is creative, varied and challenging.

Took me AGES to break into this career though. I was doing loads of boring admin jobs for years before I got into artworking. It was that old Catch 22 situation of "can't get a job without experience; can't get experience without a job" but somehow I managed to get into it eventually.

And the pay is fairly decent. Plus, I get to walk around the City of London at lunchtimes and see all the amazing architecture, old monuments, medieval churches, modern offices, skyscrapers, etc... :cool:

But anyway, ... back on topic. :)

London has already over 1100 skyscrapers. This is a good starting base to build taller skyscraper.

No, It has 9 skyscrapers with two under construction and 36 proposed. If it had 1100, London would have the best skyline in the world. By a couple dozen miles. You are thinking of smaller buildings.

You've just misinterpreted the thread title. Stress less my friend!
Yeah, totally! :)

Aren`t you too long in this forum to make such weird thread title?

http://www.willfox.com/images/misc/humour_install.gif

No, It has 9 skyscrapers with two under construction and 36 proposed. If it had 1100, London would have the best skyline in the world. By a couple dozen miles. You are thinking of smaller buildings.

For Emporis is every building over 35m or with more than 12floors a skyscraper.

Do you have one for Mac OS?;)

For Emporis is every building over 35m or with more than 12floors a skyscraper.

Yes but the people that actually KNOW anything about skyscrapers would tell you the height starts at aroun 150m (500ft)

Ridiculous comment.

o ya? and how is that?? The current London skyline is pretty garbage. Many cities have better skylines in their suburbs, travel around a bit and you will see. And yes there are some nice proposals on the line like LBT and they will really add wonderfully to the London skyline, but that doesn't make it one of the world's best. London will need a lot more towers before it can start competing with cities like NY, HK, Chicago or even Toronto for that matter. London's on the path of building a great skyline, but if the final goal is on the level of the top skylines in the world than this is just the start and it does have a long way to go.

o ya? and how is that?? The current London skyline is pretty garbage. Many cities have better skylines in their suburbs, travel around a bit and you will see. And yes there are some nice proposals on the line like LBT and they will really add wonderfully to the London skyline, but that doesn't make it one of the world's best. London will need a lot more towers before it can start competing with cities like NY, HK, Chicago or even Toronto for that matter. London's on the path of building a great skyline, but if the final goal is on the level of the top skylines in the world than this is just the start and it does have a long way to go.

Obviously you are one of those people who believes a skyline is nothing but 150m+ glass buildings. My friend, London is SO much more than that.

Yes but the people that actually KNOW anything about skyscrapers would tell you the height starts at aroun 150m (500ft)

I agree with newcastle kid :yes:
Skyscraper is not a building over 35m or 12+ floors. Be serious! :sleepy:
More than 12 floors? Emporis it's ridiculous in this classification.
If this is true, all the cities around the world will have any skyscraper!
But where's the limit? I guess 100+ its enough for call a building SS.

London will need a lot more towers before it can start competing with cities like NY, HK, Chicago or even Toronto for that matter.

:crazy: :crazy:
Nowadays toronto's skyline arent one of the best of the world :weird:
I dont say that the skyline is bad. Its so pretty, especially cn tower. Also the sea do a great job. But not one of the best. I hope shanghai its over toronto, for example.

All the people around europe knows that london skyline won't be one of the best of the world at 2012, but london is making a great work with skyscrapers in a continent where skyscrapers arent too common. ;)

London's on the path of building a great skyline, but if the final goal is on the level of the top skylines in the world than this is just the start and it does have a long way to go.

London doesn't have a 'final goal' with its skyline. If you think it's building skyscrapers to satisfy a few Internet skyscraper forumers height 'n' density wank fantasy than I think you've misjudged London's proposals completely.

o ya? and how is that?? The current London skyline is pretty garbage

A 'skyline' is not simply 'who has the most skyscrapers' - it's about what makes up the drama, the flair, the panache and the movement of the eye across it. Skyscrapers help create pinnacles, but a constant blanket of them just creates a wall of urbanity.

New York has a fantastic skyline - as a 'whole' collective nature of the city. But taking that into acount, New York is just that - a skyline of skyscrapers. Hong Kong's is the same, the only dynamic addition being the mountainous region in the background. Don't even get me started on Dubai's.

London does not have a dense 'glass and steel' skyscraper skyline, that's obvious. But it still has a fantastic skyline made up of endless church spires, a 900 year old castle, a stonking great cathedral, various twentieth century buildings and a fabulous 21st century modern pinnacle of architecture. Every building built that pierces this skyline is noticed by its people and given its own sense of place and uniqueness. Not a lot of other cities have that, and that's why London's skyline is unlike any other, and will be in the future, even when it has absorbed these world class buildings into it's fabric.

If you think that skyline is garbage, well, you can't see the wood for the trees quite frankly.

-- deleted --

:)

I agree with newcastle kid :yes:
Skyscraper is not a building over 35m or 12+ floors. Be serious! :sleepy:
More than 12 floors? Emporis it's ridiculous in this classification.
If this is true, all the cities around the world will have any skyscraper!
But where's the limit? I guess 100+ its enough for call a building SS.


I think it`s better to count the smaller buildings, too.
You don`t need to call them skyscrapers. You just count them to get a better understanding of the city and the amount of highrises there.


To the London skyline subtopic: I hope you know that London is one of the 4 most important cities in the world. If you really would realise this fact you wouldn`t be so easylie offended by the skyline comments. I am not a big fan of Londons skyline , too but this doesn`t make London a inferior city for me. Building skylines isn`t a strength of Europeans. I live near Frankfurt. I really like the city and i think we have many nice skyscrapers here but i wouldn`t call Frankfurts skyline one of the best in the world even if they would double the amount of skyscrapers. Same goes for London.

My defenition of the word skyline: The shape of a city on the horizont made by skyscraper.

London is actually one of the 3 most important cities in the world. New york, London and Tokyo. The fact is that what will make Londons skyline great is the amazing quality of architecture and uniqueness of the buildings. When you look at new york today there are so many that it his hard to pick out a great building unless it stands really tall. Londons will be much more blatent on the skyline. Plus the way the towers are designed means they work brilliantly with the old architecture in the city. Plus London will have more then one, the many proposals are spread out over 5-7 clusters.

London doesnt NEED skyscrapers, but the fact that it is getting them of such high quality and in such a great quantity means that London will have europes best skyline in 2012.

On a side note I do like Frankfurt but it isnt unique- It looks to much like todays typical Asian or American city.

o ya? and how is that?? The current London skyline is pretty garbage. Many cities have better skylines in their suburbs, travel around a bit and you will see. And yes there are some nice proposals on the line like LBT and they will really add wonderfully to the London skyline, but that doesn't make it one of the world's best. London will need a lot more towers before it can start competing with cities like NY, HK, Chicago or even Toronto for that matter. London's on the path of building a great skyline, but if the final goal is on the level of the top skylines in the world than this is just the start and it does have a long way to go.

Yeah, but that's if you masturbate over skyscrapers, there's far more that contributes to Londons Skyline making it great such as St. Pauls or example, a farmore impessive structure than so many skyscrapers I see proposed.

On a side note I do like Frankfurt but it isnt unique- It looks to much like todays typical Asian or American city.

