Just noticed in the Radio Times that there will be a debate about skyscrapers in London, as part of BBC2's culture show (7-8pm, 6th April).

May only be a ten minute section but could prove interesting. Thought it was worth bringing to people's attention.

Thanks, good to know. Hopefullyit'll be both sides of the argument not just 80-year olds moaning about St Paul's

No doubt that tosser Simon Jenkins will make an appearance....and i will feel the rage building up inside me to resist putting my fist through the screen whenever that miserable old twat of a snob speaks on skyscrapers

I bet it will be overwelmed with anti-skyscraper folk :bash:

yes it could be quite painful to watch

If it is a live discussion show, then we should have representatives there, if it s not to late. I live up the road from the BBC. If it is an open forum,the number is 020 8743 8000.

It will just be an oppotunity for people to whinge that we are destroying the fabric of London with all the new towers, without actually bothering to look at what is being pulled down to make way for them. I seriously doubt there are people who would miss the Southwark Towers (except PWC of course).

Skyscrapers rarely get good press. The papers, especially the Evening Standard, seem to take a rather dim view with them, and TV shows prefer people going off on a rant rather than a normal discussion. You only have to look at the sort of people they get for interviews on nuclear power to know what this is going to be like.

The Evening Standard is just the late addition of the Sun.

The culture show is all pre-recorded.

If the past shows are anything to go buy they'll talk more about the designs than anything else.

^^ well thats good, it'll be hard for them to deny what great designs most of them are

There is a debate of sorts going on in OXford University about skyscrapers in Europe etc. They are looking for guests willing to make an argument.. any suggestions? any volunteers?

is that the debate im the guest speaker on? lol. what society is it?

There is a debate of sorts going on in OXford University about skyscrapers in Europe etc. They are looking for guests willing to make an argument.. any suggestions? any volunteers?

I would go if it was as described and they helped with expenses (as I am not working now, but would have more time than busier peeps on here), Any details?

I will see what i can find out.

cheers!

No doubt that tosser Simon Jenkins will make an appearance....and i will feel the rage building up inside me to resist putting my fist through the screen whenever that miserable old twat of a snob speaks on skyscrapers

is he the guy who when doing a documentry on newcastle described the sage as "the latest abomination by norman foster"

Thats "LORD" norman foster to you!!!

He knows nothing. He called Newcstle a crap-hole. No one likes him, because basically he doesnt know what he is talking about. If I ever meet I will really give him a piece of my mind.

Hopefullly whoever is representing the pro-skyscraper side will get up and unch the neatest person when he walks in, no matter what has been said, it will atone for all the shit that comes out of heir mouthes...

He knows nothing. He called Newcstle a crap-hole. No one likes him, because basically he doesnt know what he is talking about. If I ever meet I will really give him a piece of my mind.

I'm surprised because usually Jenkins is quite a good advocate for the North. Although, wait a minute, he described South Yorkshire as 'not the happiest landscape in Britain' which is an opinion you'll come to from your Club Class seat on a Virgin train heading south.

The programme is starting now.

omg, did you see the skyline :shocked: amazing!!!

oh dear, seemed a little anti towards the end? anyone think?

thats what i thought. "place your skyscraper here, here, over here" - seemed a bit sarcastic.

I don't think you should look at whether it is pro or anti, but look at the actual points they make.

And I think they definitely have some good points there, really. I do think we should care about the overall skyline, and would rather not see skyscraper block some great views. Which is why I think they should very much look for good locations for skyscrapers, such as Canary Wharf.

That presenter was so sarcastic and obviously anti skyscraper, at least get an impartial one for Gods sake BBC.

yeah...very sarcastic reporting..............made some good points, but it was also quite flippant.

Nooooo I missed it!!! :gaah:

^^ you silly moo

Nooooo I missed it!!! :gaah:

It's repeated at some time.

