See page 28 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=351887&page=28) of this thread for the latest renderings (i.e. the revised proposal).

-- wjfox


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



http://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/2006/q2/2006-05-19.html
Legal & General launches Walbrook SquarePR team

19/05/2006

Legal & General has today submitted plans for a striking new office and retail development, to be known as ‘Walbrook Square’. The development will replace its existing buildings at Bucklersbury House, EC4. The project incorporates approximately 1 million sq ft net floorspace on the 3.7 acre site, with 95,000 sq ft of retail and restaurant floorspace and 875,000 sq ft of office space.

The development is centred around the creation of a new public square and new streets based on historic routes through the site, which will allow increased public access and permeability in the area. The square will be a vibrant public space at the heart of the City with international quality shops, cafes, bars and restaurants. Also incorporated into Walbrook Square will be a publicly accessible exhibition space to house remains of the Roman Temple of Mithras, which are to be returned to their original location beside the ancient Walbrook river.

Walbrook Square will be an exemplar of world class architecture designed by Atelier Foster Nouvel, a unique architectural partnership between the practices of Lord Foster of Thames Bank and the leading French architect Jean Nouvel. It will be composed of four buildings each with their own distinct character but which together read as a cluster. The lower elements take the form of plinths which respond to local views and to the heights of surrounding buildings. The more lightweight upper elements or “clouds” will be seen from more distant views to float above the plinths and shimmer against the sky.

Tim Breedon, Chief Executive of Legal & General, commented:

“Walbrook Square will be a great place to work and do business in London. It will provide high quality and flexible office space, and will be a new and vibrant destination with its new public square at the heart of the City. It will have a rich mix of public space, shops, cafes and restaurants and a new public exhibition space for the Roman Temple of Mithras.”

Walbrook Square will be a landmark of world class contemporary architecture and a statement of L&G’s continued commitment to the City. We believe that it will help to reinforce both the City and London’s status as a world business and commercial centre.”

Legal & General has had the vision to create a unique development opportunity on the largest site in the City core, and the project is a sensitive response to the scale and historic location of the site.”

Norman Foster and Jean Nouvel, of Atelier Foster Nouvel, said:

“The creation of Walbrook Square presents the opportunity to rediscover a network of historic pedestrian routes and to introduce a new civic square - a valuable social focus for this special quarter of London. The “clouds” on top of the base of the buildings are designed as solar collectors - one of several components to make a sustainable and energy efficient workplace and local destination.”

Contacts
For further information please contact Ian Lindsley at Jefferson on 020 7256 8912 or 07887 681561.

Notes to Editors
Detailed plans have been submitted to the City of London to provide office, retail and storage accommodation at Walbrook Square of 90,705 sq m net internal area, or 976,371 sq ft. This includes 81,294 net sq m (875,070 sq ft) of office space and 8,793 net sq m (94,650 sq ft) of retail and restaurant space. The Bucklersbury House site has an area of 1.5 hectares (3.7 acres), and currently provides 50,650 sq m (545,210 sq ft) net internal area of office space and 2,497 sq m (26,878 sq ft) of retail space in five buildings (Bucklersbury House, Temple Court, 25 Bucklersbury, 69-75 Cannon Street and 71 Queen Street). The site currently provides outdated and inflexible office accommodation and poor quality retail on an impenetrable island site.
Walbrook Square has a gross external area of 133,880 sq m (1,441,119 sq ft). The existing buildings have a gross external area of 111,535 sq m (1,082,185 sq ft).

Walbrook Square comprises four individual buildings connected by new pedestrian routes running north-south and east-west:
Building 1 – Queen Victoria Street (106.65m, 22 storeys); offices - 29,774 sq m, retail - 3,241 sq m
Building 2 – Bucklersbury (67m, 12 storeys); offices – 16,920 sq m, retail – 1,722 sq m
Building 3 – Cannon Street (66.15m, 11 storeys); offices – 11,820 sq m, retail – 869 sq m
Building 4 – Queen Street (71.15m, 12 storeys); offices – 22,780 sq m, retail – 2,961 sq m

The four buildings each have their own distinct character but together read as a cluster. The lower elements take the form of plinths which are sculpted to respond to the surrounding building heights and local views. The more lightweight upper elements (“clouds”) will be seen from more distant views to float above the plinths and shimmer against the sky. The shape and massing of the “clouds” have also been designed to respect sensitive local views.
The scheme has been designed with St Paul’s Cathedral in mind and complies with the revised view corridors put forward within the GLA’s draft SPG (the London View Management Framework).

Walbrook Square will deliver a unique place in the City, and will provide a rich mix of shops, cafes, bars and restaurants. A new public square will create a vibrant environment and animated public space. New pedestrian routes through the site will increase public access and help people move around the City.

The remains of the Roman Temple of Mithras are to be returned to their original location, within the development under Walbrook Square as a publicly accessible exhibition space. A reconstruction of the Temple of Mithras is currently located above a car park alongside Queen Victoria Street.
The site is extremely well served by public transport, being very close to three underground stations (Bank, Mansion House and Cannon Street, serving five lines), Cannon Street railway station and numerous bus routes servicing the City. London Underground proposes that a new access to the Waterloo & City line be incorporated within the development.

The scheme has been the subject of detailed consultation with the City of London, CABE, English Heritage, London Underground and the Greater London Authority.

The building is expected to achieve an ‘Excellent’ BREEAM rating. It will include a suite of sustainable energy conservation measures and the feasibility of introducing borehole cooling and photovoltaics has been considered. Existing ground level private and underground public car parking will be closed. The development proposes space for 50 cars, 180 motorcycles and 552 bicycles.

In the summer of 2007, Legal & General is due to move its Group Headquarters and Investment Management business from the Bucklersbury House site to new City premises at No.1 Coleman Street, EC2.

A public exhibition setting out the proposals for Walbrook Square, including a visual display of images and models, will be held at Bucklersbury House (Budge Row off Cannon Street) on Thursday 22 and Friday 23 June 2006 from 10am-4pm.

Legal & General Property Limited. Registered address: Temple Court, 11 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4N 4TP. Registered in England 2091897.
John Morgan
Media Relations Director
Tel: 0207 528 6213

Also incorporated into Walbrook Square will be a publicly accessible exhibition space to house remains of the Roman Temple of Mithras, which are to be returned to their original location beside the ancient Walbrook river.

Halle-bloody-lujah. That pretty much has made my year.

intersting, from initial readings they sound stumpy but the descriptions sound intriguing

Exciting stuff! Can't wait to see these "clouds".

Sounds interesting, very interesting.
I like the sound of midrises, as long as they are meaningful midrises.

The press release in the Times:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9064-2187222,00.html

The Times May 19, 2006

L&G floats plan for 'cloud building'
By Jenny Davey

LEGAL & GENERAL, the insurer, is submitting plans today for a one million sq ft redevelopment of Bucklersbury House, its headquarters in the City of London.
The retail and office development, which will be called Walbrook Square, will be the largest undertaken by L&G. The project, which is expected to cost more than £300 million, will cover 3.7 acres and will see L&G’s existing buildings replaced by offices, shops, cafés, restaurants and bars.

The development will centre around a new public square and streets based on historic routes through the site. An exhibition space housing the remains of the Roman Temple of Mithras, which were discovered in the City in 1957, will be incorporated into Walbrook Square.

The scheme has been designed by Lord Foster of Thames Bank and Jean Nouvel, the French architect.

It will feature four buildings on Queen Victoria Street, the tallest of which will be 106.65 metres high.

The lightweight upper structure is designed to resemble clouds and will appear, from a distance, to float above the lower elements of the building and “shimmer” against the sky.

L&G will include environmentally friendly features, such as photovoltaic cells, to achieve a good energy rating.

The insurer is developing the site because it will be moving its group headquarters from Bucklersbury House to a new building in the City.

L&G said that it was too early to say whether construction would start without tenants lined up. Tim Breedon, the L&G chief executive, said: “We believe that (the project) will help to reinforce both the City and London’s status as a world business and commercial centre.”

The scheme is one of the largest developments in the Square Mile and has been in the planning phases for several years.

It comes as developers prepare for a spate of new construction projects in the Square Mile. The latest crane survey by Drivers Jonas, the property consultant, shows that speculative office construction has nearly trebled, from 972,000 sq ft in November, to 2.9 million sq ft in the first quarter. This is the highest level for three years but is well below the 3.6 million sq ft in the first quarter of 2003.

GOOD RIDDANCE TO CITY EYESORE

Bucklersbury House has long been considered an eyesore in the City. Pevsner’s guide to the City of London rates it “the largest and dullest of London’s 1950s office blocks” and its olive-green curtain walling has gained no charm or patina over the past half century.

It was the first postwar building in the City to abandon the street line, a great 14-storey slab running from Queen Victoria Street to Cannon Street, extended by repetitively designed spurs on either side.

The L-shaped setback from Queen Victoria Street gave little to the pedestrian. In place of the lively shops and sandwich bars across the street, Bucklersbury House offered little more than a single corporate entrance in a vast city block.

The terrace created by the setback did not become one of the pleasantly planted pocket gardens that are one of the Square Mile’s main delights but served for a far-from-thrilling display of the remains of the Roman Temple of Mithras. This lost much of its authenticity by being re-oriented east-west instead of north-south.

Bucklersbury House is 14 storeys. The replacement will be 22, a big increase in a part of the City where there are fewer tall buildings. The commissioning of high-flying and adventurous architects is welcome in the City, where for years the design of offices has been dominated by commercial practices good at obtaining planning permission but rarely producing interesting architecture.