Have you ever been to the United States and Frankfurt? If yes, are you blind or just talking shit? I do not think Frankfurt is unique, but it's nothing like an American city.

And like a typical American or Asian city? Where are you talking about, how can you say that without trying to be funny? There's one HUGE difference between say like Atlanta, Houston or Denver on one side and Yokohama, Kobe or Guangzhou on the other side. Namely density!

This is great news, London City, If it keeps going on like this for a while, will have one of the top 5 skylines in the world by the time i'm 30!

And how old are you? -85?

such a lovely building, really modern and glassy.

such a lovely building, really modern and glassy.

Hang on, we haven't seen it yet!

Hang on, we haven't seen it yet!
oh! hehe, I meant those pics posted on the first page, those were really great. :)

My defenition of the word skyline: The shape of a city on the horizont made by skyscraper.

Erm ... your difinition of a skyline is not correct though. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'skyline' as:

1. a. The line where earth and sky meet; the horizon. Also, the representation of this in painting or another art.

b. The outline or silhouette of a building or number of buildings or other objects seen against the sky.

Whatever your idea of what a skyline is doesn't alter the real meaning of the word, that is an objective definition that covers a multitude of different cityscapes and even landscapes. What is subjective is a person's definition of a 'good' skyline, that depends on their personal taste. Your taste is obviously for modern, tall city skylines. Other people may prefer a historic skyline full of Church spires, others a mixture. A skyline is only 'good' in so far as we find it pleasing to the eye. As members of a skyscraper board the majority of people here will love skyscrapers but that doesn't mean that they love a skyline of skyscrapers more than an old or mixed skyline. In my opinion London has an absolutely amazing skyline because of it's diversity. I'm not interested in it having the tallest buildings, I want it to have the best quality buildings that add to the city'd character not ones that make it look like it could be any city on earth.

Ridiculous comment.


No its not - its the truth. If all of the proposed buildings in London go up then London may finally get into the top league of the world's skylines but right now its a long way off from being one of the world's best.

London doesn't have a 'final goal' with its skyline. If you think it's building skyscrapers to satisfy a few Internet skyscraper forumers height 'n' density wank fantasy than I think you've misjudged London's proposals completely.



A 'skyline' is not simply 'who has the most skyscrapers' - it's about what makes up the drama, the flair, the panache and the movement of the eye across it. Skyscrapers help create pinnacles, but a constant blanket of them just creates a wall of urbanity.

New York has a fantastic skyline - as a 'whole' collective nature of the city. But taking that into acount, New York is just that - a skyline of skyscrapers. Hong Kong's is the same, the only dynamic addition being the mountainous region in the background. Don't even get me started on Dubai's.

London does not have a dense 'glass and steel' skyscraper skyline, that's obvious. But it still has a fantastic skyline made up of endless church spires, a 900 year old castle, a stonking great cathedral, various twentieth century buildings and a fabulous 21st century modern pinnacle of architecture. Every building built that pierces this skyline is noticed by its people and given its own sense of place and uniqueness. Not a lot of other cities have that, and that's why London's skyline is unlike any other, and will be in the future, even when it has absorbed these world class buildings into it's fabric.

If you think that skyline is garbage, well, you can't see the wood for the trees quite frankly.


Not a lot of other cities have that, and that's why London's skyline is unlike any other, and will be in the future, even when it has absorbed these world class buildings into it's fabric
So you think London is the only city with a mix of historic buildings and skyscrapers in its skylines, unlike any other. Listen London has a nice skyline, I would not say its one of best or even that it has one of the best collections of unique towers overall. Never the less there Its still nice and getting better.
Density isn't everything but it is one of the most awe-inspiring and visually impressive aspects of a skyline, so I wouldn't dismiss in the way you have also.

I think it`s better to count the smaller buildings, too.
You don`t need to call them skyscrapers. You just count them to get a better understanding of the city and the amount of highrises there.


Yes, no prob. But, anyway, a 12+building is not a big one. I see 12+ everyday and they don't surprise me. In fact, in Spain 12+ are too common. :)

... I'm not interested in it having the tallest buildings, I want it to have the best quality buildings that add to the city'd character not ones that make it look like it could be any city on earth.

I agree with the idea. I guess all we want the same for our cities, at least, i want it for madrid. For example, KIO towers in madrid (puerta de europa, the inclined ones) are a symbol. LBT will be the same, a new symbol, like gherkin is.

... London doesnt NEED skyscrapers, but the fact that it is getting them of such high quality and in such a great quantity means that London will have europes best skyline in 2012.

The best, categorical :lol: I disagree in this point. La defense its incredible, for me, the most impressive european skyline nowadays. I like so much le grand arche :D
BTW, london, moscow, madrid and frankfurt, will have great skylines at 2012. They have now great proposals or u/c skyscrapers. :okay:
I read also about diversity.. well, all the this european countries have diversity, no? or just london? I guess all.

See ya' :tongue3:

Have you ever been to the United States and Frankfurt? If yes, are you blind or just talking shit? I do not think Frankfurt is unique, but it's nothing like an American city.

And like a typical American or Asian city? Where are you talking about, how can you say that without trying to be funny? There's one HUGE difference between say like Atlanta, Houston or Denver on one side and Yokohama, Kobe or Guangzhou on the other side. Namely density!


I meant its skyline is more like an american city then Londons is. No need to be a twat.

The best, categorical :lol: I disagree in this point. La defense its incredible, for me, the most impressive european skyline nowadays. I like so much le grand arche :D
BTW, london, moscow, madrid and frankfurt, will have great skylines at 2012. They have now great proposals or u/c skyscrapers. :okay:
I read also about diversity.. well, all the this european countries have diversity, no? or just london? I guess all.

See ya' :tongue3:

Maybe, nowadays. But now most european cities are getting skyscrapers, la defense just doesnt have the height or quality to keep its current status. I agree with you the grande arch is great but apart from that, nothing REALLY stands out.

And how old are you? -85?

hmm, you're an educated little person who doesnt even deserve my attention. Good bye.

Newcastle kid... tone down a little please.

With the skyline front. That the City has buildings ranging from St Pauls, the Tower of London, Tower Bridge and St Brides, medieval buildings such as the Guildhall and Tudor Buildings along Chancerly lane will make its skyline unique when these clutch of skyscrapers are built. You can't build history. That is London's ace up its sleeve as far as i'm concerned and I know of precious few cities that can match the old architectural stock of the City coupled with these new towers, many of which will represent the vanguard of the global architectural movement.

With regards to inactivity, yes, London seems to be a lot of talk and no action. What forumers need to remember is that London only got its first skyscraper in 1980; the Natwest Tower at 600ft.

It then took another decade or so for 1 Canada Square to be completed and at the turn of the millenium London had a miserly total of 2 skyscrapers, which, undoubtedly, is a disproportionately small number for such a large city.