It's repeated at some time.
23:20 tonight. And again, I really don't think this was an anti-skyscraper item. They were just concerned about where you place them and what it might do with the actual skyline. Which I am as well to be honest, even though I like skyscrapers in general.

Interesting to see that view from St James' Park - Bishopsgate, Beetham and Doon Street would all intrude upon the view :(


http://i2.tinypic.com/t5rcpy.jpg

I thought they might show it towards the end of the programme :no:

23:20 tonight. And again, I really don't think this was an anti-skyscraper item. They were just concerned about where you place them and what it might do with the actual skyline. Which I am as well to be honest, even though I like skyscrapers in general.

Yeah, I didn't know the shard was in one of the "protected" line of sights.

Interesting to see that view from St James' Park - Bishopsgate, Beetham and Doon Street would all intrude upon the view :(


http://i2.tinypic.com/t5rcpy.jpg

Want a hug? :pet:

Yeah, I didn't know the shard was in one of the "protected" line of sights.
The Shard will actually compliment and enhance St Paul's from that view, though - the two will look good together.

I'm far more concerned about that view of St James Park which I posted above.

The Shard will actually compliment and enhance St Paul's from that view, though - the two will look good together.

I'm far more concerned about that view of St James Park which I posted above.

That's what I thought when the picture was shown on the program, looked "grand".

i agree, i liked it too

well i have never liked Beetham london nor Bishopsgate so i feel validated in the news of how they will impinge on that picture postcard view in St James'.

As for the programme it wasnt very clear on the projects. My poor ol parents got confused about all the projects and thought in the end they were all in canary Wharf (including the ones that will be seen from St James' - bless them). Maybe that will help us in the long run ;)

pity they kept referring to maybe in the future if everyone can agree protected sightlines, we need more developers with crystal balls eh ;) load of crap.

pity they kept referring to maybe in the future if everyone can agree protected sightlines, we need more developers with crystal balls eh ;) load of crap.
... what are you saying? You can't be concerned about future constructions? Why was this a load of crap?

The Shard will actually compliment and enhance St Paul's from that view, though - the two will look good together.

I'm far more concerned about that view of St James Park which I posted above.

From the programme you could see that this view is already corrupted by the London Eye.

an example was references to sight-lines, not sight-lines that actually exist but ones that dont exist that ONE council wants to have enforced london-wide. these wdere then passed off by debaters as being actual real existing sightlines complete with the shock and horror that evil developers were breaking them. as luke mentions, others already have things in the way like the london eye so whats the debate really about, obeying planning guidelines and protecting sightlines or just being as anti tall building as possible if someone dosent like a particular design. sounds to me like tyranny of aesthetics.

Really, you're making it sound much worse than it was. They really weren't that anti-skyscrapers.
I didn't even know that there were official sight lines, but I do think we should be worried about them, whether they are officially agreed upon or not.

one of the body representatives (?) was sat in a building over looking city and said he wanted a wall of towers??? i was quite suprised, unless he was an architect.

I'm sure CABE mentioned Bishopsgate would be acceptable from the St James Park view simply because it ended in a spire which from that distance would become part of the 'spire cluster' of the building.

Beetham and Doon Street don't, and therefore were deemed unacceptable by Westminster Council.

More spires on London skyscrapers please.

A spire isn't going help the Beetham and Doon street buildings. You can see the top half of them from the park.

The programme was ok but I noticed all the people who were for them were young and all the people who were against them were old.

And they probably kept saying Bishopsgate Tower was going to be the tallest because it was the tallest when the design was released last summer.

Interesting to see that view from St James' Park - Bishopsgate, Beetham and Doon Street would all intrude upon the view :(


http://i2.tinypic.com/t5rcpy.jpg

but that is about 5 layers of building over 300 years, people point out that the Victorian mansion block with the disjointed pyramid roof tops ruins the symmetry of horse guards, which you would have to agree... its no Greenwich royal naval hospital any more! I dont see why more can not be added to this fascinating hotch potch of roof top detailing and surely only something like a flat topped wide tower block would ruin it.

anyway using google earth it seemed that beetham wouldnt appear in that view from the bridge, but more to the right?

