Demolition has started.

The current 100m tower (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=105), the nearest to St Paul's cathedral when viewed from Waterloo Bridge, is being replaced by a new 74m building (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=252). Developer is RBS.

For what seems such an unremarkable building, its removal from the skyline will make a huge difference, creating a distinct space between St Paul's and the future defined City cluster which will seperate and define the two on the skyline from Waterloo Bridge.

I'm pleased this is going, it's been an eyesore for a long time now, i'm sure some people are partial to it but i've always felt that a few of the older mid
rise's have been a bit of an embarrasment.

The new project should look clean and tidy.

This will be the tallest office demolition ever carried out in the UK unless I'm mistaken.

Wasn't there a similar in size and appearence tower in the city that was demolished at some point? really can't remember what that was called but am sure i read that at it's time it was the tallest ever demolished (in the uk)

The new drapers garden is very nice.

Wasn't there a similar in size and appearence tower in the city that was demolished at some point? really can't remember what that was called but am sure i read that at it's time it was the tallest ever demolished (in the uk)


99 Bishopsgate looked similar to Drapers Gardens before it got obliterated in the IRA Bishopsgate bomb, it got reclad and reopened in the late 1990's.

No what i actually was reffering to was limebank house which was 93m, it too was in the city, looked a bit like 20 fenchurch.

Not a fan of the new drapers.. Alas, Its one step forward n two back for the city..

I will truely miss this building....I wish it was not so close to st.pauls...still I helped to get it a longer life back in the eighties! I also fear a situation that for every new tower we gain, we lose one somewhere else....what would be the point of that...just less towers to loathe or love!

The problem (from the perspective of the developers) with the old building was that it only occupied 1/4 of the total site. Basically the whole site is covered by a huge plinth (mainly garages and plant) but the main building's footprint is quite small in comparison. Banks want to have big trading floors and that is what the new building will provide. To be honest, whilst the building is probably one fo the finer 60's buildings, the current plinth does not relate to the surrounding buildings at all.

woohoo!

out with the old and in with the new

glad to see the back of this disgraceful building, the new one looks very nice :)

woohoo!

out with the old and in with the new

glad to see the back of this disgraceful building, the new one looks very nice :)
What's "disgraceful" about it?

I think it's one of the best midrises in the City.

No what i actually was reffering to was limebank house which was 93m, it too was in the city, looked a bit like 20 fenchurch.
You can see Limebank House on the far left of this pic, taken from the Monument -


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers2/lloyds/8.jpg

I understand a bit more now, but I still wish they would just remodel the top to make it less intrusive and use the space at the base and sell apartments in it.

Im sad to see this one go to, it's definately one of the better 60s midrises, I far rather that lump of crap Angel Court be demolished, I understand the beef with the way it impinges on the dome of St. Pauls, but still. I also don't want the city to lose all it's mid-rises from the 60s/70s, I think they will form an intersting contrast when we get the likes of 122, heron, bishopsgate tower, they represent a stage in the evolution of the City skyline.

I too wish it wasnt going, I know its shabby but it is 100m tall and just needs sand blasting- like most concrete buildings (esp Guys)

Trouble is, all of the 60/70's midrise's generally look poor, even st helens which is arguably the best of the lot really start's to look dated now, it's hard to imagine that any of these complimented the city when situated next to the splender of the Georgian/regency/victorian buildings around them.

I really like the new building

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/252DrapersGardensRedevelopment_pic2.jpg

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/252DrapersGardensRedevelopment_pic1.jpg

The tgreen space is excellent:)

Its a shame, I like Draper's Gardens and would place it second behind Centrepoint in my list of favourite concrete towers in London. I think it has an elegant floorplate, but I do agree that its too intrusive on St Paul's viewed from Waterloo Bridge. I'm dubious about replacing it with something just 26m shorter though, its still a pretty hefty height and will still have an impact on St Paul's.

Hopefully during demolition it'll topple over and take out Angel Court too?

I dont know what the complaining is about. The new building is shorter ?? so what ??? its still 76 m and far bigger and more grand. The fact it steps back is also a fantastic attribute.

great news. drapers gardens and 20 fenchurch street are two of the dreariest blots on the skyline.

with swiss re around and others to come it's like the skyline's shaping up to be a decent looking lady, but with drapers and fenchurch around it's always going to be a decent looking lady with an unappealing edge, like bad teeth. no one likes bad teeth, not even on a looker.

What's "disgraceful" about it?

I think it's one of the best midrises in the City.

it is bland and boring and quite frankly the city is better without this type of building

especially when there is a much nicer midrise replacing it

:)

From the time it takes to knock this down could we estimate how long it would take to demolish the building LBT will stand on?

In some ways I will miss this building, I like its shape and the greenish glass in it.

Timo I ACTUALLY agree with you... partly.

I didnt REALLY mind the current Drapers Gardens building, but it could not stay like that in its current state. I think the replacement is excellent

i am always right

you will learn this over time

I admited you were right once dont push your luck;)

yes maybe that was pushing my luck a little bit

the proof will be in the pisshole though as they say

aye

I actually quite like the look of this new Drapers gardens building. It has a classical look to it, at the same time looking shiney new and modern, and it isn't a) a dull box or b) another crazy curly wurly wanna-be iconic building. very pleased with it in fact, and the height reduction from the original doesn't botehr me at all, as it shoukd help improve the skyline and focus more attension on the bigger skysrapers.

As for the building being demolished....well, it isn't a gastly awful building, and when you actually take an in depth look at it, it's a decent enough midrise/skyscraper....as skyscrapers go anyway, but it looks a little outdated, and the concrete top really spoils it for me.

:cheers:

A couple of pics of the existing building, for posterity. Not bad! :(

As I said, I am glad the view of St Paul's from Waterloo Bridge will be drastically improved, but I still think its a shame this building is being demolished when there's plenty I'd sooner see go.

Front

http://i4.tinypic.com/10em06d.jpg

Side

http://i4.tinypic.com/10em2j4.jpg

Angle

http://i4.tinypic.com/10em3gi.jpg

From the Monument:


http://www.willfox.com/images/london/4/33.jpg

I think the trouble with the City midrises, particularly the Draper Gardens end is that they all had the same height and it just looked really really bad when viewing the skyline

EH tried to have this building listed according to skyscrapernews!

I am not surprised when you consider the Trellick Tower and Centrepoint already are. From a distance this tower looks awful but close up (bar the podium) it wasnt that bad at all.

EH tried to have this building listed according to skyscrapernews!

:rofl:

Jesus! You couldn't make it up!!!

I thought the whole idea of demolishing DG was as a form of appeasement to EH et al... removing the visually damaging western edge to the City cluster in return for muted support of taller buildings further east?

I think the trouble with the City midrises, particularly the Draper Gardens end is that they all had the same height and it just looked really really bad when viewing the skyline

I can't even begin to imagine how lame the City 'cluster' looked pre-Natwest Tower... a drab wall of 100m-tall towers with St Helens as a 'pinnacle' by a few yards. Anyone got any shots? Come to think of it I've never seen any construction photos of the Natwest Tower or any other of London's towers pre-Canary Wharf for that matter.

I'm right in thinking that Angel Court and the Natwest Tower were both u/c at the same time right?

That means that the 'skyline' consisted of Drapers, Stock Exchange, Limebank, 20 Fenchurch St and St Helens... :puke:

I can't even begin to imagine how lame the City 'cluster' looked pre-Natwest Tower... a drab wall of 100m-tall towers with St Helens as a 'pinnacle' by a few yards. Anyone got any shots? Come to think of it I've never seen any construction photos of the Natwest Tower or any other of London's towers pre-Canary Wharf for that matter.

I'm right in thinking that Angel Court and the Natwest Tower were both u/c at the same time right?