Then the floodgates, as they say, opened. John Prescott gave planning consent for the Swiss Re Tower (completed 2004) and the Heron Tower public enquiry was given the green light too, much to the chagrin of English Heritage. Here's a short timeline of completed skyscrapers in London:

1980. 1 - Natwest Tower (600ft)

1993. 2 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square (777ft)

2003. 4 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square, HSBC (655ft), Citigroup Centre (655ft)

2004. 8 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square, HSBC, Citigroup Centre, Swiss Re Tower (590ft), Lehman Brothers (500ft), Clifford Chance (500ft), 40 Bank Street (500ft)

2005. 9 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square, HSBC, Citigroup Centre, Swiss Re Tower, Lehman Brothers, Clifford Chance, 40 Bank Street, Barclays Bank (500ft)

2006. 9 (no extra towers completed)

2007. 10 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square, Lehman Brothers, Clifford Chance, 50 Bank Street, Swiss Re Tower, Barclays Bank, Willis Building (412ft)

2008. 12 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square, Lehman Brothers, Clifford Chance, 50 Bank Street, Swiss Re Tower, Barclays Bank, Willis Building, Pan Peninsula (500 ft), Broadgate Tower (540 ft)
-------------------

London will definitely have 12 skyscrapers by 2008 as the Willis Building, Pan Peninsula and Broadgate Tower are all under construction right now.

Predicted. Here things get slightly more speculative. This is what I personally believe will be completed by July 2012 for the Summer Olympics:

2009. (13) St Georges Wharf (592ft)

2010. (14) Heron Tower (794ft)

2011. (16) 122 Leadenhall Street (740ft), London Bridge Tower (1016ft)

2012. (21) Bishopsgate Tower (945ft), Minerva Building (810ft), Riverside South 1 (702ft), Riverside South 2 (600ft), 20 Fenchurch Street (650-680ft).

----------------------------------------------------------------

So London should go from being a predominantly lowrise city to a highrise one in a matter of 10 years. THAT is what I call development. In London building projects generally take a long time to get from planning to fruition. That has been the case ever since the Natwest Tower and 1 Canada Square with endless planning battles and heritage lobbies to get past. It is likely that most of these towers post 2008 will get built, primarily because there will be the demand to fill them and to get planning permission for a 1m sq ft building in the City of London will transform your property company from a bit player to a huge player. Its just a matter of when these towers pierce the skyline not if.

When all of these projects are built, the view from Waterloo Bridge will be one of the world's best. I can't wait to see it but we all know that we will have to be patient.

ohh tha's cool

A 'skyline' is not simply 'who has the most skyscrapers' - it's about what makes up the drama, the flair, the panache and the movement of the eye across it. Skyscrapers help create pinnacles, but a constant blanket of them just creates a wall of urbanity.

New York has a fantastic skyline - as a 'whole' collective nature of the city. But taking that into acount, New York is just that - a skyline of skyscrapers. Hong Kong's is the same, the only dynamic addition being the mountainous region in the background. Don't even get me started on Dubai's.

London does not have a dense 'glass and steel' skyscraper skyline, that's obvious. But it still has a fantastic skyline made up of endless church spires, a 900 year old castle, a stonking great cathedral, various twentieth century buildings and a fabulous 21st century modern pinnacle of architecture. Every building built that pierces this skyline is noticed by its people and given its own sense of place and uniqueness. Not a lot of other cities have that, and that's why London's skyline is unlike any other, and will be in the future, even when it has absorbed these world class buildings into it's fabric.

If you think that skyline is garbage, well, you can't see the wood for the trees quite frankly.

Actually the commonly used definition of skyline is related to tall buildings and though some churches may be tall enough to be part of the skyline most are not. You can have a different definition of skyline, thats up to you, but the commonly used defintion does not change. And anyways, with you defintion London still does not stand out significantly. Many european cities fall into your version of a skyline. And Istanbul under your defintion would have the best skyline in the world. But when the topic of skyline comes up, it is hardly mentioned. Why? because that is not the commonly held defintion of the word, thats just your take on it.

Maybe, nowadays. But now most european cities are getting skyscrapers, la defense just doesnt have the height or quality to keep its current status. I agree with you the grande arch is great but apart from that, nothing REALLY stands out.

If you look at it in that context then CW is nothing special either- mostly dull blocks, especially on Bank St.


Everybody calm down- This isn't my city is better than your city lets just stick to what this forum is about architecture in all its forms & leave the petty rivalry for elsewhere. Some people on the UK do sometimes go off on one & sprout stuff that antagonises other people who are just as happy to return one silly comment with another.

As Dom points out London has come a long way since 1999 & will ocntinue to do so but so are other cities- Each to there own- a lot of cities have some good proposals.

What this London & the London2012 thread shows is that Londons getting a lot of quality proposals that over the coming years will increase. Prior to 1999 The general concensus in London was very anti high-rise including the coporation of London (where most of the new skyscrapers are planned for) which is why there are lots of groundscrapers in London. What we are seeing now are many of the schemes drawn up in this time being built with skyscrapers being the next step for most of the property companies. These companies spend millions of punds getting thse through planning & they dont do it just to keep alot of skyscraper enthusiasts happy on a random website- they are serious players which means a lot fo these proposals will get built- Look at Shanghais WFC -Thats been kicking around since the mid-90's & is nwo being built-Most skyscrapers from inception to finished buld take a good few years. Obviously I'd like all these to be built asap but thats probably why im on a skyscraper forum :)

Also because of such reluctance prior any scheme that gets proposeds has to be of a very high quality- which is generally why the new proposals are of a high standard.

Skylines arn't a 20th century invention & most cities have there own unique one so lets all just stick to whatever the threads topic is.

This new tower sounds of a high quality to go with Bishopsgate 122 LH et al & I hope we get to see renderings soon to justify the 5 pages this thread has already generated ;)

I love every single skyscraper proposed and approved for london especially LBT Vauxhall tower, bishopsgate towers, heron tower, leadenhead etc hope they all get built

^^ As do we all! :D

:cheers:

i love london i love it even more if it has a fantastic skyline

If you look at it in that context then CW is nothing special either- mostly dull blocks, especially on Bank St.


I dont think Canary eharf is amazing, but I do think it is better then La defense. For a few reasons:

1. Height. Canary wharf has alot more height than la defense
2. Quality. The wharf builds all its skyscrapers to a very high quality and they have very nice cladding, where as la defense is looking abit drab. Maybe the new towers will brighten it up abit, they look nice.
3. Street level. From what I have seen, the wharf is MUCH more pleasant than la defense, it seems alot more time has been taken to landscape the areas.
4. Location. I have to admit, la defense does have a nice location and looks great on the overall Paris skyline, but nothing beats a waterside skyline. When you see the towers at night reflected in the water they look amazing. I am so excited about seeing CW when I go to London shortly.

Not being evil, its just some visual observations and constructive critiscism:)

^^
Yes, more height and water.. but LD has more quantity!