Lord Foster of Thames Bank has won acclaim for the “Gherkin” but some of his lower-rise offices have suffered from repetitiveness beginning to approach that of Bucklersbury House. Jean Nouvel, the French architect, is known as a perpetual enfant terrible but one sought after by commercial clients.

Blimey sounds interesting :)

yeah. the request for images went out earlier today.

insightful article, makes a change

I saw a rendering of this tower in the paper today.

It looks a shade taller than the UCL Hospital or Moorhouse, probably around the same height as the Stock Exchange Tower or Drapers Gardens.

It looks like a cross between the Umeda Skybuilding in terms of the 'clouds' which make up part of the design of the building and the Jardine Matheson tower in Hong Kong with its port hole windows. I think it looks very cool.

The Jean Nouvel building looked a bit wonky to me but I have to see more renders before making my mind up. The high rise bit looked good though.

Sounds like a quality project to me, and it sounds quite a good size too:)

Sounds very interesting

Very interesting. I'm guessing the "shimmer" described in the news article would be achieved by a top-quality facade, so I hope they get a good company in to do the job.

I saw a rendering of this tower in the paper today.

It looks a shade taller than the UCL Hospital or Moorhouse, probably around the same height as the Stock Exchange Tower or Drapers Gardens.

It looks like a cross between the Umeda Skybuilding in terms of the 'clouds' which make up part of the design of the building and the Jardine Matheson tower in Hong Kong with its port hole windows. I think it looks very cool.

The Jean Nouvel building looked a bit wonky to me but I have to see more renders before making my mind up. The high rise bit looked good though.

Any chance you can scan the images on to the thread ?

Here you go:

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/3015/dsc003316gd.jpg

Sorry about the quality as it was from today's times (also i couldn't get the paper to stay flat as i was taking it with my camera phone), but you get the general idea.

Oh my God. What the hell is that?!

I was about to make a post about how wonderful this project sounds from those articles - the pedestrian routes and historic aspects, etc. - but from that photograph it looks awful!

Btw, this will be very prominent in the view from Waterloo Bridge. There are no other tall buildings nearby, so it will really stand out. It will also contain a massive amount of floorspace which could steal potential tenants away from the other, taller schemes.

This is the current building on site -

http://i4.tinypic.com/104nlw3.jpg



You can see it here as well. It's those creamy white groundscrapers in front of St Helens/6-8 Bishopsgate. The new tower(s) will therefore partially obscure SwissRe and the lower half of 122 Leadenhall -


http://www.willfox.com/images/upc/20.jpg

Another view, from the Monument -


http://www.willfox.com/images/london/4/34.jpg

What the hell!? That's just crazy. The back building looks interesting but what's with the one that looks like it's leaning on the other one?

Oh my God. What the hell is that?!
I was about to make a post about how wonderful this project sounds from those articles - the pedestrian routes and historic aspects, etc. - but from that photograph it looks awful!


Will, It is terrible picture. Wait until we get some proper renders first.

I am going to hold my judgement on this tower till we see some proper renders, but gotta say, that pic from the newspaper looks pretty dam hiddeous! Please, Please, let this be a tasteful, simple yet elegant project that complements the area nicley, and not some wanna-be attempt at a new 'iconic' set of mid-rises that ends up looking like a desperate attempt at a unique looking set of buildings that falls far short.

A I said, I will hold my tongue for now, in the hope that it is just a bad picture....

looks like a cheese grater and a piece of mild cheddar :puke:

What in the name of fuck is that!
It looks like a giant used condom :runaway:

Wow a shimmering turd...

What paper was that picture in, the Evening Standard?

If this is a 'bad' photo in the paper then it wouldn't be the first time. I'll also wait untill I see some better renders, before making up my mind.

I've been looking forward to this development for ages now. Need to see proper renderings though.

Will- the stock exchange building isn't far away & thats over 22 storeys. I would image the tallest building will be more to the west of the site towards Cannon St station (which incidently is right next to Minervas Walbrook & NM Rothschild proposed 20 storey HQ development. I think they would all appear to the right of most of the tall buildings when viewed from Waterloo bridge.

somebody get some renders please....and quick ;)

Theres a tiny pic on the cover of propertyweek that might be a pic of the scheme as the building to the left of the picture looks like the dark glassed grey/green office block thats next to No.1 Poultry. The tallest building is 106m so it would be this.

Theres also info on it on fosters & partners website- but unusual for them no renders- bugger :(

http://www.property-week.co.uk/issue.asp?navcode=635&c=0

looks like a cheese grater and a piece of mild cheddar :puke:

:lol:

what a picture, terrible. Wait for the exibition next month.

I hope the official renders look better

They musta been in a right state coming up with this design. Whats it suppose to be? Looks like a fecking invalid designed this when playing connect 4.

Maybe they made it look shit with intention, so that when proper renderings come out we all can say 'Well, at least it looks better than on the first image. This one is growing on me!' ;)

Sounds good, i like the location, the rendering looks.....interesting. My first thought was not that looks shit but that it looks interesting, im feeling good about this one, bring on the renders!

Wow a shimmering turd...

What paper was that picture in, the Evening Standard?

It was in yesterdays Times.

Can't understand the design myself esp the front slanting bit - very bizzare. I was only a small image so like everyone else lets wait for the renders.

I'm really glad that what its replacing is being demolished, and from the classic Waterloo Bridge viewpoint it'll plug a gap in the skyline. I think its also good that the shapes seem a bit abstract, all of the other 100m towers in the City are just square blocks on the skyline. Jury's out 'til I see a better rendering though...

We need more renderings at the moment it looks like a freeze frame from september 11th

I think its looking promising, better than the 3 sisters behind waterloo and other such examples of 'frontier' architecture in Europe, here we see the architecture actually responding to the context of the area, in particular the views of St Pauls, rather than with for example deconstructivsm where the architecture is a tad self-centred. This is exciting, we are moving with architecture.

I dont quite understand what people are expecting in such a constrained site where another glass box would be cheaper for the developers. In theory constraints should instead ignite and polish the imagination but keep excess in check (the opposite to the 'new cities'). And I think this is what we are now starting to see happening after the doldrums of the 70s and 80s.

It looks like the City is starting to lead the way in the UK (Birminghams post box another example) where traditionally in this country architecture seems to take a lead only in very high profile cultural buildings and everything else goes for the verging on the bland conservatism. The result is that we are not getting a spread of ideas in this country, look at the housing and office market for example. This is harming our ability to to respond to vital issues such as climate change and living density adjustments.

Again will have to wait for more visuals but I dont understand the complete shock and horror on a forum centred around architecture, would expect it in Tunbridge Wells maybe!

Hear, hear!

The 2 masters of glass 'n light, together! Well done Londinium!! Sydney has 3 Foster scrapers (2 still u/c) and we almost got a Nouvel.

Anyway, some points on Walbrook Sq from Foster's website - nothing on Nouvel's that I could see. Lots of facts, some good descriptions, a bit of hyperbole of course & point 12 may be of particular interest to some of you (take your cameras). Point 3 gives building heights etc.


1. Detailed plans have been submitted to the City of London to provide office, retail and storage accommodation at Walbrook Square of 90,705 sq m net internal area, or 976,371 sq ft. This includes 81,294 net sq m (875,070 sq ft) of office space and 8,793 net sq m (94,650 sq ft) of retail and restaurant space. The Bucklersbury House site has an area of 1.5 hectares (3.7 acres), and currently provides 50,650 sq m (545,210 sq ft) net internal area of office space and 2,497 sq m (26,878 sq ft) of retail space in five buildings (Bucklersbury House, Temple Court, 25 Bucklersbury, 69-75 Cannon Street and 71 Queen Street). The site currently provides outdated and inflexible office accommodation and poor quality retail on an impenetrable island site.


2. Walbrook Square has a gross external area of 133,880 sq m (1,441,119 sq ft). The existing buildings have a gross external area of 111,535 sq m (1,082,185 sq ft).


3. Walbrook Square comprises four individual buildings connected by new pedestrian routes running north-south and east-west:
a. Building 1 – Queen Victoria Street (106.65m, 22 storeys); offices - 29,774 sq m, retail - 3,241 sq m
b. Building 2 – Bucklersbury (67m, 12 storeys); offices – 16,920 sq m, retail – 1,722 sq m
c. Building 3 – Cannon Street (66.15m, 11 storeys); offices – 11,820 sq m, retail – 869 sq m
d. Building 4 – Queen Street (71.15m, 12 storeys); offices – 22,780 sq m, retail – 2,961 sq m


4. The four buildings each have their own distinct character but together read as a cluster. The lower elements take the form of plinths which are sculpted to respond to the surrounding building heights and local views. The more lightweight upper elements (“clouds”) will be seen from more distant views to float above the plinths and shimmer against the sky. The shape and massing of the “clouds” have also been designed to respect sensitive local views.


5. The scheme has been designed with St Paul’s Cathedral in mind and complies with the revised view corridors put forward within the GLA’s draft SPG (the London View Management Framework).


6. Walbrook Square will deliver a unique place in the City, and will provide a rich mix of shops, cafes, bars and restaurants. A new public square will create a vibrant environment and animated public space. New pedestrian routes through the site will increase public access and help people move around the City.