That means that the 'skyline' consisted of Drapers, Stock Exchange, Limebank, 20 Fenchurch St and St Helens... :puke:
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images.php?se=nse&ref=846&idi=City+of+London+in+1974


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/846CityofLondonin1974_pic1.jpg

A few years later -


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers2/t42/uc/9.jpg



More pics of NatWest under construction can be found here:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=341508

From the Monument:
http://www.willfox.com/images/london/4/33.jpg
I hink I am right in saying that those 3 md rise skyscrapers in the picure there are all being developed on. The bworn one on the left (can't remember the name) is getting a height increase and a re-cladding; the middle one is obviously the focus of this thread and is getting demolished to be replaced with the 76m new Drapers Gardens; and the one on the right-the old stock exchange building-is verrrrrry slowly getting a much much needed reclad. I think that's all correct...?

I know we all say this this all the time, but can you actually imagine how this skyline is gonna look in about 6 years, with these and a few other midrises being built or developed, then Heron, Leadenhall and DIFA clustering around Swiss Re and T42...with 20 fenchurch st....and LBT not too far away and St Pauls stadning there totally cleaned and refurbished!!!!

:drool:

:cheers:

hmmm, partially agree - but I quite like it, especially those wonderful photos tubeman posted. Feel abit sorry for Richard Seifert - his designs were concrete and rather brutal, but certainly unique in their time.

He died in 2001 aged 90, and I'm sure he'd be rather upset to see some of his creations biting the dust.

This is his obituary from the Guardian:

Workaholic architect whose tall towers changed the urban skyline of Britain and Europe

Martin Pawley
Monday October 29, 2001
The Guardian


Centre Point: the proud product of a number of architects

The death, at the age of 90, of the architect Richard Seifert, the designer of Centre Point and the Natwest Tower - still the tallest building in the City of London - marks the end of one of the great buccaneering eras of office building in Britain.
Though a later arrival on the scene than some of his competitors, through serendipitous connections and hard work Seifert soon became an awe-inspiring figure in the world of commercial development. From the early 1960s until his retirement in the 1980s, his reputation for speed and mastery of planning law made him the doyen of commercial architects, not merely in London but also in provincial cities, and later in mainland Europe as well.


A designer of eclectic talents, he produced work that gradually evolved from neo-classic orthodoxy to an expressionistic modernism, driven by a powerful ambition that kept him beyond the pale, as far as the stylistic arbiters of the profession were concerned, for much of his professional life. Only in retirement did he begin to be accorded the respect and admiration to which the force and drama of his work entitled him.
Born Reuben (later Robin, though usually called Richard) Seifert into a Swiss-Jewish family that subsequently moved to London, he was one of the 10 children of a cinema manager. He conceived the desire to become an architect at an early age, and, in 1927, won a scholarship to the Bartlett school of architecture in the University of London.

He graduated in 1933 and, after a brief apprenticeship as a trainee surveyor and architectural assistant, set up in practice on his own, drawing up modest, north London speculative housing schemes of traditional appearance for fixed fees. He first attracted professional attention in 1939 when he won second prize in a competition for the design of a façade for the recently established Building Centre in Store Street, off Tottenham Court Road.

During the second world war, Seifert served in India and Burma with the Royal Engineers, attaining the rank of colonel, a soubriquet that followed him into the postwar world as he resumed practice in London. In 1947, he designed a large factory building for Rival Lamps, and, in 1956, an imposing neo-classic building for Woolworths in Marylebone Road.

But it was not until 1960 that his taste for the spectacular emerged in the design of Tolworth House, a 22-storey, reinforced concrete office building on the Kingston bypass that bore traces of the influence of the Brazilian concrete expressionist architect Oscar Niemeyer. The equally expressive circular Space House, off Kingsway, was completed in 1962.

By then, the commission that was to make Seifert notorious was already under way in his offices in Golden Square. A young property developer from the north of England named Harry Hyams had commissioned him to design a high-rise, mixed-use complex - office tower, shops, showroom and apartments - at St Giles Circus, on the junction of Charing Cross Road and Oxford Street. This project, soon christened Centre Point, became the tallest building in London when it was completed in 1963. It was also one of the most daring, with large areas of glass cladding at the lower levels and a unique precast, concrete-framed, fin-shaped tower soaring up 36 storeys to the roof 116 metres above.

The height was Seifert's negotiating achievement, a quid pro quo for Hyams having agreed to make over to the then London County Council - for use as a traffic roundabout - those parts of the site not required to support the buildings. In return, Hyams gained a 150-year lease at a fixed rent on the rest and, more importantly, Seifert was permitted to build to the maximum allowable floor area for the whole site, in this case some 20,000 square metres.

Ingenious it may have been, but for various reasons unconnected with the design, Centre Point was not popular. It remained unlet for 15 years, and was, at various times, invaded by squatters and threatened with compulsory purchase by the local Camden council. The Confederation of British Industry, which finally took it over in 1979, was its first tenant.

As his commercial commissions became larger - he later proposed a 150-storey tower for Liverpool which was not built - Seifert came into conflict with community groups, crusading planners, conservationists and the Royal Fine Art Commission (RFAC). He became convinced that the RFAC, in particular, was actively encouraging local authority planning departments to discourage developers from using his services.

After Centre Point, bureaucratic opposition did begin to delay his work. In the case of his last great structure, the 183-metre Natwest Tower (originally one of two towers, the second of which was never built), a 10-year planning battle took place that helped to ensure the building faced obsolescence almost as soon as it was opened in 1981.

By any standards, the Natwest Tower, built as a new headquarters for the National Westminster Bank, was a tremendous technical and design achievement. Springing from deep pilings underground, like the trunk of a tree, it was, at the time of its construction, the tallest unbraced building in the world. Its 50 office floors, served by double-decker lifts, housed 2,500 office workers in computer-controlled comfort. Outside their windows, a patent automatic screenwasher system worked to keep 2,000 square metres of glass cladding clean.

The only problem with the building was the electronic revolution that was about to sweep through the financial services industry. By the mid-1980s, it was clear that the Natwest tower's office floors were too small and too close together for electronic workstations and all the cabling and air conditioning needed to serve them.

With the onset of the recession of the early 1990s, the wave of redundancies sweeping through the banking sector led to departments being relocated. The building was damaged by IRA bombs in 1992 and 1993, eventually abandoned by the bank, given a hasty facelift by another firm of architects, and sold. It was rechristened as the International Financial Centre, and is now multi-tenanted.

Seifert might have become the architect of the world's tallest building, but his 1980 plans for a diamond-shaped tower in Melbourne came to nothing. His London buildings included the Royal Garden Hotel, Kensington, while his hotel and conference centre at Wembley remains a venue for pop concerts. His hospitals included the Princess Grace, near Euston Road, and he designed high-rise housing in London, Birmingham and Glasgow.

Back in 1946, when he returned from the army, Seifert had bought himself a modest semi-detached house in Mill Hill, north London, which was to remain his home until his death. During his most active years, he enlarged it by the simple expedient of purchasing and demolishing three neighbouring properties to make room for expansion. This enabled him to enjoy a three-acre garden, in which he later built a second house for his daughter Anne and grandchildren. His son John, also a Bartlett graduate, took over his firm in 1984.

During 50 years in practice - an achievement celebrated, in 1984, with an exhibition by the Royal Institute of British Architects - Seifert built more London buildings than Sir Christopher Wren, and undeniably had as great an effect upon the city skyline. His tally in Britain and Europe included more than 500 office bocks, and in the 1970s his practice had 300 employees.

Satisfyingly, he also lived long enough to enjoy the fickleness of architectural fashion. In 1993, his former enemies at the RFAC called for the listing of Centre Point for its "elegance worthy of a Wren steeple".

Seifert is survived by his wife Josephine, whom he married in 1936, Anne, John and his other son, Brian.

· Robin 'Richard' Seifert, architect, born November 25 1910; died October 26 2001

and here's the view from Tower 42 (another of his!)