For now, until the large Wood Wharf development is built near canary wharf;)

I do like La Defense, I personally just prefer CW.

http://www.sobi.org/photos/places/Paris/defense/defense1.jpg

^^ This is a good view

I LOVE these though:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/Night_canary_wharf_london.jpg/200px-Night_canary_wharf_london.jpg

http://www.uk-photo-library.co.uk/london/images/2248.jpg

http://neilsunerton.com/resources/photos/20040915222400_CW2_Canary%20Wharf%20at%20Night%20(20%20second%20exposure).jpg

Can someone get a better pic of La Defense in that same view?

i'm going to try.....
http://users.rockweb.org/MrFreeze/images/3.jpg
http://users.rockweb.org/MrFreeze/images/9601-2.jpg
http://users.rockweb.org/MrFreeze/images/ME0000064138_3.jpg

That night view is very nice, and that first building you posted is my favourite from La defense

me too, the EDF tower is my favourite from La Défense, i find that it looks like a veil inflated by the wind. it's nice

Yes, more height and water.. but LD has more quantity!
Well it's gonna lose the quantity battle as well in the near future, with all the projects going on at CW. That's the main difference between the two at the moment: La Defense is basically finished, and doesn't have a lot going on for it, and not a lot needs to be done really; whereas CW is Europe's, if not the world's, single largest commerical property development containing over 12 million square feet of office space. It is growing an an enormous rate and there is such a lot of land to build on! It isn't like the City district of London that has lots of existing buildings on it, becasue CW was, untill the late 80's, a deserted wasteland, and there is so much scope for new developments. Whether you prefer LD or not, you cannot fail to notice that CW is going to overtake LD in terms of quantity in coming years, and probably quality too. Plus, CW has a rival within London-the City area-that is competing with it for the title of London's premiere financial and business district, meaning both sites want to better their area by building high quality skyscrapers and mid-rise office blocks, which can only be a good thing! And plenty of people are ready to invest in cheap land near the docklands where it is a prime location for skyscrapers that are in much demand, especially with all these new transportation upgrades to the docklands: the dockland's light railway, bus routes, new bridges, boat ports, the new, thriving City airport etc etc.

In terms of quality, neither CW nor LD have anything spectacular and unique, and neither can hope to compete with the quality of skyscrapers approved or proposed for London's City district! :)

The Columbus Tower (still fully approved, looks dead, but don't give up on it yet, the website says it is still confirmed to go ahead, and even if it doesn't, there will most likely be a similar or better tower to go up in its place).
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/columbus8.jpg

North Quay1
http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/3214/northquay0me.jpg

Rivrside South
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7687/riversidesouth9pt.jpg

Milharbour (Pan Peninsula tower)
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/622/91071millharbour_schemeb_tower1_pic1.jpg

Heron Quays West
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/994/heronquayswest8tu.jpg

New providenece Wharf
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/622/9166ontariotowernewprovidencewharf_pic1.jpg

New Wood Wharf development:
http://www.aquiva.co.uk/images/Library/Photo3836.jpg


And that's just the projects we know of at the moment, there will be doesens more to come throughout the next few years!

A great pic showing the beauty of the water surrounding Canry Wharf, with the approved new Aquiva hotel and 170-metre Canary Wharf vessel:

http://www.aquiva.co.uk/images/Library/Photo3837.jpg

:cheers:

Wood wharf will make Canary whars skyline ALOT bigger.

http://simonward.com/build/large/dockdev/wood.jpg

^^ Yer, I love that image, and I love the fact that they are developing the ground and street level as well, lots of green areas....in fact, is it my imagination or do most of those buildings have grass growing on top of them...?

:cheers:

Indeed they have grass on the roofs, I love buildings like that, much more 'friendly looking' (If you know what I mean) than regular flat-topped skyscrapers.

^^ Me too!

Can someone explain what this flat orange and white thing is in front of the HSCB tower:

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4086/modpic0tt.jpg

It looks a prime place for a skyscraper, but all I see is a wierd orange thing...explanation anyone???

:cheers:

It's just a pattern they've painted on the plot, just to give it a bit of colour. there are plans for a 12 storey building on this site, but these have been put on hold until the Crossrail station is built in the dock next door (which at the moment is 2013 - but it's delayed indefinately).

^^ Ah thanx.

I posted this comment in the London 2012 thread, but I suppose it's more relevant here, so I'll post it again:


Official news on that replacement skyscraper for 20 Fenchurch Street:
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=551


03 Mar 2006 > 20 Fenchurch Street Set For Knackers Yard

One of the sixties mid-rise towers in the City of London, 20 Fenchurch Street, could be set for the knackers yard with the announcement that the architect Rafael Vinoly is working on a replacement building for it.
At 45 floors of grade A office space it should come in at around 200 metres and make a substantial difference to the City of London skyline, particularly when viewed from Waterloo extending the cluster to the right of the viewer or Bankside where it would appear most prominent.
Vinoly has been trying to drum up support for a while with opposition coming from the usual quarters of the heritage lobby worried about views of and from the Tower of London.
Further complicating matters were the costs that the design has been running up since then with it going 35% over budget at one point and becoming almost untenably expensive to build.
Disturbed at this the developers called in John Shaw of Foster and Partners to get a ratchet down on the costs whilst still keeping the overall design quality up.
Those who have seen the design have compared it to both a television and a 1950s Ericsson phone leading to much confusion over the true shape.
The current tower on the site is 91 metres, occupied by Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein and owned by Land Securities who purchased it from DRKW in 2004 for an unspecified sum.
Much sympathy goes to Churchill Securities who had the foresight of commissioning Wilkinson Eyre to design a nearby tower at 168 Fenchurch Street in 2000 back in the days when tall buildings were still really controversial. Sadly for them they didn't own the site but still full marks for the vision.
The full design for the new 20 Fenchurch Street tower should be out later in 2006.



I'm still totally confused about what this new tower will look like, I mean 'both a television and a 1950s Ericsson phone'.....what kinda imagery is that eh???? I just get an image of a big bulky television set...and I don't even know what the 1950's Ericsson phone looks like....does anyone have any pictures of it??

But that is a prime place for a skyscraper, as the article, and wjfox's earlier renderings show, it should add more width to the developing skyline. I just hope its a good design!!

:cheers:

It's a shit design. So incredibly hideous I can't believe the architect even considered this for London's skyline.

there's a render of the vonoly scheme in london in todays' standard - not a very good one mind you.

there's a render of the vinoly scheme in london in todays' standard - not a very good one mind you. I have my doubts it will happen in this guise

Here it is

http://homepage.mac.com/benveasey/.Public/fenchurch.jpg

Skyscrapernews.com has again updated the information on this tower, including a new rendering:

03 Mar 2006 > Vinoly Tower Proposed For 20 Fenchurch Street

A planning application has been filed today for the new tower to stand on 20 Fenchurch Street designed by Rafael Vinoly. The 192 metre tall tower to replace a current sixties mid-rise will contain 45 floors of space and is being developed by Land Securities.
The appearance is roughly that of a traditional internationalist block that has been contracted to the centre creating an inwards curving southern face and curving crown that also slopes to the south deferring itself to the Thames. Thanks to the look it's already being dubbed "the walkie talkie".
The project is being developed by one of the U.Ks largest property businesses, Land Securities at a cost of £200 million with Foster and Partners also onboard to help keep these down whilst maintaining build quality and the unique design.
The building has already been endorsed by local council, the Corporation of London, with Peter Rees stating that the City is adopting a "fruit basket" approach, whilst there are few murmurs of opposition from Heritage Bodies. It may not be the most graceful building ever thanks to the apparent squatness but the unique design will certainly help the City achieve their aim of a mix of avant-garde architecture.
Land Securities hope to secure an easy ride through the planning system and construction could begin on site as early as 2007 with completion for 2010 although a pre-let may be required to see the project commence despite the increasingly bullish attitude from the likes of Heron and British Land.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7240/fenchurchst7wa.jpg


I can't say I really like the design at all, it may gow on me over time, but I doubt it. To be very honest with you, I could have designed a much better looking tower then that given 5 hours and a pen+paper! Still, it may get revisions, you never know!