7. The remains of the Roman Temple of Mithras are to be returned to their original location, within the development under Walbrook Square as a publicly accessible exhibition space. A reconstruction of the Temple of Mithras is currently located above a car park alongside Queen Victoria Street.


8. The site is extremely well served by public transport, being very close to three underground stations (Bank, Mansion House and Cannon Street, serving five lines), Cannon Street railway station and numerous bus routes servicing the City. London Underground proposes that a new access to the Waterloo & City line be incorporated within the development.


9. The scheme has been the subject of detailed consultation with the City of London, CABE, English Heritage, London Underground and the Greater London Authority.


10. The building is expected to achieve an ‘Excellent’ BREEAM rating. It will include a suite of sustainable energy conservation measures and the feasibility of introducing borehole cooling and photovoltaics has been considered. Existing ground level private and underground public car parking will be closed. The development proposes space for 50 cars, 180 motorcycles and 552 bicycles.


11. In the summer of 2007, Legal & General is due to move its Group Headquarters and Investment Management business from the Bucklersbury House site to new City premises at No.1 Coleman Street, EC2.


12. A public exhibition setting out the proposals for Walbrook Square, including a visual display of images and models, will be held at Bucklersbury House (Budge Row off Cannon Street) on Thursday 22 and Friday 23 June 2006 from 10am-4pm. :okay:

12. A public exhibition setting out the proposals for Walbrook Square, including a visual display of images and models, will be held at Bucklersbury House (Budge Row off Cannon Street) on Thursday 22 and Friday 23 June 2006 from 10am-4pm. :okay:
My office is about 10 minutes' walk from there, so I can probably get some pics in my lunch hour.

^^ Cool bananas!

BTW, on specifically the same page the above is from, contact details are given. Some glossy renders to scan may be available via these means...

It reads...

For futher information please contact:
Kate Harris or Josephine Cutts at Foster and Partners

Tel: 44(0)20 7738 0455
Fax 44(0)20 7943 6097
Email: press@fosterandpartners.com


...or if convenient, front up @ the practice itself.

This is going to be v. exciting architecture.

Thank you Muse! Sounds like maybe this one will have a relatively easy ride (?) if its been looked at by EH

Right then. Anyone who wants to take a look at this can find it in this weeks Estate's Gazette. It'll only cost you a few quid, or failing that just sneakily open the plastic covering.

Two renders of the scheme. The first the same as we've already seen scanned on the previous page but in colour. My reaction is that I quite like the leaning building but am suspicous of the taller building which appears to be constructed from water vapour. This clearly isn't scientifically possable so I suspect it will actually be made of some sort of glass/metal combination and won't actually look like a cloud at all.

The second smaller picture is a skyline render from I imagine the Tate Modern with outlines of the rest of the unbuilt skyline. Have to say that it looks diabolical. For a shortish building its presence on the skyline is huge. It just doesn't fit. The lower rise element is tall enough to break cover behind a great stretch of the north bank. It reminded me of a silvery Dome with the tower sticking up behind. I suspect the impact won't be so pronounced from the Waterloo Bridge view but it still gets a big thumbs down from me I'm afraid.

cant agree more, they look desparately bad. interestingly one of the prs attached is at pains to not only not supply any renderings, but to stress these arent towers! it strikes to me almost as if they are trying to play down the fact that these are tall buildings in a very prominent location from the thames.

a tower by the way is any building that is taller than its diameter

wait to see the exhibition. I'll be there avec camera and see if the nice people don't mind me taking a few snaps. Anyway, view of Bucklesbury House (just right of the centre, bang in the middle - almost).

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/857/img06938zm.jpg

106m will make a real difference to the skyline - something of a 'stepped up' midrise to sit in front of the emerging city cluster.

The premise (Foster/Nouvel) sounds promising, as do the intentions to include the Temple of Mithras ruins etc. The north/south routes will help pedestrian access between Cannon Street / Queen Victoria Street and Mansion House. More importantly the appalling Mithras Wine Bar (site of several messy Xmas office parties) will disappear for ever. Hurrah!

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/857/img06938zm.jpgThat must be a rendering of the new Phillipe Starck proposal just behind the Royal Exchange. Love the sensuous curves of the cladding and the limpid hue of the accomodation. Taller than the old stock exchange too - cool.

:lol:

:D

106m is too tall for that site. Its gonna obscure alot of the view from Waterloo etc

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/3015/dsc003316gd.jpgYuk!

If that curve was facing waterloo bridge it would be like a giant ramp leading upto the cluster, which would be interesting

"Legal and General succeeeded in having the St Paul's Cathedral sightlines revised in the Greater London authorities' draft managment framework in the London Plan, which has allowed it to maximise the size of the scheme and include a 22-storey tower."

http://static.flickr.com/52/152042802_9fc8fe7f96_b.jpg

Well, its totally different to what I had expected, and much bigger! its a huge impact on the entire view, unescapeable. I think it looks quite good :yes:

On the second pic, is that big thing that looks like the millenium dome part of the development? It looks alot better in those pictures, I quite like it! Very different!

My God, this will have a massive impact on the skyline.

I assume that spire behind the Exchange Tower is Heron Plaza?

Can't see it as being anyting else...

I assume that spire behind the Exchange Tower is Heron Plaza?

It's the crane that was on the top of the former Stock Exchange!

On the second pic, is that big thing that looks like the millenium dome part of the development?

Yes - the 'crack' in the middle of it is the gap that you see in the first pic.

The whole development looks extremely futuristic, When Drapers is gone it will make a great end to the cluster from that view.

So much for demolishing Draper's Gardens to give the City cluster more definition....

I'm torn on this. I actually like it. It's sculptural, and in a weird way it feels really Blade Runner-esque like someone has plopped a 23rd century spaceship in the City. I can perfectly understand the shimmering effect if it's stainless steel or somekind of aluminium. I'm loving the idea of the Temple Of Mithras, the oldest surviving piece of man-made history in the City being 'shielded' by these 'aliens' of the future. Yet at the same time is this just another 1960s 'iconic' 'landmark' mistake waiting in the wings? Is this the start of developers dictating and manipulating the sightline effect to their own gain?

One thing I am very excited about though is imagining the second rendering with all the towers built. And bizarrely, I've completely changed my tune on there being too many glass buildings - it will look spectacular in the sunshine, a shimmering crystal- like skyline of the 21st century.

it's growing on me like a wild fungus. Isn't it supposed to be 4 towers? I don't see the 4th one :no:

It's certainly interesting, and very futuristic looking.

I just hope it won't be too "distracting" and draw attention away from some of the other, taller buildings.

Btw, remember that this 2nd rendering is from Tate Modern, not Waterloo Bridge.

Isn't it supposed to be 4 towers? I don't see the 4th one

The fourth is the square light glass box in front of the 'spaceship' to the right.

I think it looks remarkable. The tower definitely can't be accused of being a box!

Whether it will actually be built is another matter. That said, Legal and General aren't exactly short of money.

That said, Legal and General aren't exactly short of money.

Or balls it seems, managing to get the sightlines rejigged to build this.

Looks amazing ni those renderings- im sure they will have more & models as well at the exhibtion whenever that is.

Imagine If/When this is built walking through this development, looking at the old Roman ruins, then turning left into Bank & seeing the bank or England & Royal exchange with LLoyds & DIFA etc in the background.

Theres no reason it shouldn't get built, L&G have been working on this for years & have stanhope as a partner. Plus this is about prime city site as you can get & once L&G move out next year it will be a redundant 60's building that couldn't even be refurbed in the time being so it will be ready for demolition ( i worked there briefly about 6 years ago & it was well past its prime even then). I would imagine theres a fair few companies who would want such a striking development right in the heart of the city. L&G are loaded as well.

Also I think because they have been developing ths for so long all the relevant bodies have had a chance to look at the designs & seeing how there was no response from EH or anyone else when this scheme was announced then this might get through planning alright.

Dont forget as well, If NM Rothschild get there 20storey Koolhaas scheme through as well then it should be an interestig are for modern architecture.

One last point- in the rendering it looks like the outline of the replacement for the 60's cannon st station block is outlined which will be shorter than the current building & make the view of the cluster behin even more pronounced.

I cant wait till 2012 or whenever when all these modern towers etc are built & the 60's eyesores are no longer there. Worldbeating skyline comes to mind :)

One last point- in the rendering it looks like the outline of the replacement for the 60's cannon st station block is outlined which will be shorter than the current building & make the view of the cluster behin even more pronounced.

Don't forget also, the replacement for Mondial House (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=342476) will be visible in this view as well.

Well it all sounds rather positive, im glad, i like it, even though it really is big is doesnt seem to be intrusive in a bad way

I like this development, although the cladding must stay true to the renders for this to stay amazing.

Fenchurch I love, but this one hasn't convinced me yet... Unique alright, but looks so very crazy. Hopefully I'll change my mind when we get better renderings :)

http://static.flickr.com/52/152042802_9fc8fe7f96_b.jpg

This development now is my no1. Ok LBT is my fav supertall, but this is staggering. Ive never seen anything like it ! I liked it when we only had the poor quality newspaper scan, but I kept quiet....well its as good as I imagined, if that is It comes out anything like that !

Hmmmm...can't quite decide whether I love it or hate it...I'm leaning more towards just liking it at the moment. That render is pretty dodgy though, you can't really make out how the towers will actually look...hopefully some better renders will be appearing in the not too distant future that will give a clearer impression of how it's going to look. Still, I'm fairly optimistic at this point.