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/6743/img06904nn.jpg

I agree the base is fairly awful - we have offices on Copthall Avenue, just to the west of the site, and it is fairly desolate and unfriendly, just a shame IMO it couldn't be saved and the ground levels refurbed and opened up. Do we want another modern glass block stepping back - looks no different to the much maligned Spitalfields Market block I think.

^^ the ugly one on the left is called Angel Court, i don't think its getting a reclad and height increase (there is another pinkish clad building that is getting a height increase/reclad though).

Id rather see Angel court demolished, i quite like Drapers Garden........looks like a fat version of Centrepoint

I think you mean dashwood house, i think that's the one wj said the other day anyway.

Dashwood House (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=2030) is getting a reclad and height increase - not Angel Court.


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/2030DashwoodHouse_pic2.jpg


http://i4.tinypic.com/10f1gcm.jpg

Out with the old and in with the new.
I feel quite sentimental for Drapers Gardens, especially after those pictures Tubeman posted. It's a unique building, that doen't mean it should be preserved for all time.

They should remove it and rebuilt it somewhere else ;).

Seriously thou, I think its a shame its going, imo one of the better examples of 1960's architecture and ahead it its time. If you where to built the same design now but with glass and steel people would love it.

I can live with the concrete because its shape is so unique, I love the big curves and green windows.

I guess they will gradually take it down brick by brick.

Drapers Garderns RIP, you'll be missed (by me anyway :))

Btw: can someone post an image of the new scheme so I can refresh my memory.

T

Btw: can someone post an image of the new scheme so I can refresh my memory.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=252

In terms of height and overall bulk, it will be similar to Plantation Place.

Ive grown up with these towers - small midrises, that are not nearly as prominent as they were 15 or 20 years ago. So for me ive just got on with them, and theyve never made me think they should all go. It never really crossed my mind how awful some do actually look, I suppose when you can't escape them you just get on with them..

It's a hideous piece of dross. Good riddance.

Satisfyingly, he also lived long enough to enjoy the fickleness of architectural fashion. In 1993, his former enemies at the RFAC called for the listing of Centre Point for its "elegance worthy of a Wren steeple".

Idiots! Some people need a brain transplant. Siefert should have been strangled at birth, or at least after he designed his first building.

I quite like Drapers Garden or at least the shape. I'd like to see it demolished and rebuilt in a modern style with impovements made and a height increase. The new scheme looks nice but bland in comparison.

Trouble is, all of the 60/70's midrise's generally look poor, even st helens which is arguably the best of the lot really start's to look dated now, it's hard to imagine that any of these complimented the city when situated next to the splender of the Georgian/regency/victorian buildings around them.

I disagree with the St. Helen's comments. IMO it does look in the least bit dated, and it's aged very well, and needs listing, can't think of any similar building in the UK. My only criticism is proportion-wise is could have done with being more like 150m tall.

The Drapers Garden's replacement has really failed to inspire me, just another bulkly building, that doesn't seem to provide anymore space at ground level. The current building would be fine if the podium was demolised and it was given a good clean and if the floor plates are no longer suitable from modern office requirments, then why not convert them in apartments? Anyway it's all academic now I suppose.

If you give a height increase to the building, maybe a re-clad aswell, doesnt that defeat the point of 'saving' it rather than demolishing it? It would be completely different having an extra 5-10 storeys on, and if the shape was changed then it really isnt the same building at all.

Satisfyingly, he also lived long enough to enjoy the fickleness of architectural fashion. In 1993, his former enemies at the RFAC called for the listing of Centre Point for its "elegance worthy of a Wren steeple".

Idiots! Some people need a brain transplant. Siefert should have been strangled at birth, or at least after he designed his first building.

Centrepoint rocks, I adore it. Certainly one of my 5 favourite talls in London... It really is elegant in my opinion. Draper's isn't in the same league, but its still pretty palatable for something of that era. What's your opinion of Tower42 then?

The only Seifert tower which doesn't do much for me is King's Reach, and by the looks of it its just about to be made a whole lot worse if the renderings are to be believed.

I think you're going a touch OTT branding people who appreciate Seifert's work as 'idiots' or requiring a 'brain transplant'.

Anyone gone and taken any pictures of it yet? Any equipment on site?

I disagree with the St. Helen's comments. IMO it does look in the least bit dated, and it's aged very well, and needs listing.

Surley if something like this was built now (a very simple box with no defining features) there would be outrage, i know it's knocking on a bit and i respect it for it's time, but seriously, it only needs listing from a nostalgic sense.

I think St Helens is one of the best examples of 'the international style' of architecture that London has. Its aged well IMO. I can think of many bland, boring boxes that were built just a few years ago at Canary wharf ;):)

It may well be a 'box with no defining features' but the quality of 'boxes with no defining features' varies drastically........St Helens is one of the better ones in the UK.

I think St Helens is one of the best examples of 'the international style' of architecture that London has. Its aged well IMO. I can think of many bland, boring boxes that were built just a few years ago at Canary wharf ;):)

It may well be a 'box with no defining features' but the quality of 'boxes with no defining features' varies drastically........St Helens is one of the better ones in the UK.
Completely agree.

I think St Helens is one of the best examples of 'the international style' of architecture that London has. Its aged well IMO. I can think of many bland, boring boxes that were built just a few years ago at Canary wharf ;):)

It may well be a 'box with no defining features' but the quality of 'boxes with no defining features' varies drastically........St Helens is one of the better ones in the UK.
Looks like it was just built yesterday! Can’t believe it’s a 60s building. Compare the Stock Exchange Building to this, the Stock Exchange Building is newer and look at the state of it!

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/833LeadenhallStreet_pic1.jpg

It's a hideous piece of dross. Good riddance.
Agree. Not sorry to see it go but i'm not sure about the replacement thought.

:bash: Keltbray is on site now and there are bringing in some decent equipment. The fun is about to start.

Would be good if we had some pics from the site. Can somebody give us an update?

There are no visible signs on the tower itself that its about to be demolished... I have no idea if there's any activity at ground level.

There are no visible signs on the tower itself that its about to be demolished... I have no idea if there's any activity at ground level.

Although the tower is completely empty now...I wont visit this thread again....I come o here to see buildings go up...not come down...boo hoo..I remember you Drapers...

There is a lot of activity at ground level, I peaked through a door after seeing a crane on site, didnt have my camera but the situation looks similar to that at Stock Exchange tower where all the plinth around the main tower has been demolished. No work on the actual tower yet

Although the tower is completely empty now...I wont visit this thread again....I come o here to see buildings go up...not come down...boo hoo..I remember you Drapers...

Im there with you mulattokid. Draper Gardens will live on in our memories and our photos, long live Drapers Gardens.

I've never felt these buoldings were so obtrusive, ill be sad when this one comes down. One less 100m for London....;)

Whats the hexagonal building next 2 Drappers Gardens, that MUST GO! it's awful! as should teh stock exchange tower but thats getting a cheap re-clad at least EH cant compalin.

yeah with Drapers Gardens gone that purple blot on the landscape will stick out like a sore thumb even more. I really didnt like the way all these midrises clustered so close ended up with the same heights, each may have had some merit but together they just looked very poor.

I really didnt like the way all these midrises clustered so close ended up with the same heights, each may have had some merit but together they just looked very poor.
Winchester House (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=64) was a proposal back in the 80's that would have replaced the little midrise to the left of the NatWest Tower. They wanted to build a 156m skyscraper but it was cancelled for being too tall:-


http://i6.tinypic.com/14dcynk.jpg

Instead, we got the long curved groundscraper you see here on the right:-


http://www.willfox.com/images/london/3/10.jpg

Whats the hexagonal building next 2 Drappers Gardens, that MUST GO! it's awful!

Angel Court :ohno:

Agreed, its minging. As I have already said, hopefully Draper's Gardens will topple over during demolition and take it out!