:cheers:

I quite like the curved part, but I think it's far too fat at the top and the sides.

I think it would alot better if the top was thinner, and if a tower or two were added between it and the dense cluster

A little sleeker -

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n.e.bullock/Web%20upload/fenchurchst7wa%202.jpg

^^ Can't say that looks a whole lot better; I mean, not matter how slim, or fat or short etc you make it, it still does not alter the fact that it is a pretty bland, uninteresting design that doesn't belong in the heart of London!

I am seriously hoping I will somehow learn to like the tower after I've seen it a few hundred times, or-the better option-they will totally redesign the whole thing!

Horrendous.

I don't think it's that bad. It's not very interesting but still, not the worst thing ever

I think its Vile

I don't think it's that bad. It's not very interesting but still, not the worst thing ever

It's very interesting IMO.

Still shit though.

I think a nice boxy scraper, but clad with something other than glass or steel would be nice. Something a bit more traditional and classy.

that design is horrible. If that gets built it will kill the that whole areas skyline. It was so nice without it.

that design is horrible. If that gets built it will kill the that whole areas skyline. It was so nice without it.
Completely agree - and not only that, but it will flood the market with yet more surplus office space. The City is already struggling to attract tenants without yet another whopping 200m+ tower.

I wouldn't object to it as strongly if it were for the Canary Wharf area, but right in the heart of London, next to all those beatiful skyscrapers and low/mid-rise buildings....ahhhhh it doesn't bare thinking about! Come on English heritage, you gota pull somethin out the bag on this one, not just ure usual limp complaints, but a full on, chained to the building kinda protest!! Or good old Ken could prevent it I guess...

Who'd have thought that the arrival of a proposed 192m tower next to London's deveolping main cluster would cause so much dislike and objection... dammit why couldn't they have just yanked Foster himself away from whatever project he's currently working on, and say, 'design us a tower worth of London, mate'

Easy, guys. It's not the best, but it is still just 190m; it won't dominate. Rather, it will "fill up", and contrast the existing towers. It will be strange, but it won't be bad.

btw; why don't they build more residential scrapers in London? With those ancient, narrow streets, getting around the centre of the city is impossible above ground, and pretty hard below, as far as I remember it. Living in that cluster must be attractive to someone....

Nobody lives in the City, its a deadzone with no nightlife

yeah. London has individual districts for individual activities.

The square mile - business
West End - Shopping
China Town - Restuarants... etc...

But all of that is gonna change with residential development being planned for the City.
Yet, i dont know how its gonna cope because the Centre of the City has no avenues, and it can get as packed as a carnival sometimes. But around the London wall area, there are avenues.

the only resident in the square mile in ken livingston (his official mayors residence) i think if high rise flats start in london it'll be on the south bank. people tend to go for the midrises on the river instead

as for this new tower, its way to fat. i do like that slimeline version thou, back to the drawing board me thinks

I don't like it. Dissapointing design.. :(

Some more images of the proposals- none from a distance as yet,

courtesy of Skyscrapernews

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=4683

http://i2.tinypic.com/qxj9zr.jpg

http://i2.tinypic.com/qxja6q.jpg

http://i2.tinypic.com/qxjadj.jpg

It looks half deflated. Flaccid is not a good look for a skyscraper :-)

Those three look real nice, it's ashame about it overall though. Maybe I will change my opinion when I see some propoer renders, cause those do look good.

Nice project and great design too.

First render (http://urbanity.blogsome.com/2006/03/08/propuesta-para-londres-de-rafael-vinoly/) ;)

:cheers:

Here it is again, bigger taken from Goth's site:

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/468320FenchurchStreet_pic4.jpg

I have completely changed my opinion of this, I think it's great!



AND it could start by this year if it get's approved! I think it just might, actually!

It's stunning, awesome!!!! :master:

I think it really does look too retro. It wouldnt look out of place on an episode of the man from U.N.C.L.E. At least we know it wont date since it already is.

some of the first renderings of this building made it look to deep (front to back) but if it looks like this one above then yes. its not the best in the city but i think its good enough to go up.

i think it fits well with the newish building next to it to which is good

The views from the building will be great,but the building itself is quite strange :|

Strange yes, but not so strange that it is unlikeable, very likeable in fact...

I don't like it. I would prefer a less "creative" but more soaring vertical design.

^^ Me too! Although that last image didn't look exceptionally bad, but I would still like major revisions!

:cheers:

This is just amazing. I really love the design! :okay:

NO!!! what a piece of crap , London doesnt deserve it . It´s going to completely ruin the skyline. that building would be better suited to a south american city

the only resident in the square mile in ken livingston (his official mayors residence) i think if high rise flats start in london it'll be on the south bank. people tend to go for the midrises on the river instead

as for this new tower, its way to fat. i do like that slimeline version thou, back to the drawing board me thinks

eh? I'm sure thats the Lord Mayor (as in Mayor of the CoL, rarther than GL (Ken)

and theres some gated off, posh private stuff along bishopsgate too.

The City has a residential population of around 8,600 and a working population of over 300,000.

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Citylondonarms.jpg

Another thing I dont like about it... it has a very obvious front and very obvious sides. I think buildings shouldn't face one direction.... or should at least have redeeming features on the rest which don't make you think you have to go round it to see it properly. I wonder what the back looks like.

I don't hink it stands out any more than the three buildings behind it in that render.

Another thing I dont like about it... it has a very obvious front and very obvious sides. I think buildings shouldn't face one direction.... or should at least have redeeming features on the rest which don't make you think you have to go round it to see it properly. I wonder what the back looks like.

word to that lancelot

The project is really very interesting and it would be desirable to keep abreast of events
Let’s wait for the updates

London really awesome ;)

This is no reflection on London, but this one sentence in an article reprinted in this
thread make me shiver:" It may not be the most graceful building ever thanks to the apparent squatness but the unique design will certainly help the City achieve their aim of a mix of avant-garde architecture".
This is a very, very dangerous approach to architecture. Once a building is built, it is there a very long time- novelty for the sake of novelty is a slippery slope. In my humble opinion, the proposal is cartoonish, and would become a laughing stock in very short time. I am nervous when I hear the words:" And the new building will look like a ** insert household object here**.
PoMo buildings started out thoughtful and fun, in the early 80's, and as they increasingly became exaggerated parodies they fell out of favour.. the same can happen with this newer trend to find novel shapes for buildings. What started out as fun and fresh is in danger of becoming ridiculous. I hope and pray that this project does not go through- London is a city of very beautiful old classical architecture, and it deserves better than this. I know everyone wants a new and exciting skyline, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Again, this is not meant as a slight against London, but is only a comment on an architectural trend, so please don't flame me for my opinion.

Some new renderings from the planning report.

I hated this tower at first, but these pics have really improved my opinion now. The curvature and proportions seem a lot better:


http://i1.tinypic.com/s5v8ys.jpg


http://i1.tinypic.com/s5v9ms.jpg

yeah its really growing on me too.