:cheers:

I'm afraid to say that I do not like this one bit at the moment. It looks far to wide and huge for the city. I prefer seeing sleek and slender things like all the skyscrapers that are set to appear...this just seems to imposing (and in my opinion ugly). Not what I come to expect of Foster.

Still hard to make out whats what with this,think we can start to extrapelate a probable overhead profile???

It's the most bizzare building I think I've ever seen, I don't know what to think of it at the moment, so I'm currently on the fence.

It's the most bizarre building I think I've ever seen, I don't know what to think of it at the moment, so I'm currently on the fence.


absolutely agree, difficult to take a view on it on the basis of two renders, thought it looks like nothing else I've ever seen! Exhibition between 10 and 4 on 22nd and 23rd June at the current site. I'll be along in my lunch hour - intrigued with this I am.

Another pic of this- This time from the West & also a story on it..

http://i4.tinypic.com/10pyl1s.jpg

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storyCode=3067993

looks better in that render, but still, from the available pics this appears to be something that might date really quickly, the tower element looks ok but that giant saucer looks like a prop from doctor who.

Will wait for more info/renders, and in the meantime trust the foster.

Well that second render looks MUCH better, but still a bit bulky.

Make a lot more sense from that rendering, really like how this will create a new pedestrian route as demonstrated above. I'm still loving the complete sculptural nature of this, and I can imagine the evening sun bouncing off the various angled panels creating this shimmer effect.

However. This will only be the case if the cladding is top notch.

mmm well after the tidal wave of boring low/mid rises, looks like a pearl has been uncovered. This is what the Broadgate development should have been... and dare I suggest even Paternoster Square ;)

I dont think that this will potentially end up being another '1960s mistake'. Some points to consider:

a) It is opening up ancient pedestrian routes, it hasnt forced itself into the street pattern like the old building which arrogantly ignored the street line, cut off routes and filled space with a car parks!

b) We've learnt a lot about how buildings interact with the street level experience, ie retail, cafe's, bars set in a high quality environment

c) The building is impressively unique, on a global level too, yet fits in... and this is a factor that people respond too, be it from a norman church to georgian terrace to BT tower. The modernist movement was the first time to promote a universal language in architecture but it took decades for this to really transfer to reality, where mass production and internationalisation of architecture realised this vision. This is more of a hand-crafted response, Rolls Royce compared to a Ford focus, similar to 20 Fenchurch Street, LBT, Leadenhall, Lloyds and Bishopsgate, this is the quality we should be seeking.

That rendering looks good too

The designs look pretty awful IMO.
Looks like Foster designed the bottom half and Nouvel did the top half.

And they didn't speak to each other while they were doing it.

I think it would soon become a 'blot' on the skyline.. not for me, ta

Nope, not good.

The building at the back isn't bad and the circular windows remind me of a skyscraper in Hong Kong but it's the slanted connection building that just looks completely wrong and certainly isn't going to work in practise.

These leaning towers are very clever and all, but they look crap! I really don't know what to make of this whole scheme - I would like to see models...

hmm, its awful...too tall

hmm, its awful...too tall

How can it be too tall? It's next door to towers twice it's size!

Grotesque and absurd. The skyline shot from the South Bank looks monstrous, I don't understand this 'clouds' concept at all, its in-elegant, ugly, overly large and ridiculous.

Take a look at what's currently there:

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/325DIFAProposeNewTallestForLondon_pic2.jpg

The low rise portion of the new scheme is no more bigger or 'bulky' than what we currently have. in fact i'd say with the organic sloping sides it will have less of an impact.

Its the actual 'form' of the building on the skyline - it seems almost alien, I think scuptural buildings work well on water sides, and buildings such as the Manchester war museum and the Guggenheim in Bilbao work as centre peices of regeneration - but this is enormous, placed within the context of everything else going on in the City it appears too much. I also believe organic structutres work better on a small scale - for example if you removed one of the water side blocks from the picture above and put in a building of similar height but using the scuptural forms of the proposed project I think it could appear spectacular rather than a giant almost alien mass.

http://static.flickr.com/52/152042802_9fc8fe7f96_b.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/325DIFAProposeNewTallestForLondon_pic2.jpg

we can campare them easier now, I think it looks ok still, a large sprawl of white replaced with something more elegant, I wouldnt say easier on the eye, but more pleasing to the eye

I think we need to see more renderings. It's still too confusing to judge properly.

We could do with about 5, all from major city viewing points, one from the Shangri-La spa place in the Shard might be interesting too, just panning further left from this view

http://i4.tinypic.com/10yi9w5.jpg

I think we need to see more renderings. It's still too confusing to judge properly.
Totally agree! I wonder if there are many more renders of it though...?

Some more must be released, they must get at least relatively close to the other towers amount of renderings

Just go to the exhibtion/consultation which is soon, they will more than likely have loads of renderings & models etc

its AWFUL it looks disgusting!
it reminds me of something but i cant think what. HATE THAT DESIGN!

its AWFUL it looks disgusting!
it reminds me of something but i cant think what. HATE THAT DESIGN!

nice bit of rational critisism there

I don't know but I think another "look at me" feature building may be out of place here. In 20 years time this will look just as bad as the typewriter on the Thames or that building in its meccano jacket next to Cannon Street Station. I am sure it is going to be great architecture, but because it is squeezed in without sufficient space around, it will not blend in nicely (Bank, Victoria Street, Mansion House, Royal Exchange). We will only notice that when its design becomes somewhat unfashionable. So we can be pretty sure that it is going to be pulled down again in about 30 years' time with all the associated disruption. There are already so many "look at me" buildings, so why not be daring and radical and have something that blends in really nicely with it surroundings? Is it really so controversial to use traditional materials like brick, render and portland stone? Is it really a disgrace to go for Victorian architecture where it blends in? As much as I like most of the skyscraper projects, I dislike pretty much all of the current "horizontal" developments in the City.

That's not completely true. If you look at the top of Ludgate Hill, a building was recently built in stone to blend in with the road. But yeah, very much an anomaly.

I personally dont like most modern buildings with stone cladding, the artistic skill and devotion isnt there to get the best out of it. Instead we are left with some quite over-bearing therefore ugly buildings, this seems to be a particular problem in the City where you may have an entire street clad in stone and it is up to the fine detailing to differentiate the building and to lighten the bulk.

Some of the post modern stuff in the City is particularly poor which seem to have a hamfisted stick-on attidtude to the decorations. Metal and Glass is actually refreshing which is why I just cant see a stone clad skyscraper working in the City. This seems to be an opposite problem to somewhere like Canary Wharf!

St pauls and this are of a similar height and shape. I wonder if they'll compliment each other on the skyline. Could be quite interesting.

Also am I right in thinking that this'll appear infront of St mary axe viewed from waterloo bridge?

That's not completely true. If you look at the top of Ludgate Hill, a building was recently built in stone to blend in with the road. But yeah, very much an anomaly.

Yeah I think I know the building you're talking about, didn't realise it was a modern building until I looked closer, it blends in and is fairly nice, I would support more of this kind of stuff.

St pauls and this are of a similar height and shape. I wonder if they'll compliment each other on the skyline. Could be quite interesting.
The 'dome' here is obviously trying to complement St. Pauls. I wonder if it could look more similar, perhaps with a 'stone gallery' like the masterpiece cathedral?

Some feature to err 'suggest' the stone gallery of St pauls? Or an actual gallery? Interesting but I think you'd be danger of starting to ape the cathedral rather than complementing it. Perhaps you could avoid that but personally I prefer the Foster-Nouvel scheme to do its own thing and only complement st pauls in passing.

I still find this building a bit wide, maybe if it was thinned up a bit I may like it more. I like one render of it, but that one of it against the City skyline is not pretty in my opinion.

http://www.egazette.org.uk/business/news_awards.asp?ArticleID=548&Location=

Wow, this development is very environmentally friendly. It's a piece of architecture that London is in very much need of, in terms of improving street level, c'est un trés batiment grand!

I really hope this goes ahead, along with the GLC building :drool: This is most likely to go ahead though due to it being fairly low?

Usually EH object to ehight, not looks, but whether the others will all ow it I dont know

Looking at this image I was struck as to how close Nouvels 2 city schemes will seem in this view. They will IMO show as much a dramatic change from this view from St Pauls of the city skyline as the taller skyscrapers in the distance.

http://i6.tinypic.com/11ig8z9.jpg

Brief report from Skyscrapernews.con:

2006-06-06 > Walbrook Square London Exhibition

The exhibition for the public to oogle at the new plans by Norman Foster and Jean Nouvel for Walbrook Square in the City of London will be held at Bucklersbury House, the building it is set to replace, on the 22nd and 23rd of June from 10am to 4pm.
On show will be a number of images plus models and other schematics that should give a revealing view of just what this project makes up. Welcomed warmly by some as blazingly futuristic and hideously OTT by others, it should help those in neither camp to make up their minds about the pros and cons of the scheme as well as give design enthusiasts a rare look into the teamwork of two of the world’s most famous architects.
Entry to the exhibition is free and the nearest station is Cannon Street, only 2 minutes walk away.

............

So Londoners, entry is free, I expect to see photos on this thread from all the people who went!

:cheers:

Just a reminder - the public exhibition is next week. Any of you guys going?

im going !

Why not? I'll see if I can make it.

What date, day, time, duration and location?

Cheers :)

Why not? I'll see if I can make it.

What date, day, time, duration and location?