This picture shows how awful it will look after Drapers has gone and SE gets a re-clad

http://i6.tinypic.com/14ieiat.jpg

This picture shows how awful it will look after Drapers has gone and SE gets a re-clad

How exactly does it look awful??? If anything it helps focus your attention on the better quality on show.

no, it really is bad, dont try and forgive it ;)

Instead, we got the long curved groundscraper you see here on the right:-

Oh yeah the Deutsche Bank building, really has an over-bearing impact on the street. Pleasant finish but is very monotonous, a bit like the back of Broadgate

Yeah, it kills the street level in that area. Very overbearing.

Part of the plinth has gone right now. For anybody in the area, iit is worth to pass by because it gives you quite a spectacular view on the tower itself. It seems to be suspended on the core (like Tower 42), something you could never see before.

Taken two weeks ago.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/luke82/London_2120606.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/luke82/London_1120606.jpg

Taken saturday 24 june

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h186/rfw1/DSC_2517.jpg

I still don't want this to go.. I still don't want a smaller groundblob replacing it.. It might not be a marvel, but its got age.. and I don't want all the towers to be new and have nothing except T42 to go on.. These midrises might not be all that, but they bulk up the skyline and break the space between the streets and the approved skyscrapers, a nice little step up and that little bit more diverse..

No other city got their big impressive skylines from knocking down a tower for every 3 they put up..

I went and had a look at her on Sunday before they start ripping her apart.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P6250076.jpg

Just gotta love the way it's cantaleved

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P6250077.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d155/GazKinz/P6250080.jpg

This really is it then... the end is nigh.

R.I.P. Drapers Gardens

:skull:

I'm really gutted this is going - there are so many more deserving candidates - this was a fantastic shape, very 1970s retro, something I'm sure that will come back into style. Clean the concrete, change the windows, and change the use to apartments or hotels (guess the configuration and floor heights aren't the flexible open plan stuff most companies want nowadays). Oh that and the fact you're still not allowed hotels in the city of London. Bah! Club Quarters is a private institution, not a hotel so it doesn't count. Its a crazy thought really.

properly sad. If you listen closely you can hear Seifert spinning in his grave.

I don't think I can bear to read this thread :cry:

What a shame. I agree with jimbo - we will probably miss this in years to come. One of the things that's regularly stated on these threads is that the diversity of London's architecture is one of its major assets. I think DarJoLe rightly pointed out that this city features examples of structures dating back to medieval times and to lose this, a decent 1960s concrete tower, is to London's detriment IMHO.

Adios Drapers.

i am very sad to see this go, it is competely unessesarry to demolish it and its replacement is not acceptable at all. one of the worst moves in modern london so far...

I know it's not 'official' reasons but I remember shady deals going on a few years ago saying Draper's Gardens will be demolished to appease EH for allowing the Heron Tower to be built.

That exposed base looks fantastic. It's a shame they couldn't have moved the entire building to the east of the cluster where mid-rises like these are needed to balance out the cluster.

This building really isn't all that bad compared to some of the comparable buidings from the same period. It really is a shame that it's going.

:cry:

Seeing her in her death throws is very sad

This building looks great in the sun from Waterloo bridge, this is a shame indeed...and you never hear me saying that about buildings on this period, well not many anyway.

Im so glad to see some people actually sad to see this goign, i rembember looking at this thread a while back and seeing nothing but people saying they couldent wait to see the back of it, as far as im concerned losing this building is tragic. Theres nothing wrong with it!

oh yeah it's a real stunna.........bring on the wrecking ball!

oh yeah it's a real stunna.........bring on the wrecking ball!

LOL exactly :)
its not as bad as somethings built in the 60/70's (the Barbican towers) but it still is extreamly ugly.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6618/drapers7vw.jpg

oh yeah it's a real stunna.........bring on the wrecking ball!

Just because it isn't stunning doesn't mean that it should be demolished

It is ironic that (some) people want/expect an abundance of tall towers in the city and yet expect them all to be stunning, modern and clean.. I mean, where in the world do you see that, not in the Americas... not in Asia, not in other European cities... it is a bit strange..

So its got dirt on the concrete and the windows are a funny tint.. its easy to recognise on the skyline, it wouldn't be that noticeable when all the others go up..

To be truthful I reckon the old stock exchange will look worse when its finished being re-furbed.. it'll be like a concrete Joan Rivers. But, these things are happening so, just gotta live with it..

I agree it shouldnt be demolished. It must be one of the tallest buildings ever to be dismantled :cry:

It is ironic that (some) people want/expect an abundance of tall towers in the city and yet expect them all to be stunning, modern and clean.. I mean, where in the world do you see that, not in the Americas... not in Asia, not in other European cities... it is a bit strange..

So its got dirt on the concrete and the windows are a funny tint.. its easy to recognise on the skyline, it wouldn't be that noticeable when all the others go up..

To be truthful I reckon the old stock exchange will look worse when its finished being re-furbed.. it'll be like a concrete Joan Rivers. But, these things are happening so, just gotta live with it..

I agree that these things should not be reclad, but I believe that somewhere like London with an existing skyline should always aim for beauty when a building that will be visible from all around is constructed. I jsut dont understand this mentality of oh we need lots of bland universal tall buildings just because we have some striking ones; as if to drown them out. That is just nonsense, since when did any city need to drown out its visual assets?!

The only reason bulked up skylines full of skyscrapers ever existed in cities is because there was nothing worth looking at before, that certainly isnt the case in London. As I look out of my 8th floor window now the ONLY thing that hits me is the almost endless numbers of depressing mundane square towers that rise above everything else. They are everywhere! I turn 360 from my vantage point and the same vision stretches out before me. London has tried the conservative tower for decades and it just does not work.

To be truthful I reckon the old stock exchange will look worse when its finished being re-furbed.. it'll be like a concrete Joan Rivers. But, these things are happening so, just gotta live with it..

whatever. :bash:

LOL exactly :)
its not as bad as somethings built in the 60/70's (the Barbican towers) but it still is extreamly ugly.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6618/drapers7vw.jpg
The building is damn ugly, are people just being a sheep and going with the thread flow? how can ANYONE say it looks good.

That building makes me feel sick.

The building is damn ugly, are people just being a sheep and going with the thread flow? how can ANYONE say it looks good.

that's not a particularly good picture of it to be fair.

i think the point is that whatever one's individual opinion of a building, we should maintain a fair representation of what was seen as cutting edge and contemporary at the time. I think Drapers Gardens and Centrepoint demonstrate that 1960s / 1970s period very well.

Imagine if they tried to knock down the Trellick Tower in west London. Its seminal, Goldfinger pays tribute to Le Corbusier, it makes a statement, something many might not agree with but we can't obliterate a period of architectural history. I happen to like the Barbican complex and its towers and thank god that it is grade 2 listed.

Maybe its a perspective issue. IMO most of those lamenting the demolition seem to be London residents who can compare it with a degree of relativity on a day to day basis. It might look ugly in Leeds / Manchester / Birmingham where it would dominate the skyline, but is it any more offensive than the plain glass blocky monsters of Canary Wharf?

Its a relic of a different era, but I don't think that that should be a reason for demolition. Unfortunately land values, rental income and flexible 'floorplates' dictate that nowadays.

the photo warcry posted shows the building in a poor perspective. Tubeman and gazkinz have posted some excellent images of the building. Take a walk along Moorgate, Copthall Avenue etc, look up and you might appreciate Drapers Gardens. I hope people get that opportunity before it is gone forever.

^^^ But these buildings were built for a purpose (office, residential...etc) This has now out lived it's purposfull life, it's not as if it's on the same level as st pauls is it?

^^^ But these buildings were built for a purpose (office, residential...etc) This has now out lived it's purposfull life, it's not as if it's on the same level as st pauls is it?

I never said it was..... I just don't believe we should summarily wipe the slate clean.