NOOO!!! It's horrible. Looks like it got drunk and is now feeling very ill and sorry for itself. I really hope this doesn't get built.

Still don't like it. It looks like a cheap attempt at trying to be modern

I hate it. It looks like the Willis building stretched upwards.

^^ I wouldn't say it better :)

It looks as if its going to fall over... kind of dizzying to look at.

i didn't like it at first, then it grew on me and now looking at the renders above i hate it again

It slouches. Do we really want something on the London skyline that's already prompted one poster to label it flaccid?

Still don't like it. Look at the top. Looks to big and to heavy. A building needs to be elegant, not plump.

London already has the "Gherkin" and will hopefully soon get the "Shard". It does not need the "Looney Tune".

I've like it from the first renders and those latest are just amazing.
Very unique and I think standing at the bottom of the inner curve and look up will be a crazy view like nothing else!
:)

This pic really shows off the top portion of the building - Looks very cool IMO

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov.uk:90/WAM/doc/Page-39?extension=.pdf&page=39&wmTransparency=0&id=51429&wmLocation=0&location=livevolume1&contentType=application%2Fpdf&wmName=&pageCount=53

http://i1.tinypic.com/sfuhjk.jpg

Interesting building. I like it.:)

I get a boner just looking at that thing!

I get a boner just looking at that thing!
:runaway:

I'll let you in on a littel secret mate :gossip: guys usually keep those kinda things to themsleves...!

:cheers:

:runaway:

I'll let you in on a littel secret mate :gossip: guys usually keep those kinda things to themsleves...!

:cheers:
So next time if my friend tells me he is having one, just punch him in the face?

So next time if my friend tells me he is having one, just punch him in the face?
Yer, that'd work, or you could just walk away and shout back from the other side of the street "we're no longer friends"

:cheers:

The new rendering looks much better than the original... I agree the proportions are
better.

This building is fantastic. It is subtle and understated but it grabs you by the balls. Its got small guy attitude. Just like T42. It doesn't reach for the sky in a vain attempt to command respect. It shouts out, do i look like i give a fuck! I really hope this building gets built. City freak show? Bollocks. A well crafted, timeless chess set at war with Canary Wharf. ;)

The new renderings looks very well

I still think it looks much too cartoonish

The building doesn't fit with London ... and with any other cities!!

Some new renderings from the planning report.

I hated this tower at first, but these pics have really improved my opinion now. The curvature and proportions seem a lot better:


http://i1.tinypic.com/s5v8ys.jpg

http://i1.tinypic.com/s5v9ms.jpg


That is a really cool looking building. I hope it gets built.

I hate it

its really awkward, and unfortunately not in any good way

I think someone is playing an april fool its embarrassing to London.

I still think it's amazing.

it is very strange but i think is good

well its not the worst. i wouldnt mind having it in my city :laugh:

Weird shape and disordered. I don't like it.

Apparently, this was a previous design which they considered for this site -

http://www.woodsbagot.co.uk/Projects.asp?OID=38&SP=WB_Project_Display&SP2=WB_Project_ImagesList&Start=0&Lang=EN

http://i1.tinypic.com/zmd44w.jpg

http://i2.tinypic.com/zmdszr.jpg

http://i1.tinypic.com/zmdthw.jpg





I simply CAN'T BELIEVE they chose this design instead -


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/468320FenchurchStreet_pic4.jpg



:no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no:
:gaah:

so frumpy ! :(

You cant seriously believe that will get PP in its current form..do you?, i mean this is London were talking about.

Who is going to want that POS looming over them, it will simply dominate the entire area.

I know LBT will do the same thing, but at least that looks decent.

Damn...the original building planned for the site is SOOOOOOOOOOOO much nicer than the one they chose, are these people crazy??? :dunno:

A quick rendering of my own, showing the view from Tower Bridge:


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers2/20fenchurchstreet/previousdesign/1.jpg


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers2/20fenchurchstreet/previousdesign/1bw.jpg

Where's this new one gonna go relative to that? I work at Tower bridge and the view of the skyline as you cross it is fantastic- such variety- and only gonna get better with some of these additions. I do hate the phone/TV one though.

The design they have now is soooooooooooo ugly i hate it what the hell are they thinking?

Where's this new one gonna go relative to that?
This "new" one isn't being built at all - as explained, it's being replaced by the phone/walkie talkie design (on the same site)!

You better get used to the Vinoly design as that will have no trouble getting through the planning process & should be under construction once the building currently on site is demolished.

You cant seriously believe that will get PP in its current form..do you?, i mean this is London were talking about.

Who is going to want that POS looming over them, it will simply dominate the entire area.

I know LBT will do the same thing, but at least that looks decent.

I dont think the SHard will dominate as this will, its much more graceful and less offensive to the eye, not that being offensive is necessarily going to be a bad thing

That is a really cool looking building. I hope it gets built.
http://i1.tinypic.com/s5v9ms.jpg

a bit similar to Daniel Libeskind in Warsaw:
http://images4.fotosik.pl/16/ouqhgkbr64sbvoy0.jpg

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2005/09/396715.jpg

Warsaw skyline:
http://www.orcogroup.pl/data/fotogalerie/e3117f7b-fa36-49c4-a2dc-f15ae628f6c7/images/Zlota-44_3.jpg

That Warsaw Tower is far, far better.

the warsaw one is amazing ! damn

can we swap 20 fenchurch street with Warsaw one?????

A quick rendering of my own, showing the view from Tower Bridge:


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers2/20fenchurchstreet/previousdesign/1.jpg


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers2/20fenchurchstreet/previousdesign/1bw.jpg

Maybe they are playing smart tactics, rather like P&O seem to have done on the South Bank. Come up with a hideous proposal that will provoke strong feelings in the pulibc and will surely never be approved just to get the idea of skyscraper on that particular site accepted, as anything would be better than what they have proposed.

I have to be honest I quite like the building that is currently there and I would rather them keep it than build that monstrosity.

For some reason it reminds me of an even more hideous UN.

Maybe they are playing smart tactics, rather like P&O seem to have done on the South Bank. Come up with a hideous proposal that will provoke strong feelings in the pulibc and will surely never be approved just to get the idea of skyscraper on that particular site accepted, as anything would be better than what they have proposed.

.

That woods bagot design is what I found on their (wood bagots) website & was never put out by Land Secs. Land Secs have been working with all the relevant bodies with regard the Vinoly scheme for almost a year & thats the one in planning- It has had no objections, so far from any official bodies & the only critisism from it has been from people on this forum so the likelyhood is this will sail through planning & be approved by the Autumn.

That warsaw one looks very interesting

the leicester blokes sent a letter to the council and developer, maybe you lot could try the same, just a thought.

i heard from someone involved with the project that feedback about 20FC was actually mixed and was creating strong feelings amongst people - either they love it or hate it. this refers to peoples individual opinions rather than the official opinions of bodies.

i heard from someone involved with the project that feedback about 20FC was actually mixed and was creating strong feelings amongst people - either they love it or hate it.