Cheers :)
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=8765781&postcount=111

ooo Photos please, maybe there will be more renderings too!

We need diagrams and overhead plans, i'm still totally perplexed with this one.

im going too.

This pic by El Greco shows the site -


http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/8357/streetscape6au.jpg

It's the big white/blue Groundscraper isn't it?

Brief report from Skyscrapernews.con:

2006-06-06 > Walbrook Square London Exhibition

The exhibition for the public to oogle at the new plans by Norman Foster and Jean Nouvel for Walbrook Square in the City of London will be held at Bucklersbury House, the building it is set to replace, on the 22nd and 23rd of June from 10am to 4pm.
On show will be a number of images plus models and other schematics that should give a revealing view of just what this project makes up. Welcomed warmly by some as blazingly futuristic and hideously OTT by others, it should help those in neither camp to make up their minds about the pros and cons of the scheme as well as give design enthusiasts a rare look into the teamwork of two of the world’s most famous architects.
Entry to the exhibition is free and the nearest station is Cannon Street, only 2 minutes walk away.

............

So Londoners, entry is free, I expect to see photos on this thread from all the people who went!

:cheers:

I shall be popping out of the office at lunchtime and wandering along to take a peak. If its like the Beetham and Bishopsgates Tower exhibitions you are allowed to take photos, so will try and see if I can work my magic.

this is one of the few schemes that seems so initially off the wall I'm not sure what to expect at the display. I think an open mind is required. Hate to think what the Evening Standard will write if they send a correspondent.

Anybody taken a look ?

No, because it doesn't start until tomorrow. :)

anyone know where in bucklersbury house it is??? its a big place

The easiest way to get there is from Cannon street. Their exhibition space is in a small alleyway inside the complex, next to the Tanning Shop. The entrance to the alleyway is opposite to Alpha Bank on Cannon Street (just west of the train station).

My first reaction:

Pros

- Fantastic architecture; something really new and daring. It looks much better than on the few renders we have seen.
- New square, and a new street (albeit very narrow) cutting through the site
- Entrance to Bank Tube station from the site
- A lot of green on balconies and the roofs of the plinths
- High quality cladding
- They have the planning application on site. It contains all possible views and in general they are better than what I expected.
- The biggest Eyesore of London disappears
- Not too many entry lobbies but a lot of retail space (this seems to be the new thing to get something through the planning department of the City of London)
- The Mitras temple gets relocated but I am not sure whether it really is a huge improvement.

Contras:

- They are massively encroaching on the pavements. A lot of the current buildings are set back from the pavements
- The open space decreases. Even if they make a square, the open space on the site will still be considerably less than what is there today.
- They argue the plinth matches the height of the surrounding buildings. This is true for the 1 Poultry Building opposite on Queen Victoria street, but not for the other streets. I think with the narrowed pavement and the very high plinth Cannon street will have to be renamed Canyon street.
- The clouds are not curveous, they are in fact quite boxy, to me they look more like something coming from a Flinstones set than clouds.
- The square will get a lot of overhang from one of the clouds, I am not sure this is going to be a very pleasant square
- In general the new buildings are much higher than what is there today.
- Rather than integrating the nice neo-classical London Commerce Chambers building on the corner of Cannon and Queen Street, they are demolishing it
- Some trees get lost

I think if they would make the clouds more curveous (and thereby decrease the height of the tallest cloud), reduce the plinth heights to match the building height of each street (rather than picking out the highest point) and set back the buildings a little more from the street, I would be convinced. Right now I am not – despite the fact the architects have come up with something really fantastic. It is clear Legal and General have pushed back considerably on the architects.

I have not taken pictures because I still do not know how to download on this site. Could someone please tell me how to do this?

sign up to www.imageshack.us once thats done you can upload (they host it) and then under the tab MY IMAGES you can select the corosponding code, which is something lik [img]##############[img/] it'll have forums next to the box. just copy and paste the link in a post here (including the [img/]'s) and they'll show up.

Thank you!

A fair analysis, I think with something that isnt a cultural building or private fancy you always get the feeling of the client overpowering the architect rather than the other way around. Having said that the pros definitely shine through.

Thought this was a rather fab image, displayed at the exhibition

http://xs302.xs.to/xs302/06254/walbrook1.jpg

That is the most unprofessional professional rendering I have ever seen on the city. Where to begin!

Was particularly interested in the relocation of the Mithras temple

the existing location is on a raised plinth on the other side of the site from its original location:
http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06254/mithras1.jpg


The New Location will be in Walbrook Sq, shown here, this is just around the corner from Bank & Mansion House,

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06254/wallbrooksq2.jpg

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06254/walbrooksq.jpg

The square will be surrounded by cafes and bars

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06254/wallbrooksq3.jpg

The temple will be restored to its original level, with access via a glass canopy in the square. they used a pull out drawer to demonstrate this

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06254/mithras2.jpg

That makes Bishopsgate look tiny! It is the same height as Leadenhall on there!

Minerva, Bishopsgate, 122 Leadenhall and Willis are all in the wrong postion.

o yeah! :D ha in the excitement didnt notice

Here is a view from Bank, Mansion house

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06254/mansionhouse.jpg

And they have somehow mangaed to make it look very dull, Leadenhall, Heron and the Shard especially.

Looks weird...

The base is typically Foster - the usual encroachment overhang on the pavement, dull glass clad box, cheap bland detailing. The Nouvel bit is more interesting but this idea of the towers being 'clouds' on the skyline is bullshit.

To be honest it's not as visionary as I thought it was. And with Nouvel's One New Change listerally across the road I think this might be a bit overkill.

Minerva, Bishopsgate, 122 Leadenhall and Willis are all in the wrong postion.

Yeah bishopsgate looks crud in that, but look at the quality of finish on heron and shard, very realistic. Shame they researchers didn't do as good a job as the renderers'.

As for the project, hmmm, still don't like the port hole windows.

Hmm, I don't hate this now as much as I did, and seeing that render shows that it won't have as big as an impact on the skyline as I had feared...I'm still not sure about it overall though.

Rather than integrating the nice neo-classical London Commerce Chambers building on the corner of Cannon and Queen Street, they are demolishing it

If you are talking about the building circled in red in the picture below then I will not be supporting this project for that reason alone. London has had enough of it's classical architecture vandalished, why haven't they learnt? There are enough sites all around London with really drossy and boring 60s, 70s and 80s buildings ripe for redevelopment without us having to demolish any fine classical buildings.

http://i6.tinypic.com/1585ybs.jpg

In general it really doesn't seem all that good. It's far too bulky, the lower part of the building is too boxy and modernist looking, as well as that the lower part of the buildings in no way relate to the top and the square is tiny.
On a plus note, I still like the general shape of the tower, although it could do with being a fair bit slimer and taller. I had high hopes for this and I really dig the idea of something very futuristic and different on this site, this propsal has definately fallen short for me.

I like the lowrise part of walbrook square (not so much that weird addition on top of it though). I'm also not sure about the tower element. it's too funky for my taste. and it doesn't work well with the rest of the development (or the area). I'm glad it won't stick out too much. it's barely visible...

ah so, Potto beat me to the post, but hey ho, might as well post what I took and give my opinions. What time were you there Potto? There was a youngish bloke in jeans, rucksack and with a rather impressive looking camera at the same time Smoggie and my goodself were nosing around. Any of you guys?

The city plan:
http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/5831/img08089ed.jpg

the city skyline render:
http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/7766/img08078wy.jpg
funnily enough what I think you guys think was Minerva, I thought was a basic mock up of what may be the Portland Estates tower opposite 99 Bishopsgate and across the road from Heron. I think I'm clearly wrong though.

couple of compare and constrast renders, firstly looking down Watling Street
http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/7345/img08108tx.jpg
the chaps from the Foster office were really pushing the public realm element, and I must admit as a regular Watling Street / Bow Lane wanderer, the reopening of Watling Street as a path through the scheme will do wonders for accessibility and provide wonderful views of St Pauls from as far east as Walbrook.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/114/img08090pw.jpg
Apologies for the pants quality of this one - stop and snap was the motto, I was hungry!

edit: shit, those are out of focus. Whoops, less haste next time Jimbo.

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/4710/img08038fh.jpg

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8641/img08043fk.jpg

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/6577/img08113ko.jpg

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2317/img08124jb.jpg

my opinions:
- like public realm and opening up of routes through the development;
- going to be a metallic / aluminium cladding on the high parts, with mostly glass pannelling with those sort of fins similar to those seen on Bankside 123;
- Mithras temple element adds a bit of historic clout;
- don't like the round windows on the tower - look like strange portholes
- overall shape is an amorphous blob, not sure I'm warming to it, from distance looks like a heaving mass sat, sort of like the blob Camille from Red Dwarf series 4 (woah, geek alert) sat in the foreground to the city towers;

Empty site middle of next year - demolition to begin straight away regardless of whether it gets planning permission or not according to the Foster representative.

Holy shit... I think you may be right.

first time for everything. The architects running the show are very chatty and eager to discuss all the elements including lots of complicated stuff on the photo-voltic cladding etc. Anyone around tmrw - get thee down there even if its a bus or tube ride, makes you appreciate the sheer level of detail involved in the design and planning application.

The chap said they presented similar stuff to the press last month, so the lack of slagging comments from the Mail / Standard is a bit of a surprise. Perhaps the media wooing has been successful.