You simply can't equate office blocks to places of worship. I was arguing for the retention of something that is architecturally symptomatic of its times. St Pauls transcends that....... it's the spiritual home of the Church of England..... whatever you believe.... You can't compare a 17th century church to a 20th century office block.

What's wrong with giving an empassioning defence of London skyline feature?

The only issue I had with this building is the green glass which looked a little dated- the actual structure & shape is , as has been said, one of the best examples of its time. The replacement is nothing special. What it does show though is how dynamic Londons property market is- Althoughsome think its very slow because we dont see all these skyscrapers going up The whole city of London has been transformed in the last 20 yrs with a lot of the redundant (& thankfully hideous) buildings being demolished & replaced.

Give it another property cycle & I reckon all the post war mistakes will be gone leaving all the victorian & modern buildings that will make this area very exciting indeed.

I never said it was..... I just don't believe we should summarily wipe the slate clean.

What's wrong with giving an empassioning defence of London skyline feature?

You're still missing my point, office blocks will never be kept for any substantial lenght of time (century's) as they're basically only a disposable product.

Imagine if they tried to knock down the Trellick Tower in west London. Its seminal, Goldfinger pays tribute to Le Corbusier, it makes a statement, something many might not agree with but we can't obliterate a period of architectural history. I happen to like the Barbican complex and its towers and thank god that it is grade 2 listed.

Agreed. Drapers Gardens, the Trellick tower, the Barbican and the buildings aroud the South Bank are part of our architectural heritage and should be preserved. These buildings may not be pretty in any classical sense but they're striking and a very interesting representation of the modernist ideology of the 60s and 70s, a lot of effort went into designing them. I would take these over a lot of the banal identikit architecture of the 00s, More London, Heron Quays, Watermark Place for example.

At the weekend the tower crane that will be used for the demolition was erected. It will now climb its way to the top of the building.

In a short time from now Drapers Gardens will be completely scaffolded and sheeted and then it will never be seen again. If you want to take a last look at this building in the flesh, go soon.

Whether you like this building or not, it is a bit of history going.

WWW

http://www.cranesetc.co.uk

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/cranesetcphotos/drapers.jpg

That building makes me feel sick.

LOL :lol: :rofl:

Yeah it's grim, I like what is replacing it. It looks like a glass palace.

Some people on here obviously can't appreciate good design.

I also like what's replacing it.

fuck. i cant believe they are demolishing it :(

Out with the old in with the new. Bye bye Drapers Gardens never to be seen again. What a shame. :hahaha:

When I'm reading opinions that building like Drapers Gardens (or for example Barbican Tower or Barbican fire station) should be demolished because is made of concrete or because is sixties' or seventies' crap, and these are probably the only arguments it's totally impossible to understand to me but not surprising. I'm living in the country which has probably the worst architecture in EU (sad but true) and every month meet someone who think that building is bad when it has flat roof and is good when not. Especially civil servants that form regulations which make bulding flat-roofed house almost impossible. Thirty years ago regulations make flat-roofed houses nearly only possible to build. Madness. London is great city but it's very sad to me to know how much excellent architecture gone here pointless. I mean for example original Bank of England, original Adelphi or Euston Arch. And I can imagine in fourty years people happy for proposed demolition of Minerva Tower. My private hope it wil rise nevertheless. Sorry for english far from perfect.

yeah i agree.

On one hand people argue that these buildings, even if not beautiful should be preserved if they are a good example of the era as Drapers Garden is considered. With its curving glass facades and crescent ends not to mention the cantilever that supports the building and opens up the base area to the public, it is certainly one of the more elegant tall buildings of the era.
It was designed by Richard Seifert of Natwest Tower fame, and is considered one of the best of his buildings so preservation could also be argued from the perspective of the fame and importance of the architect.
On the other-hand some argue these buildings are ugly and poorly designed but most of all, unsuitable even for renovation into modern offices, the sort of thing that the City of London needs and that the new design with glass atriums and roof gardens responds more sensitively to needs.
The danger of this argument is we've heard if before many times and thirty or forty years later come to regret it. Victorian gothic buildings were considered ten-a-penny and stood in the way of post war development, as a result they were often bulldozed en masse. Victims included Birmingham's fine library and Glasgow's Christian Institute, not to mention the Imperial Institute in Albertopolis and Euston Arch. More modern structures demolished thanks to the same mindset include the Dome of Discovery and Skylon.
It can be hard for the immediate generation after to appreciate architecture of the previous one on the basis of its historical importance but the problem, as always Chairman Mao was right, it's too soon to tell whether Drapers Garden falls into this category of architectural value. Only time will tell, then it will be too late.

Southwark tower is a nice example of 70s architecture, shall we have Southwark Tower preserved along with Guys Tower?

I will miss this building, from some angles it looks really good.

Southwark tower is a nice example of 70s architecture, shall we have Southwark Tower preserved along with Guys Tower?


Err...no, the LBT is going to be built on the site of the Southwark Towers, however it is a nice building

http://www.c20society.org.uk/docs/casework/drapers.html

Casework Reports

Drapers Gardens, London, EC2 by R. Seifert and Partners, unlisted

Draper’s Gardens is set within the City of London and unlike many of its peers, this striking concrete office block has a commanding presence. Yet, like many buildings of the inter-war period, it faces imminent demolition and replacement with a contemporary scheme. It is an exceptional building by Seifert, and only second to its renowned contemporary, the Grade II listed Centre Point, by the same practice. Begun in 1963, Concrete Quarterly reported in December 1968 that 'it is one of the best towers that post-war London has seen' and praised it for its relationship to the nineteenth century site. The tower rises up above a network of labyrinthine streets and courtyards, to which the scale of the two storey perimeter blocks and internal court cleverly relates. Click here to see some images (http://www.c20society.org.uk/docs/casework/drapers_img.html).

The white mosaic and green-tinted glass windows of this structure make for an interesting break amongst a skyscape of largely unimaginative buildings. The strongly curved tower rises twenty-eight floors and 336 feet above ground, and the projected bands create a dynamic feeling of horizontality. It is built on a one-acre site, is of flat slab construction and has a reinforced concrete central core, which takes lateral forces and main floor loads.

Its salient feature is the podium area, an enclosed garden space approached by steps from the pavement, with more steps that reach around the building to the rear paved space. The tower is cantilevered at second floor level from the central core, with the shaped cantilevers corresponding to the eight internal columns either side of this core. The result is an outstanding example of design, creating a triangular rhythm where it meets the first floor, and therefore a great feeling of lightness, as well as enabling the ground floor areas to be relatively free of columns. The building is also testament to the advances in concrete construction during this period, notably in deep reinforced concrete piling, structural concrete design generally and in contractors' equipment such as tower cranes.

Drapers Gardens is an iconic building that has become a reference point for this era and one that Seifert is on record as having described as his proudest achievement. It would, therefore, be an enormous loss to the City. With this in mind, the Society has put forward this building for urgent statutory listing.

How anyone can prefer its replacement is just beyond me.

I mean, look at it. Utterly bland, squat, bulky, overbearing, dull. And I don't give a shit about those roof gardens as (a) they won't be visible from street level, and (b) they probably won't even be included in the final design anyway! Roof gardens and "green floors" are often featured in the initial renderings for tower proposals, but almost never appear in the finished product.


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/252DrapersGardensRedevelopment_pic1.jpg

this makes me so miserable. I realy love this tower, it being one of my first encounters with a truly well designed and elegant skyscraper (it aint so high, but boy does it soar!).

When I first found out that there were plans to demolish it I went to the empty site and took a series of photograhs of the raised and sunken piazza and the tower itself (a very pleasant environment that you rarely get in london); photos which I will keep with me for the rest of my life to remind myself of our tendency towards barbarity. It is beyond me how random victorian or georgian houses that are no more that cut and paste jobs are viciously protected and stuff like this is simply thrown away...