:colgate: :laugh: :lol: :nuts:

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/8739/marmite5ti.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4334/fenchurch7dz.jpg

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/8739/marmite5ti.jpg

LMFAO....hahahaha

Latest news is that the developers have been told to reduce the height by at least 10%.

I am really trying to like this tower, esp given the high probability that it goes ahead in 2007, but I just don't. It is is too dominant, and the shape, although impressive in its own way, just jars with its current and future (we hope) neighbours.
Maybe I'm being too Luddite, or the vision is lost on a layman like me, but I hate it. Of course, the good news is that it is an exception, and the other planned towers are unbelievable!

I think the height decrese, which is ATLEAST 10%, will make it feel alot less over powering. It should be no more than 170m with the decrease.

wow... amazing... :eek:

LandSecs' 'walkie talkie' tower faces redesign

Land Securities may have to reduce the height of its 'walkie talkie' tower at 20 Fenchurch Street by 66 ft (20 m) to protect views of St Paul's Cathedral

13.07.2006
By Molly Dover

The view of St Paul's from Ludgate Circus and Limeburner Lane was not considered in the scheme's original environmental impact assessment. However, the 630 ft (192 m) proposed tower, designed by Rafael Vinoly, would be visible behind the cathedral between the dome and the western towers, which would be contrary to the Corporation of London's planning policy.

LandSecs has therefore been asked to reduce the height and redesign the building to ensure that it does not infringe the view of St Paul's. The planning application is due to go before the Corporation of London planning committee on Tuesday. The committee will report on whether it would be minded to approve the tower subject to the suggested amendments. If the committee votes in favour of an amended scheme, LandSecs will begin work to amend its plans and resubmit them for consideration at the September planning meeting.


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/468320FenchurchStreet_pic4.jpg

This is the kind of building which can be great alone, but completely ugly in a skyline.

Latest news is that the developers have been told to reduce the height by at least 10%.

why???? whats the point? How does it infringe ?

why???? whats the point? How does it infringe ?
Clue: there's the small matter of a 17th century cathedral nearby............. :happy:


http://www.willfox.com/images2/london/6/21.jpg


http://www.willfox.com/images2/london/6/13.jpg

Just a reminder of how it would appear from the west -

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/140706_Vinoly_main.jpg

I'm sorry to say this, but that proposed building looks like a cartoon. What the skyline needs is some sophisticated classic highrise structures... designed with some restraint and good taste with less emphasis on novelty. How will this walkie talkie building look 20 years from now? Will people cringe when they see it? I don't think it has any classic staying power. Those Cathedral pix are achingly beautiful. The Marmite building is amazing, however! I hear Sydney is planning a taller Vegemite building right now...

Fantastic design. It's got small guy attitude like T42. London keeps pushing the envelope of architectural design. Great for the city. ;) This building will be part of a great cluster in 20 years time. London has had too much restraint over the last 20 years. Two fingers to all who think otherwise.

This is the kind of building which can be great alone, but completely ugly in a skyline.
:toilet:

I think it's shite.

I think if it was slimmer and was straight up so it didnt have the overhang it would be much better, kind of like ICC in Hong Kong

Just a reminder of how it would appear from the west -

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/140706_Vinoly_main.jpg

no it wont , thats just a cut and paste.

Do you mean to be stupid or are you just acting?

I think it's shite.
I think you may change your mind when standing underneath it.

I'm so pleased the height is going to be reduced. That means the project is dead! No architect would persue this shape at half the height.

I've said it before but this building looks like a deflated tower. This is not a subjective opinion. it just does. Its deflated like a tired failure of a banker who's just lost lost a load of money of the futures marklets. Not really the image a world centre of finance wants to prortray. Bear in mind that there are a lot of conservative men sat at the very top of the decision making process, and they wont let the city syline become an experimental playground for fashionable architects who don't consider the wider picture! Thank God!

London's skyline is rapidly becoming one of the most interesting in Europe. Regarding this new skyscraper, I like it although I don't know if its location is the appropriate one.

fits london perfectly!

fits london perfectly!
I couldn't disagree more.

^^ wjfox2002, I couldn't agree with you more!

Bear in mind that there are a lot of conservative men sat at the very top of the decision making process, and they wont let the city syline become an experimental playground for fashionable architects who don't consider the wider picture! Thank God!

Would these be the same conservative men running the planning dept of the city of London or Mayor of London who are actively pushing for high quality designs, or the heads of Land Secs (one of the biggest property companies in the UK) who are proposing this building or the other conservative men who run DIFA, Heron, Birtish Land & the other property companies & fund managers who will fund & build these towers?!?!

Why are people so scared of an interesting design. It's called innovation.I bet if it were the same width at the top of this design all the way down and of 'conventional' design - people would not complain or call it 'over bearing'.

Imagine this building from ground level, stood at the bottom, the mass of the skyscraper would be litrally above you/ Imagine walking round it, how different it'd look from different perspectives.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/468320FenchurchStreet_pic4.jpg

People should stop judging designs souley on how they appear on a skyline, or how they affect (what?) their precious landmarks. - Rather how it'd actual physically appear to you, and the people who will use it. Selfish otherwise.

All i can say is: Wow, i'd absolutely love it in Manc.

Do you mean to be stupid or are you just acting?

assuming you mean me, that picture is inaccurate, so no I'm not stupid just know what I'm talking about, the top pic here is more accurate


http://www.pokedstudio.com/45fen.jpg

I think it's a superb design. One of the best I've seen in London. Really hope it gets the go ahead, and with Land Securities behind it, it is most likely!

What I really dislike about this tower are the sides... I've seen big concrete-ish walls on buildings before, and it ain't pretty. I do also think it needs to be scaled down a little, the shape doesn't work when it's so big, IMO. I like the river-facing facade, though.

Also, I couldn't disagree more that we need to be 'selfish' when considering buildings. That's just one part of a much bigger picture. London always has been and always will be about context. With so much history around you have to respect it and preserve it, and by doing so you ensure that new developments will maintain and enhance the strong image of the city, rather than diluting or even completely destroying it.

What I really dislike about this tower are the sides... I've seen big concrete-ish walls on buildings before, and it ain't pretty. I do also think it needs to be scaled down a little, the shape doesn't work when it's so big, IMO. I like the river-facing facade, though.



The sides aren't concrete- The whole building is clad in glass & steel- Its just the bad render gives that impression that its concrete.

This render gives a much better idea of what the claddings like.

http://i2.tinypic.com/2054k92.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=673

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/673WalkieTalkieDesignChangesRevealed_pic1.jpg


2006-07-24 > Walkie Talkie Design Changes Revealed

Developer, Land Securities, has revealed its revised plans for a skyscraper at 20 Fenchurch Street in the City of London after it was basically ordered by the planning body in the City to reduce the height.

Although only told to lop about 20 metres off it to protect views of St Paul's Cathedral, the developer has gone a step further and sliced a total of 9 floors off from 45 floors to 36 that should reduce the height to around the 150 metre mark.

The design has also been refined further, proportionally some of the curvature at the waist of the tower has gone reducing the inwards taper on the north-south axis although this hasn't bulked it out as much as some people feared. It still retains the "walkie talkie" look, and if anything the reduction in height has made it look a bit more like a traditional skyscraper.