I'm sure CABE mentioned Bishopsgate would be acceptable from the St James Park view simply because it ended in a spire which from that distance would become part of the 'spire cluster' of the building.

Beetham and Doon Street don't, and therefore were deemed unacceptable by Westminster Council.

More spires on London skyscrapers please.

i would argue that beetham does have a spire finish, it certainly does when you consider the flat roof box that has dominated the London tall building scene for 40 years

Basic trigonometry tells me that Bishopsgate tower would have the same effect on that view as placing a 145 foot tower behind that clump of buildings (Horse Guards/Banqueting House etc.) As the top part tapers quite nicely this should help integrate it into the 'cluster', but I can understand people wanting to protect such a beautiful view.
I don't know St. James Park that well, but as I recall that (famous) view is only seen from a few yards of bridge, and I don't think Beetham would interfere with this protected view (maybe if all the trees were bare perhaps???)

I missed the first 5 minutes, so I'll try and catch the repeat in a minute.

It does seem ridiculous that if this view was protected ( & don’t forget the eye is pretty prominent in this view so you could argue the 'old') view is compromised) then it would stiffle a lot of Development in London in numerous boroughs just for the sake of a view from a pedestrian bridge seen mainly by tourists. Its even more ridiculous when you consider that would mean stiffling very tall building in the city of London which is one of the few agreed areas in London where tall buildings are acceptable & argueably the south bank & Elephant & Castle, then where exactly can high rise development go??? CW & the surrounding docklands already has height limits & is running out of space- Once RS, NQ , Heron quays West, WW & potentialy some sites along Marsh Wall then theres no more sites that could realistically get high rise development in the docklands.

So due to Wesminster & EH etc demanding sightlines from this bridge it could have a massive efffect on tall building development in central London- Theres plenty of views of London so someone needs to tell Westminster where to go.

The programme was ok but I noticed all the people who were for them were young and all the people who were against them were old.
Thats good! When they all die who will stand in our way then?! ;)

I liked the programme and i believe it was neither pro or anti skyscraper, although towards the end it did seem slightly sarcastic. "place your skyscraper here...here...here...and here" - red arrows dotted everywhere.

But this is the blooy point i was making, if London begins to randomly plot one or two skyscrapers here and there we will eventually get a MESS. Im totally against skyscrapers like LBT because in my view its situation just looks silly. We need to contain them at the same time allowing protection for places such as ST pauls.

Ah there is a topic on this here as well

I`ll post the interesting screen shots again...

http://xs75.xs.to/pics/06145/cluster1.jpg


http://xs75.xs.to/pics/06145/green_park.jpg

Impact of Bishopsgate and Beetham... I think they look good, although it was put in a purely negative light

http://xs75.xs.to/pics/06145/green_park2.jpg

Not sure about this one though... what is it?!


http://xs75.xs.to/pics/06145/parliamenthill.jpg

LBT and view from Parliament Hill, programme forgets to mention the existing ugly cluster that forms the same dramatic backdrop to St Pauls today

Bishopsgate would not look bad at all in that view from St James' Park; it blends in with the spires on the victorian buildings and it'll be far less visible than it is in that pic because it'll be glass clad, it'll be reflecting the sky and so will be a fairly light presence on the skyline. As for Beethem though, that's ugly, it'll be a blob not a spire although as with Bishopsgate it wont be quite as intrusive as on that pic because of it's glass cladding. I dont like the design of the beethem tower anyway though and I dont want to see it built. While that is a beautiful view in St James' Park and it'd be a bit of a shame to have modern buildings encroaching in on it I dont think that's a good enough reason to block the Bishopsgate scheme though. Bear in mind that the London Eye has already 'ruined' that once unspoilt view as can be seen right of the pic.