Anyway. By bye Pretty Drapers Gardens, your floor plates are to small and the coroporation dont give a crap...

Interest article wjfox, I take it the 20th century society were unsucessful in their attempt to list it (here's praying for a last minute listing!). It make me very unhappy too to see this come down, such a fine building, I just love the curved facade, the way it's cantilevered, and even the concrete 'hat', wjfox pretty much summed up its replacement.

JamesC, how you can compare Southwark Towers to this is beyond me! The brown brickwork, the tacky silver coloured paneling and the awkward massing, Southwark towers is not a good example of 70s architecture IMO.

i cannot agree more with the 20th century society. im disgusted at this building being demolished. its one of the best examples of a Modern british tower from the 60s.

The new building is providing more floorspace, that's all what counts in the City these days. In its desperate battle with Canary Wharf it is destroying itself. Yet next to Angel Court it kind of fits in... one eyesore next to the other.

I like the new building, but that doesnt excuse the fact they are demolishing the best 60's tower in the city. It would have been perfect if this new building was replacing angel court instead.

How anyone can prefer its replacement is just beyond me.

I mean, look at it. Utterly bland, squat, bulky, overbearing, dull. And I don't give a shit about those roof gardens as (a) they won't be visible from street level, and (b) they probably won't even be included in the final design anyway! Roof gardens and "green floors" are often featured in the initial renderings for tower proposals, but almost never appear in the finished product.


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/252DrapersGardensRedevelopment_pic1.jpg

I agree, and its not even like they've spared ANY of the street space for a public area, gone straight to the edges of their plot to maximise the bulky floorplates and maximise their profits.. I wouldn't mind losing the tower to anything but this... This, is what should be making people feel sick! Yet will it? Not likely... why, because people seem only capable of weighing the argument over they're getting something new over old... so that instantly means a good deal... WRONG

Southwark tower is a nice example of 70s architecture, shall we have Southwark Tower preserved along with Guys Tower?

:bash: How can you compare DG with ST?

Surely even if you don't like 60s and 70s architecture you must be able to distinguish between the well proportioned elegance of DG and the brown block of no architectural merit that is ST?

I understand that the building couldn't be modified to current office specs due to the kind of demand put on by modern companies, but what does the Corporation have against residential developments in the square mile? City-centre apartments make a packet surely and there's gotta be enough Chelsea players/rich entrepreneurs with some cash to splash on a pad with a view.

If that kind of demand existed in the City, would this building have been a candidate for office -> residential? :dunno:

^^ I believe it is something about Nimbys, put someone in a 100m tower and they arent going to want anything built taller than their apartment in the vacinity.

If saving this tower is the most exciting thing happening around here..............things are really pretty grim.

^^ It's a littttttle bit to late to save it.

I think the most exciting thing at the minute is gearing up for '07 and Leadenhall, the Shard etc...(though the Shard may have to be early 08 if PWC don't shift)

Oh and arent we supposed to get info/renders on the Allies & Morrisons tower soon?

And about Londons resi in the city problem, I would build a second, mostly Resi cluster to the right of the main cluster (CW side) with a 250m-270m pinnacle, get increasingly smaller as it goes towards the main city cluster, about 100m-125m near Swiss Re, and on the other side dropping to about 140m before the smaller buildings between this and CW.

The main tower would have a 3 story Penthouse at the top enjoying unparalleled 360 degree views of London. Also people in the towers would have to be made fully aware of all development planned for the area around their tower before they bought, both long and short term. They would also have to sign a contract (or whatever) saying they will not persue action over any building built in the city of London.

We should get snapping and catalogue this before the scaffolding curtain covers it completely.

Surely this must be the largest office building to be demolished in the country? Reminds me of State Office Block in Sydney - http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102445 ; that had a similar fate and many people were outraged that it was demolished (although the replacement is rather nice).

May i suggest 'The Official Drapers Gardens Deconstruction thread'? :)

Surely this must be the largest office building to be demolished in the country?
Yes, it is.

The previous tallest was Limebank House (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=136045) (93m), also in the City. There were plans to replace it with 168 Fenchurch Street (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=70), which was recommended for approval, but eventually got withdrawn.


http://i6.tinypic.com/1z39ezl.jpg

http://i6.tinypic.com/1z39fcw.jpg



May i suggest 'The Official Drapers Gardens Deconstruction thread'? :)
Lol. Good idea :D

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6618/drapers7vw.jpg

^
WTF is up with the Natwest Tower here? It looks like its getting a Will Alsop reclad!

Is this from the post-bombing reclad, or original construction?

If only they'd demolish the stock exchange tower and that hexagonal brown rubbish next to DG, then the city's skyline could start from T42, allowing much taller buildings to pinicle at over a thousand feet, aka Difa tower hhmmm bloody CAA. moving on swiftly lol

Is this from the post-bombing reclad
Yes, circa 1995.

168 Fenchurch St was and still is one of my faves planned for the City.. Looks like Jahn's tower (forget where that is, Berlin??) It looked fab and would of looked wicked with all the other towers going up... its not fair :(

Drapers Gardens looks good in the skyline from this angle :(

http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/5660/dg22ej.jpg

http://img469.imageshack.us/img469/6213/dg17dv.jpg

http://img434.imageshack.us/img434/975/dg35ra.jpg

the thing which puts me off about that building is that horrible concrete lump on the top it would look so much nicer then it does ATM.



ps: demolish barbican and not this

Yes, lets wipe out the Brutalist buildings because they're last season..

Then what? What if International goes out too.. and people don't like glass towers... get rid of them too....

ps: demolish barbican and not this

:bash: FFS, for a supposed architecture forum there appear to be a lot of people without an appreciation for different schools of architecture through the ages.

I guess some people would be happy with a souless skyline of shiny new 200m glass towers. If that's what floats your boat then fine, but what makes London great is the juxtapostion of old and new buildings encompassing excellent examples of virtually every style of architecture.

There's a huge difference between an excellent example of brutalist architecture such as Barbican and a shitey one like Westminster Bridge Plaza which I am more than happy to see the back of.

I am very very very sad to see this go, where the hell are the 20th century society or EH for that matter ???

It also looks good from Hungerford bridge ! Shameful indeed.....this is archtectural vandalism of the worst kind. Hey ho lets save the shit instead...guys tower anyone, all that crap on the North bank anyone?

Id be just as incensed if they demolished the Barbican towers, which balance out the skyline from Hungerford/Waterloo bridge and look amazing to me, at least from there.

This thread makes me despair. Does the replacement building offer anything we don't have ten to a penny in Broadgate and CW? No.

I wish there could have been some other productive use for this building. I've always thought the drawing on SkyscraperPage showed the potential for Draper's if it was given some new windows and a scrub-up.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h126/wildheart99/drapers.jpg

Why don't we have a funberal for her when she has dissapeared from the skyline?

Why don't we have a funberal for her when she has dissapeared from the skyline?
Well, the coffin would be rather big. And where would you bury it?

Stick it in between two baps and prescot will have it...preferably rosies baps

oh come on this tower would even look ugly in birmingham.

oh come on this tower would even look ugly in birmingham.


LOL

oh come on this tower would even look ugly in birmingham.

well done for mising the point. We're lamenting the loss of Drapers Gardens in the context of the relatively high rise City of London where is provides a classic example of Richard Seifert's work.

Stick it in the middle of any city where it might be the focal point, and yes, it would probably look slightly more incongruous.

I don't know how anyone can call it ugly, its certainly more elegant than the darkened, hulking Tower 42, or the squat dirty concrete of the Stock Exchange tower which looms ominously over the back of the Bank of England and the Royal Exchange.

more elegant than tower 42, oh please. Once we see towers like The Shard go up the fact that we are even spending so much time discussing this will seem like a joke. You know funny you should mention it but the word elegant always comes to mind when I Drapers Gardens?