To be frank its replacing the most hulking and ugly building in the centre of the city IMO.

ah so, Potto beat me to the post, but hey ho, might as well post what I took and give my opinions. What time were you there Potto? There was a youngish bloke in jeans, rucksack and with a rather impressive looking camera at the same time Smoggie and my goodself were nosing around. Any of you guys?


Oh they were you! Ha im half in one of your pics too! How strange

I remember visiting Yosemite National Park in California where there is a famous mountain of a similar shape to this building, called the 'half-dome', so that's the name I think I'll give it.

Oh they were you! Ha im half in one of your pics too! How strange

whoops, accidently 'outed' half of what Potto looks like. Anonymity and cover blown old fruit.

haha, Fred Perry eh sport, and no suit, what are you doing in the city?

@ jake_the_peg - spot on, I see where you're coming from on that one.

Oh they were you! Ha im half in one of your pics too! How strange

amusingly we thought you might have been gothic!

Oh they were you! Ha im half in one of your pics too! How strange

A belated hello Potto! I was the one in pinstripe suit with a rather drastically shaved head. :wave:

I should have told the Foster people I was Gothic, perhaps they would have fed me the posh food that was on offer (or was it just decoration, I couldnt tell?!).


This model shows the expected light intensity falling on te building, the yellow areas will have photo-voltaic cladding similar to the sparkly crystal stuff shown below, the overall cladding on the cloud bits is glass and not metallic as some had predicted, although the photo cells might provide some points of light. 15% of the energy used will be from this renewable source.

The buildings will also use rainwater harvesting to irrigate the landscape and for the toilets and use the sustainable urban drainage system. THe landscaping of the roofs is a major part of the scheme so I dont think it is mere decoration.

http://xs302.xs.to/xs302/06254/lightintensity.jpg


http://xs302.xs.to/xs302/06254/photovoltaic.jpg


The cladding also incorporates a pattern of horizontal slats to shade the building in relation to the glare studies. Also the space between the main block and the 'cloud' was used as outdoor recreational space with a lot of greenery

http://xs302.xs.to/xs302/06254/shading.jpg

An interesting map showing the heavy presence of retail (RED) (mainly cafes/bars especially on the walbrook street facing sides. BLUE shows the office entrances and notice the new Underground entrance


http://xs302.xs.to/xs302/06254/uses.jpg

This building next to Bucklersbury House on Cannon St is also going to be redeveloped by Foster:

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06254/newfoster.jpg

how did you guyys find it. we spent half an hour looking for that fucking exhibition, the people at legal and general didnt know where it was and everyone else gave us directions that just made us walk around and round the building. waste of fucking time.
potto, jimbo, can i loot your pics please?

If you are talking about the building circled in red in the picture below then I will not be supporting this project for that reason alone. London has had enough of it's classical architecture vandalished, why haven't they learnt? There are enough sites all around London with really drossy and boring 60s, 70s and 80s buildings ripe for redevelopment without us having to demolish any fine classical buildings.

http://i6.tinypic.com/1585ybs.jpg

In general it really doesn't seem all that good. It's far too bulky, the lower part of the building is too boxy and modernist looking, as well as that the lower part of the buildings in no way relate to the top and the square is tiny.
On a plus note, I still like the general shape of the tower, although it could do with being a fair bit slimer and taller. I had high hopes for this and I really dig the idea of something very futuristic and different on this site, this propsal has definately fallen short for me.

I think that the building remains, see how the scheme steps down from the height of 1 Poultry to a lower level more inkeeping with the Victorian block next door

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06255/massing.jpg

how did you guyys find it. we spent half an hour looking for that fucking exhibition, the people at legal and general didnt know where it was and everyone else gave us directions that just made us walk around and round the building. waste of fucking time.
potto, jimbo, can i loot your pics please?

Sure, I found it quite difficult to find too, typical 60s design! Asked a girl in some security side entrance and she pointed across the lane to the entrance, think i would have walked past it!

The development also realises the old street pattern, the new streets do not precisely follow the old pattern but it is close:

Looking down from St Pauls Cathedral through the development towards the new square at the other end. Note the step-down between the two blocks

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06255/stpauls-newlane.jpg


A second old street realised again, this time connecting the New Sq with the
existing pedestrian route that runs through 1 Poultry into Poultry (street)

http://xs302.xs.to/xs302/06255/newlane2y.jpg

If you are talking about the building circled in red in the picture below then I will not be supporting this project for that reason alone. London has had enough of it's classical architecture vandalished, why haven't they learnt? There are enough sites all around London with really drossy and boring 60s, 70s and 80s buildings ripe for redevelopment without us having to demolish any fine classical buildings.

http://i6.tinypic.com/1585ybs.jpg

In general it really doesn't seem all that good. It's far too bulky, the lower part of the building is too boxy and modernist looking, as well as that the lower part of the buildings in no way relate to the top and the square is tiny.
On a plus note, I still like the general shape of the tower, although it could do with being a fair bit slimer and taller. I had high hopes for this and I really dig the idea of something very futuristic and different on this site, this propsal has definately fallen short for me.

No fortunately it is not that building although given the height of the plint the view from that angle is going to be messy (so that is why they do not show it). The building they are taking out is neo-classical, I would say from the 30s, not a great landmark but still a nice building in natural stone. They could have been a bit more creative by incorporating it. It is the old London Chambers of Commerce building on the corner of Cannon and Queen street. All other buildings on that site are ugly 60s buildings.

Nope, I was reserving judgement on this one till I saw better renders of it, and I have now seen the building from almost every angle.....and I do not like it! It is the wrong hieght, shape, colour, material etc for the area it is in, the design is typcial Foster (in his more recent years) trying to be iconic, loading the place with glass, trying to have a unique design that just looks wierd and wrong! What's happened to you Foster....???

Not terrible looking I guess, but deffinietly not one I like or am hoping gets built!

The View From the River, note the greenery to break up the massing

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06255/riverview.jpg


An interesting symmetrical formation, echoes of renaissance St Pauls?

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06255/symmetry.jpg


I quite like this part next to the square

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06255/view4.jpg

Nope, I was reserving judgement on this one till I saw better renders of it, and I have now seen the building from almost every angle.....and I do not like it! It is the wrong hieght, shape, colour, material etc for the area it is in, the design is typcial Foster (in his more recent years) trying to be iconic, loading the place with glass, trying to have a unique design that just looks wierd and wrong! What's happened to you Foster....???

Not terrible looking I guess, but deffinietly not one I like or am hoping gets built!

I agree with people when they say that they were hoping for something even more futuristic (especially the use of the 'cloud' terminology) but I think we have quite a fascinating piece of design here and a thorough, intelligent thought process that I wish had existed before we got all the 60s modernist and 80s/90s post modern dross that has filled the streets around here and the rest of the country! I feel that this could be far superior to Cardinal Place and that seemed to get quite a lot of support on here.

I quite like this part next to the square

http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06255/view4.jpg

So do i, it's quite funky.

Whats the height for the main part, on some of the models it looks to me around 125m but on that main large render of the city it looks about 100m, am i being a square here? I have to say I really like it from some angles, and I like that I have to think about it as well. It is quite challenging and dynamic.

The biggest problem for me (and I think for everyone) is how it seems Foster and Nouvel designed two seperate structures and then just shoved them together. I'd like more of a personal relationship between the two architects and their styles, rather than Foster doing the ground buildings and Nouvel the clouds.

For example, I like how the Foster cladding reaches into the cloud as demonstrated above. But where does the Nouvel style do the same to the Foster buildings? It doesn't. The relationship doesn't seem symbiotic and very much one way.

The only other complete hideous piece of urban design in this I can see is the size of the pavements surrounding it. They need to be larger and the 'walls' of the buildings need to be broken up more rather than walls of glass (this is where Nouvel should have excelled).

In other words, I'd have liked the architecs to have worked on the opposing parts - Nouvel do the street level (which he is very good at) and Foster do the tower portion (which he seems to be good at).

Im not sure what to make of this scheme. Looks fantastic & very futuristic - looks like it deserves to be Tokyo. Its a marked improvement on the old 60's buildings in a very prominent site - I think when/if its built it will have a lot of people, both locals & tourists taking a look at it.

Looking at the pictures it seems strange that the tower element is closer to St Pauls - i would have thought it would be along the eastern edge of the development. The new streets look very narrow but I think that will add to the drama- Remember they are creating new streets as now you cant walk through the site . I think the tower element is the weakest part of it & doesn't really fit in but overall I like this scheme.

There will be an amazing view of this & the future city from the rof gardens of 1 poultry in a few years.

On a slightly less serious note- Is it just me or does this look like some sort of futuristic demonic cyborg looking out across to St Pauls -;)

http://i3.tinypic.com/15dxpoo.jpg

lol great pic! Looks a little like a cylon



http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/4710/img08038fh.jpg


It is very futuristic, I quite like it! It certainly is iconic! This could be the next Loyds building!

There are a few problems that need addressing but other than that it seems great, I particularly like the way they have made the temple ruins a central feature, and created a new square. this could attract some tourists, I know when I visit London I would like to see it!

And thanks guys for going and getting all those great pics!

Also mentioned was the idea of having a dramtic piece of stained glass on the highlighted section below... I presume this was represented on the model by those random pieces or board stuck on the glass

http://xs302.xs.to/xs302/06255/newlane3.jpg

I hope this scheme goes ahead. It isnt as tall but it just as radical as the Bishopsgate tower or LBT

I know the Temple is buried back to its original location, but I do hope you'll be able to see it through the ground from outside - what I like about the current situation (if anything) is it is accessible 24 hours a day.