Well Bishopsgate on that view from St James Park will be even less now it's been shortened. It works though, ending in a sharp spire which will make it feel more harmonic with the spires of the foreground building.

Beetham and Doon Street look hideous there and this is is exactly why I have no faith in the designs. Doon Street is just a 1960s architectural mistake for the 2000s and it saddens me no-one can see this. I'd like to wait for the Beetham redesign, but even then I dread the final product going on their current record (I can't stand Beetham's mish mash of streaky purile cheap green cladding and I don't want it on a tower in Central London thank you). Towers just won't work here. LBT does as it is closer to the City and only dominates once you get into the Pool of London.

I disagree with the notion that St Pauls' view is spoilt by London Bridge Tower, this view was spoilt years ago by the current 1970s cluster, and LBT has a symbolic relationship with St Paul's just as it does with Swiss Re - both echo each other's spire and dome.

The Shard will actually compliment and enhance St Paul's from that view, though - the two will look good together.


Take it a step further and you have LBT as a reflection of the old St Pauls that burnt down.. a very exciting thought...

The Black Taj Mahal anyone?

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000205/windows/31tt3.jpg

The programme was very toungue in cheek. Which building were they in when interviewing Peter Rees the City of London planner?

It was Royex House or whatever it's called now undr construction in the background so I would guess one of the existing 1960s buildings opposite.

Beetham and Doon Street look hideous there and this is is exactly why I have no faith in the designs. Doon Street is just a 1960s architectural mistake for the 2000s and it saddens me no-one can see this. I'd like to wait for the Beetham redesign....

I think the current Beetham proposal in that view works, it appears to the right where the skyline detailing is less intensive and intricate and you have the smoothly tapered shape of Beetham being an intermediate step to the bolder shapes of the Cabinet Office building(?) and the London Eye

Is Doon Street that tall thin residential tower at coin street? Disappointing if it is as i quite liked the look of that from its immediate surroundings as the proportions created an elegent structure, however with jsut the top poking up like that muddling with Beethams profile to create a squarish blob, it doesnt work. Needs drastic tapering! (shortening would make the structure appear less elegent from other views)

[QUOTE=potto]Ah there is a topic on this here as well

I`ll post the interesting screen shots again...

http://xs75.xs.to/pics/06145/cluster1.jpg


I don't think so. This is from west of St Pauls. Is it from the north or south bank?

It was computer generated - it's just the rendering of the City posted on this forum just pasted in a blue screen. That existing blue building in the foreground to the right is on London Wall. They aren't really on the South Bank.

Just realised something - the rendering above of St Pauls' and London Bridge Tower is incorrect - you can still see Southwark Towers. Talk about anti-LBT rendering, it should be slightly to the right and not overlapping the cathedral. Nice and accurate then!

Had an argument about this programme last night, how nayone can argue against LBT when Guys Hospital is already in the sight line, They didn't mention that for many people some of these views have already been compromised by the mistakes of the 60's and 70's. I mean why is it a bad thing to have an amazing modern stucture in the same sightline as St Pauls. You can still see ST Pauls, its just that there would be a modern wonder situated in the background. What doesnt seem fair is to highlight this as a negative impact when no mention is made of the fact that the same view also includes Guys Hospital, which is no oil painting, and is a huge precense on the skyline

The same people would argue instead of building skyscrapers on the skyline we should be removing the current bad crop of tall towers.

It's just bad experiences with skyscrapers and tall buildings. It's also a lack of understanding about how London has evolved and how it needs to change and evolve which is part of London's ethos and standing in the world order.

I mean that's the thing, London has always been an ugly, unplanned mess of a city. That's why it's so successful and one of its strengths against other cities. Its only now with these skyscrapers we're trying to make sense and place a 'planned' skyline on London. Will it work? Who knows. History will decide whether or not these towers will be a success and much loved part of London or another change too far for the city.