Cant complain really as it is being replaced by something that looks much better. What would people prefer - tall but looks cr*p or something that maybe shorter but looks miles better. Building like Drapers Gardens should never have been allowed to be built in the first place to be honest. Where EH around then because if they were they should never have allowed half the sh*t to be built in The City and Barbican area. Saying that if they weren't built maybe we would not have had T42, Swiss, Lloyds!

Couple of pics from today. As you can see, the scaffolding is rapidly advancing upwards -


http://i1.tinypic.com/1zyx450.jpg


http://i2.tinypic.com/1zyx4ic.jpg

This is unbearable, its like architectural muggery!

Bonus pic of T42, taken from the same spot :cool:


http://i2.tinypic.com/2003cpe.jpg

I think it is a mistake taking this tower down. It has a unique shape, is one of Seifert's best pieces of work and all it needs in new glass and a lick of paint and it would be very lettable. I think a wholesale bonfire of all our 60s brutalist buildings is attractive but you cannot just 'erase' an entire architectural era. This is one of the best examples from that era so English Heritage should have listed it like they have with many other Seifert buildings. A real shame this - and what is it being replaced with? An identikit skyscraper which could be anywhere.

the scaffolding looks like ivy creeping up the tower to suffocating it.
ps: nice pic of T42 :)

It's a disgusting building. Good riddence, get rid of Angel Court next please.

It's a disgusting building. Good riddence, get rid of Angel Court next please.
lol

Calm down people. It's got a really unique, attractive shape but at the end of the day it's still ugly and needs to be replaced to make way for the future city of london skyline which is emerging. It's hardly as if they're ripping down T42!

It's a disgusting building. Good riddence, get rid of Angel Court next please.

I agree. And then we should look at replacing Tower 42 because quite frankly coming from the same era it's just as awful on the skyline. And then we should look at St Helen's, because that's just a square bland box and we all want something mad and crazy these days. Then maybe we should look at the Gherkin, afterall it's just a round bullet shape and the glass is too dark.

Hell, let's just flatten the entire City and start again.

Hell, let's just flatten the entire City and start again.

We'll end up with Canary Wharf, in the City.

Well, imo, it isn't the worst building in the world, and not the worst building in London, but it is still a pretty bland (verging on ugly) mid-rise skyscraper that looks a bit out of date, especially with the concrete hat that just pisses me off.

So ultimately I'm not really sad at all that it is getting demolished and replaced, plus the building relacing it is quite nice imo. Either way though, I don't think it's anything to be getting stressed over.

:cheers:

I agree. And then we should look at replacing Tower 42 because quite frankly coming from the same era it's just as awful on the skyline. And then we should look at St Helen's, because that's just a square bland box and we all want something mad and crazy these days. Then maybe we should look at the Gherkin, afterall it's just a round bullet shape and the glass is too dark.

Taking the piss are we? C'mon. Saying we need to get rid of Drapers Garden is not saying we should be replacing Tower 42 and Swiss Re is it? Are you some sort of stupid minded boy?

Drapers Garden is ugly, Fenchurch is ugly, Angel Court is ugly. Get rid or reclad. They are three towers that if they were replaced and replaced with something nicer to look at, the towers wouldn't really be missed. Now if we was gonna do that with Tower 42 then obviously that's going to an extreme (like your silly reply). Tower 42 is a building that holds a good image with the average Londoner and is an integral part of the skyline, which is why it will stay and why Drapers Garden is going because DG stinks of piss and has skid marks on it's concrete hat. :)

i personally think that tower 42 looks very modern. and drapers gardens has amazing potential to look modern with a new facade and a bit of a crown. i think that some peoples priorities are really wrong sometimes.

Drapers Garden is ugly, Fenchurch is ugly, Angel Court is ugly. Get rid or reclad. They are three towers that if they were replaced and replaced with something nicer to look at, the towers wouldn't really be missed. Now if we was gonna do that with Tower 42 then obviously that's going to an extreme (like your silly reply). Tower 42 is a building that holds a good image with the average Londoner and is an integral part of the skyline, which is why it will stay and why Drapers Garden is going because DG stinks of piss and has skid marks on it's concrete hat. :)

Yep, totally agree, sort out 'those' 3, either reclad or redevelop, plus get rid of some of the dodgy 60/70's groundscrapers and the city will be spanking.
As 'boring' as some canary wharf towers might be, it's a nice place to be as it's so clean and crisp, sorting those few issues with the city will make it even more so.

Here's a pic from the site today. Demolition of the podium has progressed further - I hope the original design did not rely on lateral restraint from the podium under wind loading!

With a little imagination you could see a refurb that could have given a spectacular atrium at the bottom of the tower which would have shown off the big cantilevers. Chop off the heavy concrete top, add on 10 floors of lightweight steelwork in its place as extra floors, finish with a sleek overcoat and this tower could have lived on, perhaps as a hotel.

WWW

http://www.cranesetc.co.uk

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/cranesetcphotos/drapers2.jpg

Jesus... looks like it's about to fall over! :)

That cantilever is amazing.

see why people want it protected now.

Is this actually gonna be a real demolition type of demolition....you know, like a dymamite/TNT kinda thing?? Or is it just gonna get stripped down piece by piece?? :?

Btw, thought I'd mention: This is my 1000th post!!! :banana2:
What a milestone, somebody give me a hug :hug:

:cheers:

Here's a pic from the site today. Demolition of the podium has progressed further - I hope the original design did not rely on lateral restraint from the podium under wind loading!

With a little imagination you could see a refurb that could have given a spectacular atrium at the bottom of the tower which would have shown off the big cantilevers. Chop off the heavy concrete top, add on 10 floors of lightweight steelwork in its place as extra floors, finish with a sleek overcoat and this tower could have lived on, perhaps as a hotel.

WWW

http://www.cranesetc.co.uk

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/cranesetcphotos/drapers2.jpg

Look at the fucking base of that thing, thats amazing!

Is this actually gonna be a real demolition type of demolition....you know, like a dymamite/TNT kinda thing?? Or is it just gonna get stripped down piece by piece?? :?
Oh come on, use a bit of common sense. Do you really think they'd blow up a 100m building in the middle of the City.

they have to be so careful with this other wise...
oh couse they are not going demolish it in a explosion.

It is such a shame it is coming down, look at the giant Cantilevered base taking all the load of the floors above wow! - i think this is a travisty....... :(

I'm no big fan of 60's/70's architecture (for e.g. I find the Barbican to be a most dehumanising environment) but I am disappointed that this one goes under the wrecking ball for the simple reason that there are so many other eyesores in London that should go before this one. For all the talk of Red Ken's strategy for London's buildings, and the substantial amount of interesting developments that are planned and/or underway, I wonder if he has a long-term plan for ridding London of the grim and impractical legacy of London's more recent history?

Oh come on, use a bit of common sense. Do you really think they'd blow up a 100m building in the middle of the City.
Well, I was more hoping then thinking that they'd do that, cus it'd look pretty dam kool! And anyway, it's not so riddiculous, they can do some amazing things with explosives these days, by using a controlled blast so that a building just basically collapses on top of itself without causing too much damage to the surrounding area.....

Just wishful thinking really....taking it down bit by bit is a tad dull really, and will take quite a while....guess I was just hoping for something a bit more swift and dramatic!

:cheers:

Look at the fucking base of that thing, thats amazing!

shame it was hidden by a turd of a ground-scaping!

That's a unique pic.
*saving on HD*

These were posted by SE9.



http://static.flickr.com/38/191179848_ac95a92c13_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/59/191178737_fb9c3d9163_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/56/191175169_0b9e111999_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/59/191176352_5b6a0eaec4_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/53/191175725_9cc72ce75e_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/47/191167023_29023a3bac_b.jpg

I agree. And then we should look at replacing Tower 42 because quite frankly coming from the same era it's just as awful on the skyline. And then we should look at St Helen's, because that's just a square bland box and we all want something mad and crazy these days. Then maybe we should look at the Gherkin, afterall it's just a round bullet shape and the glass is too dark.