A Tholian from Star Trek.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/images/1/1c/MirrorTholian.jpg

I know the Temple is buried back to its original location, but I do hope you'll be able to see it through the ground from outside - what I like about the current situation (if anything) is it is accessible 24 hours a day.

Theres some similar ruins next to FOsters spitalfields market development with access to an underground room to see the ruins & I think , but cant remember theres a think glass window embedded in the floor at ground level to look through as well.

Thank you to all of you for the pictures.

this project is really amazing, I dont think it fits very well, but this is London!
I like its presence in the skyline.

Nice project. Landmark.

Thats one of the wonders of London, things dont look right one minute and then there is sightlines protecting them the next! (by minutes I mean decades of course;))

Seriously almost anything goes in London and integrates well, providing it is of a high quality and gives something back to the public, like this scheme.

I think it looks a bit like Darth Vader's helmet myself.

i didnt care much for this at first but it looks super smart in that panoramic, it will compliment the proposed jean nouvel near St pauls. The revised pano with a lot of the propsals looks great

On a slightly less serious note- Is it just me or does this look like some sort of futuristic demonic cyborg looking out across to St Pauls -;)

http://i3.tinypic.com/15dxpoo.jpg

It's a modern sphinx from that angle.

Yeah! Youre good at noticing stuff.

sounds great: A modern-day sphinx!

Well, saying modern it doesnt actually look like it's from this time period!

It looks fantastic, build it, this has convinced me

For some reason I thought it was a much taller proposal than it is, seeing it in a better context, along with the high quality model makes me.. like it, lol.. Its gone through my planning dept with approval, lol.

Amazing building. I love it, it's weird.

how did you guyys find it. we spent half an hour looking for that fucking exhibition, the people at legal and general didnt know where it was and everyone else gave us directions that just made us walk around and round the building. waste of fucking time.
potto, jimbo, can i loot your pics please?


it wasn't the most evident, just on the little parade of shops called Budge Row off Cannon Street, but we found it without too much of a hassle.

Feel free to use my pics, though Pottos are much better!

Glad people are coming round to this a little. Its that whole thing about jumping to conclusions and making huge assumptions based on one grainy render scanned from a newspaper. Compare it to the quality of design and presentation made at these sort of events and you get a much better perspective from which to make an informed decision.

Whilst I see all the merits, I still can't make my mind up. Just the organic shape seems strange and out of context. But them in terms of the towers proposed for London, do we have a context anymore. Fruitbasket here we come.

thanks jimbo but i think ill stick with pottos for now as ive already downloaded them as they are bigger. im with you, i can see the merits of the scheme but im very unsure of whether its "right" or not. this is a question of personal aesthetics. my main issue is the tall building that looks i suppose like a futuristic hi-fi speaker... from the front im not sure it works.

I've had some time to make up my mind since seeing the exhibition and like it very much. I think the opening up of public realm and the restoration of the St Pauls sightlines will have a very positive effect on this part of the city, plus it looks very funky and iconic.

The architect that Jimbo and myself were talking too also mentioned a river of light in the basement tracing the route of one of Londons lost rivers! Nice attention to historic detail.

the walbrook runs under the site doesnt it?

I absolutely hate it. I think it is an inelegant, ugly mass. The 'clouds' concept is almost farcical, they look like Cubist bonnets...grotesque nonsense and absurd. I can barely form words to describe how poor the scheme looks - it has an overbearing oppressive feel, an unformed mass, like the beginning of a unfinished sculpture when the artist has just begun to chip away at the block. From some angles it has the appearance of some kind of alien headquarters...its creepy.
I hope its thrown out on its ear, and something that simply isn't ugly replaces it.

it has an overbearing oppressive feel, an unformed mass, like the beginning of a unfinished sculpture when the artist has just begun to chip away at the block. From some angles it has the appearance of some kind of alien headquarters...its creepy.

That's exactly why I like it.

Why can't architecture push the boundaries just as art, fashion, music and film do?

If anything I'd love to see it taller to create more open space on the pavements, but apart from that I love it. It's like a stone mountain obelisk rising out of the flat skyline of Cannon Street, an alien edifice that has arisen out of the ground, warped out of shape and cracked open to reveal the ruins of the Temple below - and if they get this 'shimmering' cladding correct, it will look amazing.

the walbrook runs under the site doesnt it?

Yes, down the eastern side (there's a road called Walbrook which was created when it was filled in). The river is still there underground, it floods some of the buildings it runs under after heavy rain.

The Temple was built on its banks in 3AD.

the temple cant have been built in 3ad. britain was not under roman occupation then.
one thing that hasnt been mentioned in this thread is nouvel and his cladding ideas. tour sans fin was a great example of this, the guy likes messing with transparency and transuclency.

Temple Of Mithras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Mithras%2C_London)

Had a long chat with one of the chaps working there. He said that the City of London will make their planning decision in February 2007. Vacant possession of the site will be late 2007 and demolition will begin shortly after.

A pre-let of around 25% will be sought before construction of any individual building and a construction timetable of three years is about right if all the buildings are built at once. He said an alternative timetable in which the buildings are built in phases could take up to six years with the foundations of all four buildings plus the complete construction of the tower building the first phase. The other three would then be built as tenants were lined up.

The chap said that negotiations were continuing with the Mayors office about the buildings energy credentials since the guidelines have recently changed ruling that all new buildings should have 20% energy sustainability and Walbrook Square was submitted when 10% was the rule (Walbrook Square has slightly more than 10% but not close to 20%).

The solar panals only contribute 2% of the projects actual energy needs with most of the rest of the green credentials coming from water cooling bore holes.

Originally Posted by chest:
'it has an overbearing oppressive feel, an unformed mass, like the beginning of a unfinished sculpture when the artist has just begun to chip away at the block. From some angles it has the appearance of some kind of alien headquarters...its creepy.'

Originally Posted by DarJoLe:
'That's exactly why I like it.
Why can't architecture push the boundaries just as art, fashion, music and film do?'



I don't believe it's pushing any boundaries, its ugly and to be honest ' a bit rubbish'.

Do you know what I really long for - a beautiful, elegant well designed skyscraper that conjurs up some of the glamour and excitement that skyscrapers captured in early 1930's New York - Swiss Re managed it

but this....
like a much taller building that's melted
or Darth Vaders bashed in head plonked on a plinth...


http://xs102.xs.to/xs102/06255/riverview.jpg

I dont know, i dont think it would be bad at all if it weren't for that bloody lump infront of it that blocks the towers transition to the ground.

View of the site from Tower 42:


http://www.nicholashodder.com/galleries/london/IMG_1571.jpg

is that a load of people having a party on top of poultry building?? lol

its a popular bar, open to the public, usually very busy though

http://www.greenroofs.com/images/sg-no_1_poultry_garden_c.jpg

I like it

from http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=375

Foster and Partners


A unique architectural partnership between the practices of Norman Foster and Jean Nouvel
Legal & General have submitted plans for a striking new office and retail development, to be known as ‘Walbrook Square’ in the heart of London. Designed by Atelier Foster Nouvel, The project incorporates approximately 1 million sq ft net floorspace on the 3.7 acre site, with 95,000 sq ft of retail and restaurant floorspace and 875,000 sq ft of office space and will be composed of four buildings each with their own distinct character but which together read as a cluster. The development is centred on the creation of a new public square and new streets based on historic routes through the site, which will allow increased public access. Also incorporated into Walbrook Square will be a publicly accessible exhibition space to house remains of the Roman Temple of Mithras.

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/project/uploaded_files/375_walbrook.jpg

Took these pics of the site today.

I really can't wait to see this demolished -


http://i2.tinypic.com/1zqv97o.jpg


http://www.willfox.com/images2/london/6/29.jpg

That is truly hidious. Southend has a cluster of those.

It looks most unappealing to me too - but I really like the current proposal for this scheme tthat will take its place. A good reminder that its not all about height - this is really striking architecture, and will IMO augment the city.

The plannign docs online

cool pic of thes site viewed from above

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov.uk:90/WAM/doc/Drawing-59366.pdf?extension=.pdf&wmTransparency=0&id=59366&wmLocation=0&location=livevolume1&contentType=application%2Fpdf&wmName=&pageCount=1

It shows how huge the overall site really is:

http://i7.tinypic.com/24ec5yp.jpg

When can we expect a rendering of this new development in relation to the skyline?

http://www.greenroofs.com/images/sg-no_1_poultry_garden_c.jpg

Wow! What's this place called I wanna go there where do I get some info from?

Has there been any news on this baby? I'm loving it even more since it got a rather good write up in the Guardian a few weeks back and is about the only groundscraper I'm feeling anything for.

The planning decision is expected in February 2007.

As reported in the Shard thread it has been shortlisted by JP Morgan as a potential new home although it will need some design changes to accomodate the size of trading floors they need.

Its over 100m tall so I prefer to think of it as a midrise.

I'm still undecided about this scheme. It's rather weird looking, to say the least.

The planning decision is expected in February 2007.

As reported in the Shard thread it has been shortlisted by JP Morgan as a potential new home although it will need some design changes to accomodate the size of trading floors they need.

Its over 100m tall so I prefer to think of it as a midrise.


I hope they wont demand something radically different. I mean larger floorplates would mean fat overbearing groundscrapers...

I love this project in its present form!

although it will need some design changes to accomodate the size of trading floors they need.