Previously the scheme had polarised opinions between "love it" and "hate it" thanks to the top-heavy unique shape and slim-line lower floors, not to mention the harder edges that have now been softened out into something a little gentler.

One of the major changes is to the top of the tower. Previously there was to be a large open conference room and a huge overhanging balcony that has been severely cut down although there still appears to be outside access from the top floor.

This events room has been replaced by a multi-levelled sky garden that looks like the architect, Rafael Vinoly, has taken straight of a Ken Adams 2001 Space Odyssey set. Whether it is going to be open to the public remains to be seen because of the usual issues over security that seem to apply to London as to no other major city. Even if it remains private it should prove a stunning and lucrative location for corporate events. The new design means that the Corporation of London planning committee will have to consider it during their September meeting. With the consultation between the developer and planners and these new revisions it should prove luckier second time around.

the new sky garden design is spectacular , let's hope it will be open to the public :eek:

Seems kind of nice. WHat is the official height of the building?

not a big fan of the big bendy one... I prefer sleek designs. However, I do admire London for its many new developments. I just wonder why skyscrapers are only now embraced?... How come all this is happening so late?... and while we are there: how come cities like Frankfurt, Paris, Rotterdam etc. are hardly having any new super-tall projects?.... a bit disappointing, isn't it? They leave it all up to London, Moscow and Madrid now. :(

Although I'm sure other members who've been around longer than me could explain better I would put it down to three main reasons:

1) Ken Livingstone.
The mayor of London since 2000 is considerably more modern in approach and supports the growth of high quality skyscraper designs in the capital.

2) The economy.
London is the most important economy in Europe and almost on par with New York as the world's most important city economically. There has been a considerable amount of economic growth since the mid-90s, with Gordon Brown handling the British economy as a whole brilliantly. This ties in with...

3) Demand for office space and competition.
The office space in London is up there with the most expensive in the world. Therefore, there is something of a need to build up and with the improved economy of the city and country there is demand for more office space in the City. With the growth of Canary Wharf in the east of London, the City of London has realised that it needs the large floorplates and prestige skyscrapers can provide and that the traditionally conservatively thinking city in regards to architecture could provide a market for skyscrapers. This also ties into greater competition with Tokyo, Frankfurt, Paris and New York and and with the Gherkin, an embracing of modern architecture amongst your average Londoner.

SwissRe has undoubtedly played some part in triggering off the skyscraper boom and instilling confidence in developers. It all started with this building. Then came Heron, then LBT, then the new proposals for expansion at Canary Wharf, then dozens of other proposals around the city. Now we're seeing an average of one new 150m+ proposal every month or so... something that would have been unprecedented just a few years ago.

Just a reminder of how it would appear from the west -

http://www.ajplus.co.uk/Images/Articles/140706_Vinoly_main.jpg
I think it looks pretty sophisticated. :) All British people seem to like the capital city flat, so they will probably hate it.

This building is not that big but whatever I guess in Europe this is a cool thing for you all.

This building is not that big but whatever I guess in Europe this is a cool thing for you all.

thank you for your smug patronising opinion - 'Peachtree boy' or whatever

This building is not that big but whatever I guess in Europe this is a cool thing for you all.

Just because Panama is building 1 330m building doesn't mean you can look down on us :scouserd:

^^

Keep smoking your hats and wearing ur cigars Panama girl

I don't like it. Is pretencious and nothing elegant. Bad for the London skyline too.

to be honest I doubt it will ever be built - it had a very mixed reception with the City planning comittee - some members said it was over bearing and in the wrong place - even though its been reduced in height it may have to have even more chopped off it because of historical sight lines and its also out of the area designated suitable for skyscrapers..

This building is not that big but whatever I guess in Europe this is a cool thing for you all.

Well, considering Europe has towers U/C or planned that can rival even the best American towers, I would say your statement is a total load of patronising bull s***

According to Emporis, the new height is 160m. This is my own rendering, showing approximately how it will appear with the height reduction.

(Also includes some new proposals to the right)



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/london2012/28.jpg

Well, considering Europe has towers U/C or planned that can rival even the best American towers, I would say your statement is a total load of patronising bull s***



He's not American he's Panamanian.



Anyways London is gonna have a kickass skyline in 10 years! So will Madrid, Moscow, Istanbul and maybe Frankfurt!

I'm impressed Europe. :)

dislike the concave-ness

160m is a far more sensible height for this one... still perhaps a little too tall though

So is this tower approved?

No, but a decision is expected very soon. I'm hoping they'll reject it... I think it looks awful. An embarrassment.

He's not American he's Panamanian.



Anyways London is gonna have a kickass skyline in 10 years! So will Madrid, Moscow, Istanbul and maybe Frankfurt!

I'm impressed Europe. :)

I know, I'm just saying I think a better argument would be to compare the new European towers to new American towers to prove a point. The towers in europe are much taller than the ones in Panama, and in my opinion higher quality. And, there is alot more of them. That is why it is probably a better comparison, because so are the new American towers. If you know what I mean

No, but a decision is expected very soon. I'm hoping they'll reject it... I think it looks awful. An embarrassment.

You should work for EH Will ;)

Seriously though, I think we're 100% in agreement about this one. As much as I try to appreciate the design, I end up just thinking it looks ridiculous... wackiness for the sake of it.

Many towers have made me initially recoil in horror before I slowly warm to them, but this looks a ludicrous as it did the first time I saw it.

I think councils should now be rejecting these 'visionary' towers and start approving ones which use different materials, like... oh remember stone? It seems we can only find glass to build skyscrapers out of.

I think councils should now be rejecting these 'visionary' towers and start approving ones which use different materials, like... oh remember stone? It seems we can only find glass to build skyscrapers out of.

Quite agree.

Yeh rubbish isnt it. Oh well.

I think councils should now be rejecting these 'visionary' towers and start approving ones which use different materials, like... oh remember stone? It seems we can only find glass to build skyscrapers out of.

I'm not so sure really... Steel n' Glass is to the 2000's what concrete was to the 1960's / 1970's. Its just what's in fashion at the moment; in 10 years it will be something else... We will be left with a collection of 2000's-era steel n' glass towers which will represent the period in which they were built, just as we have the Barbican and South Bank to represent the period in which they were built. I think it would be a shame to start meddling in this evolution of architectural fashion... In fact I'm far more concerned about the loss of buildings like Draper's Gardens, Stock Exchange and King's Reach to reclads / demolition, we're actively destroying parts of our architectural heritage. Sure, at the moment we dismiss these towers as being 'ugly', but who knows how much we may be raving about the Barbican, Trellick Tower or South Bank in the coming decades, and perhaps ruing the loss of the aforementioned towers from the skyline.

If London's skyline was being overwhelmed by hundreds of steel n' glass creations then I think you'd have a point, but at the moment its not... Moreover one steel n' glass tower can look VERY dissimilar to the next one (e.g. comapre SwissRe with Willis or Broadgate with Tower42). As long as we have a bit of variety I really don't see the problem.

You can't build a skyscraper without steel or glass, after all!

Its not just the towers that is the problem, its the developments at Spitalfields, Canary Wharf, and all those new groundscrapers, More London, all of them suck big time.

But I agree we shouldn't be pulling down all the 60's stuff either, it is a variety of styles that makes the urban fabric work.