Part of me just feels as the presenter of the programme did - who's in charge of this 'skyline' and who is deciding whether or not tall buildings are suitable in certain places? Do we need a set of rules and set in stone guidelines on where skyscrapers can go and cluster? Or is that a step too far and we should allow towers to be built wherever and let them grow organically as London has for centuries?

I can't decide.

An elegant building is an elegant building, that’s why I feel that the international style box plus height limit was a bit of a disaster for the skyline of London… It managed to drown out existing skyline detailing without adding anything positive itself. Combine this with the often terrible urban fusion at the ground level and you have a pretty nasty experience for most people.

London has become bulked up and lost much of its refined skyline of the past so why not add some beauty to the skyline? Of course revealing the past skyline is an option and could be tried at targeted locations such as Wrens spires around St Pauls but it is no London-wide solution as we start the 21st Century!

As London has so many loved historical buildings I don’t think we are in danger of becoming drowned in skyscrapers, so I don’t really see any particular argument for drastically defined clustering, part of me feels that this looks too forced and artificial and we have to be careful again as our two main clusters now have height limits and therefore could be in danger of becoming merely ugly tumours rather than being part of the landscape. To me LBT really does show the way forward by reflecting the past, an elegant structure fitting in with existing historical skyline features but also holding its own.

So a mix of organic clustering, semi-clustering and the individual peak (has to be good though!) combined with the respect and the spring cleaning of London’s historical successes works for me!

What annoys me is that some poeple will take 360 degrees and find the 1 degree (if they stand on a beach ball on a chair and lean over) to find the spot where a new proposal will impinge on the view of a famous building! I think we all see through those people, who, if they were honsest,m would just say no tall/modern buildings please.

I just wish they could see things from a different angle! We have these fabulous buildings and heritage. They survived bombs and projectiles from the air, fire, time and development (no one is talking about knocking them down). They have yet to survive Al quaeda, flood, earthquake (lets not forget the damage and death caused in London by the 1382 and 1580, and to a lesser extent 1750 quakes..work out the time lags yourself!) etc. A sense of reality is lacking in poeple who seem to want it all! Time moves on.

LMAO at the parliament hill image. Although I quite like the cluster there next to StPauls, Taken just on the Southbank bend i guess. What a view that will be

Regarding St Jame's. I wouldn't mind Bishopsgate there, but Doon Street is awful, and the old beetham design is too.

It was computer generated - it's just the rendering of the City posted on this forum just pasted in a blue screen. That existing blue building in the foreground to the right is on London Wall. They aren't really on the South Bank.

Just realised something - the rendering above of St Pauls' and London Bridge Tower is incorrect - you can still see Southwark Towers. Talk about anti-LBT rendering, it should be slightly to the right and not overlapping the cathedral. Nice and accurate then!

I thought that might be the case but wasn't 100% sure. So City of London Planning department is in St Alphage House then?

here is a quick rendering i did to show what it could look like from St james park (its late and i was bored)........so here it is.............

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/334/horseguarda3za.jpg

You'd be able to see 122 Leadenhall as well since the middle of the Bishopsgate Tower spiral is the same height as it.

If bishopsgate tower was that tall, we'd be able to see T42 and the spire part of Heron. but its late, i could be talking outta my ass? :sleepy:

The bottom of the spiral wasn't visable on the TV rendering.
http://xs75.xs.to/pics/06145/green_park2.jpg

this better??? :);)

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3746/horseguard21rt.jpg

I actually dont mind it, the relationship between Beetham and Coin Street could be better ie not the same height, but its great the way bishopsgate spire works with the intricate skyline of horseguards and whitehall mansions and then Beetham and COin street aas a transition to the more bold shapes of the cabinet office building and London Eye

i think it looks better! just more to look at! its not as if they have knocked down the building in the foreground, you can still see the thing and admire it if you wish, its still a beautiful scene. honestly, what are these people moaning about?

I dont like the intrusion of Doon Street and Beetham. I dont mind Bishopsgate as the top blend well with the spires and domes.