That will be a complete disaster for this scheme. The whole point of this development is to recreate the narrow village City streets of yesteryear, and increasing the the size floorplates will mean the loss of these.

There are numerous other groundscraper schemes in the City that are more advanced than this which surely could accomodate what they want. I really hope they choose one of them over this finely crafted beauty.

Nouvel is a top quality architect whose speciality is frosted glass. His most similar project to this one is the Dentsu headquarters building in Shiodome, Tokyo. I have a few photos of this 700 ft beauty which I took last week when I was in Tokyo. I have no doubt that Walbrook Square will be a high quality, but slightly quirky addition to the City of London architectural scene.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/dominiccherry1/UpthesideofDentsuCustom.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/dominiccherry1/IMG_6750Custom.jpg

Frosted glass isn't anything new, in fact I've seen better on that small corner building that was completed last year in the Broadgate Complex.

Whilst I appreciate his enthusiasm for at least trying to match the cladding of a building to the grey sky behind it (and god, in London I wish this happened more) to me it seems a bit gimmicky and never really works that well.

For me though, this development is all about the abstract shapes on the skyline, and the abundant use of foliage, which if chosen correctly, will look fantastic on the buildings.

yeah to me it is the best office-based midrise to appear. I find the apparant inability to have anything but a flat roof in office buiildings of a decent size one of the worst things to happen to architecture in London. It really drowned out the finesse in the existing skyline. Walbrook will add some important skyline detail with its domes which are intrinsic to the design and not post modern kitsche or a clumsy attempt to appear different.

Sitback, it looks like Number One, Poultry.

so whats the link for the planning application then?

Any news on this development? The current building is just so amazingly ugly so the sooner it gets demolished, the better.

No, nothing else has come to light. We just have to wait for the planning decision early next year followed by potential demolition before the end of 2007. Construction depends on whether the developers go with a spec build or wait for a prelet.

The developer was reported to be in negociations with JP Morgan for 600,000 sqft prelet. However, this would involve some modifications to the proposed scheme.

This proposal really excites me. I love everything about it, from the new public square and the "reclaimed streets", to the new public exhibition space for the Roman Temple, which will effectively re-unite Londoners with a fascinating piece of their history........and then there is the building itself, all those strange unformed shapes, almost alien-looking, but with an organic feel to it. This is architecture as art, ambitious but without the ego. I also think that this building will still be loved and admired 30 years from now, in fact I think it will still be there 100 years from now, it's that good.

Just one more thing, this might sound a little strange, but for some reason this building really reminds me of the Great Sphinx of Giza! Perhaps it will become London's own Sphinx and guard the surrounding skyscrapers the way that the Sphinx does with the Great Pyramids! ;)

the temple cant have been built in 3ad. britain was not under roman occupation then.
.


Yep! 63AD for the Romans.....it was an early christian church DarJole

Any news on this development? The current building is just so amazingly ugly so the sooner it gets demolished, the better.

Legal and General are the current main occupiers along with Jones Lang LaSalle and Sumitomo (Japanese Bank).

L&G move to their new headquarters (the site of the old Austral House, and the new building that has cladding that looks rather like Centrepoint) next year. I'd expect the rest of the leases will start to expire and the occupants start to move out. Don't worry sport, us Londoners will keep you updated as the units become vacant and no doubt we'll see the demolition blokes in before the end of 2007.

Sumitomo Mitsui also moved out I think. btw the building is hideous but interiors are luxuous.

Are we sure that this is a building that they're planning on constructing here and not some giant robot that they're going to set lose on london?

oh btw i absolutly love these buildings. Hope they get built. Completely unique and just what london needs IMO.

Legal and General are the current main occupiers along with Jones Lang LaSalle and Sumitomo (Japanese Bank).

L&G move to their new headquarters (the site of the old Austral House, and the new building that has cladding that looks rather like Centrepoint) next year. I'd expect the rest of the leases will start to expire and the occupants start to move out. Don't worry sport, us Londoners will keep you updated as the units become vacant and no doubt we'll see the demolition blokes in before the end of 2007.

Thanks :)

Sumitomo Mitsui also moved out I think. btw the building is hideous but interiors are luxuous.


At Mitsui maybe but when I worked here at L&G years ago it was a typical 60's layout & nothing luxurious about it -lol.

I originally found the overall structure to be awkward...

But having imagined what it would feel like at ground level, i cant help but think this would be an incredibly exciting addition to the forward march of the city of london...

... and to get get rid of the current hideous buildings is a real triumph!

Can someone posts all the renders again?

Can someone posts all the renders again?

here you are sport, from the public consultation:

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/114/img08090pw.jpg

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/6577/img08113ko.jpg

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/7766/img08078wy.jpg

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8641/img08043fk.jpg

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/4710/img08038fh.jpg

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/5831/img08089ed.jpg

I think I can see the plan....the many facets of the building mean it is actualy very much smaller on the horizon than it actually is...light reflects off of the small faceted shapes whilst other sides do not and therefore you end up with unusual shapes that are not normally acossiated with buldings in ones brain?

you mean like a stealth bomber?!

Yes..but this one may work!

Is this the building it is replacing or is this another one?

http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/808/1793137345bfe02e58eop4.jpg (http://img348.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1793137345bfe02e58eop4.jpg)

In a strange way from the overhead image it looks like its parodying St Pauls.

Is this the building it is replacing or is this another one?

http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/808/1793137345bfe02e58eop4.jpg (http://img348.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1793137345bfe02e58eop4.jpg)

yes, the boxy concrete and blue edifice. That will be an epic demolition job as well. Probably quite modern and snazzy in the 1960s, but as times have changed, not regarded as a monolithic giant with wind tunnels paths and underpasses around it.

It completely ruins the view of that street, thank God it will be gone soon.

It completely ruins the view of that street, thank God it will be gone soon.


Sorry SuomiPoika, but why do you think it will get better? The new buildings will be even more overbearing (both higher and leaving less open space). Sure, they will look modern and new (as these 60s buildings once did) but they do as little effort to fit in. Also, what people often forget that the site for this new development is not only ugly 60s buildings but some very nice portland stone buildings (like the Chambers of Commerce) that will not be retained but demolished for us to get another Tesco glass facade.

Agreed...especially the Portland Stone bit but...I think this design is between the devil & the deep blue ie: Local appropriateness and protected heritage views...they have concentrated on the latter. I think that could work....lots of office space and height that, due, to my point above may not impact the skyline as much as a traditional buildings. I am keen to see if this clear attempt to break up a buildings impact on a skyline works.

It can´t get any worse!

And btw. I don´t agree with the idea that we´re making the mistakes of the 60s and 70s all over again. There are some new hideous buildings yes, but overall the designs are much better than they use to be. In the 60s and 70s all buildings constructed were ment to be as practical and conveniant as possible whereas architects and designers today usually have the streetlevel experience and beauty in mind when drawing.

^ Yes but this proposal really is a hideous as what it will replace.

^ Yes but this proposal really is a hideous as what it will replace.

I suppose it has a resemblance to terminator 2...when the baddy robot melted. :) I am surpised that I find something intruiging despite my conservative building tastes.

^ Yes but this proposal really is a hideous as what it will replace.

What? Do you honestly think that? Nothing beats the current blocky piece of shit in terms of ugliness.

Don't know what to make of this one - it looks like two schemes stuck together. At street level we get a conventional and rather dull glass box and then these, almost separate, very unconventional buildings are plonked on top of the boxes, seemingly not relating to their bases at all.

thats what i LIKE about it though. It's daring and it's different.

thats what i LIKE about it though. It's daring and it's different.

Agreed. I'm surprised at how many negative comments keep cropping up actually.........and how can people say that it's no better then the concrete turd already there?! Outrageous!!!

This will be a unique building and will look amazing at both street level and on the skyline. OK?!!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: ;)

Just because it's better doesn't mean people should except it though, does it. Im standing for the viewpoint that it's a good building, definitely not brilliant though

the trouble with these high profile buildings like beetham, the darleks, fenchurch and Walbrook is that hell of a lot of thought and attention to detail has gone into them, often rectifying past mistakes and harnessing current knowledge about urban space.... far more so than your run of the mill build you see built in every town every other month in the country. So although some find the visuals challenging I think that we should give them a chance.

^^ Once again I agree with Potto. The gripe I have with Fenchurch street is the location- it is just too close to the river and far from the main cluster. Build the bloomin thing in CW! - What CW needs is one or two iconic and challenging buildings - just one or two would really lift it onto a whole new level.:)

the trouble with these high profile buildings like beetham, the darleks, fenchurch and Walbrook is that hell of a lot of thought and attention to detail has gone into them, often rectifying past mistakes and harnessing current knowledge about urban space.... far more so than your run of the mill build you see built in every town every other month in the country. So although some find the visuals challenging I think that we should give them a chance.


Yeah, just like MoreLondon, right. I must say any visitor I take to the Tower has commented to me on it. And the comments are not particularly flattery for British architecture or planning. With regards to the "hell of a lot of thought and attention to detail has gone into them", yes that's true, by greedy developers on how they can squeeze every molecule of space out of a site to the detriment of all of us.

Trying not to apoloigise for my first post on this site, but the only reason I signed up to a forum that I've long enjoyed from the sidelines is pure bewilderment that this project is not more appreciated. I think it is stunning, unique and inventive. If I could get any building underway in London outisde the Leadenhall cheese grater this would be the one. I'm not even going to down the road of what it is replacing because that ought to be a no-brainer.