DarJoLe, this is one of my favourite posts.

The last picture is very strange, its eerie in its emptiness. Its a sad shot really...

22/07/06

The inexorable march towards demolition:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1952/img0950ic1.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9418/img0951gv7.jpg

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/873/img0952st6.jpg

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/7612/img0953lf7.jpg

This last one is stunning, the tower is supported by such a small base, literally half the size of the towers base by my reckoning.

Completely agree with whoever mooted the idea of stripping back the podium, re building the public space and turning the main tower into a hotel. Clearly the developers didn't share that conclusion.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9418/img0951gv7.jpg

Just imagine if that was Southwark Towers... :)

I'd cry in laughter.

I'm glad it's going, I can't stand the top.

this is sickening!

this is sickening!
I know, i though the stock exchange tower was sick but this is worse. Dynamite would have been the best option for demolition.

I told myself I would never visit this thread, let alone post but......I would not avoid a close or familiar friend dying....its a duty...Also, like a car crash there is a morbid need to look and learn....bye bye old friend. Ill always remember you as a pioneer in my land!

http://i5.tinypic.com/23gxog7.jpg

Something i was thinking to myself was where will this building's rubble and glass be moved to once it has been demolished? Will any of it be recycled? Not so i can trawl through it or anything :angel:

What is this building going to be replaced with?

What is this building going to be replaced with?
A dull glass box, around 75m

Couple o' days ago:

http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/6387/dsc06237oo8.jpg

A dull glass box, around 75m

Ok, thanks, do you have any renderings?

Ok, thanks, do you have any renderings?
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/stuff/glassbox.jpg

Ok, thanks, do you have any renderings?

Don't even go there, it's too upsetting :cry:

picture of dull glass box



:lol:

So true, at least Drapers had character

This photo should look a lot better once drapers is gone and stock exchange recladed. Christmas has come early!

http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/6387/dsc06237oo8.jpg

Why couldn´t they had just reclad this building?

Apparently it was not considered because this tower really impinges on certain views of St. Pauls...to be fair it does appear (due to its bulk) to draw atention from that church. Also the floor plates do not lend themselves to modern office needs.

Apparently it was not considered because this tower really impinges on certain views of St. Pauls...to be fair it does appear (due to its bulk) to draw atention from that church. Also the floor plates do not lend themselves to modern office needs.
Also it's fugly, I hate the top of this building. What were they thinking...

Guys i work in 60 London Wall, which is the building right behind DG. If you guys want to see the state of the excavations round the back and down ( two floors below ground level now) then just shout and i'll take some pics.

Very scary to see such a small connection to the ground be so exposed for such a tall building.

^^ If you're serious about that, I for one would very much appreciate any pictures you can get of the site excavations!!

you know, im sad abouit this demolition - i think its got a lot more character and grace than a lot of it's nieghbours. The picture looking up at it shows to me that it's shape is dramatic and the drama of the thin base is intriguing. i dont know why people dont seem to like the top - I think it's quite satisfying and its not outdated as much as most stuff from that period, but it could be worse, well, not worser than whats going to replace it anyway - hotch potch

Thank god this AWFUL concrete monster is being torn apart piece by piece. Dynamite would have been better though... everybody loves explosions! Hell, it may have even toppled onto Angel Court and done us all a favour :)

The new building is truer to the name "Drapers Gardens" anyway - and less intrusive on St. Pauls.

I find the images posted by jimbo very fascinating, especially the base.

Maybe with a good reclad, it could have looked nice.

As a piece of structural engineering, this building is amazing. As a piece of architecture, it has become dated, yet an imaginative architectural firm could have easily turned it into something fresh and exciting for the area.

In terms of impact on the skyline, it is disasterous, however I can't really use that as an excuse to see it go, there are far worse modern day buildings that are and will impact on St Paul's.

It's a real shame. I think in a decade or so people will miss it as a throwback to when the City couldn't build huge skyscrapers but these only these little charmers instead.

I think the demoliton will also give us a rough idea of how long it might take to bring down Southwark Towers.

The two projects will after all be among the tallest demolition jobs ever attempted in the UK.

I think the demoliton will also give us a rough idea of how long it might take to bring down Southwark Towers.

It will take 9 months according to the development programme (http://shardlondonbridge.com/timeline/development_programme.php).

Friday 25th August

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/luke82/Variousnonsense037.jpg

Drapers Gardens disappears forever into the condom of demolition

Wow, that really does look surreal - as said above, remember those pics you've taken she's all covered up now.

Nothing much different, still all covered, shows no real progress really...

http://i5.tinypic.com/26202a1.jpg

Looks like a giant Christmas present all wrapped up.

only when you open it there will be nothing inside...:(

...or the type of present your nan buys (crap) ;)

Drapers Gardens disappears forever into the condom of demolition

I wonder if this vanishing trick will get them into the magic circle?

this is so depressing to see. the gap in the skyline is going to be horrible.

Cool pic of this wrapped tower from the London Eye (nicked from the polish forum ;) )

http://i4.tinypic.com/2rm74o0.jpg

this is so depressing to see. the gap in the skyline is going to be horrible.

It's removal is to enhance the skyline, removing a stub that infringes on St Pauls from the river and detracts from the City cluster when it is finally at mass.

That photo of the City from the London Eye sums up to me why building Beetham and the other South Bank towers will be one disasterous exercise for London.

Nothing much different, still all covered, shows no real progress really...
[/IMG]
What sort of progress do you expect to see?

That photo of the City from the London Eye sums up to me why building Beetham and the other South Bank towers will be one disasterous exercise for London.

I disagree- I have added the towers on the South bank (not sure if the height perspective is accurate though) & it doesn't look bad to me. Sure it might block some of the view some tourists see of the city cluster from some angles on the London Eye but thats no big deal. It is after all just one view -london is so big theres numerous other views to take in.

http://i7.tinypic.com/2ltt01y.jpg

Updates from today - overheard a city guy asking one of the demolition workers if they were going to blow it up - haha!

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2791/img1805xm7.jpg

http://img351.imageshack.us/img351/9809/img1806mv5.jpg

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/552/img1822kp7.jpg

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/552/img1822kp7.jpg
Wow, lots of activity on the skyline!

Hopefully those horrible white mid-rise blocks in front of the gherkin are going to be demolished.

your wish is my command oh

I disagree- I have added the towers on the South bank (not sure if the height perspective is accurate though) & it doesn't look bad to me. Sure it might block some of the view some tourists see of the city cluster from some angles on the London Eye but thats no big deal. It is after all just one view -london is so big theres numerous other views to take in.

http://i7.tinypic.com/2ltt01y.jpg

Dont forget Doon Street in that shot too!

Hopefully those horrible white mid-rise blocks in front of the gherkin are going to be demolished.

Yes, they are. Being replaced with this very exciting development, which will have a fantastic relationship with St Pauls and Swiss Re.

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

Yes, they are. Being replaced with this very exciting development, which will have a fantastic relationship with St Pauls and Swiss Re.

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

Nice, looks like a unique building. Does it has planning permission already?

Yes, they are. Being replaced with this very exciting development, which will have a fantastic relationship with St Pauls and Swiss Re.

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

Yes I like it! What is this development called? Is there a thread?

Yes I like it! What is this development called? Is there a thread?

Walbrook Square, here (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=351887) is the original thread.

LOL perhaps they can just paint clouds on the white tarpaulin... Save them the hassle of demolition!

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/552/img1822kp7.jpg

One of Drapers behind her final curtain . :crazy:

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h126/wildheart99/100_0922.jpg

What's the timeframe for her demolition? How long before she's a hole in the ground or a construction site again...?

wierd, i kinda like it. it's not great, but not horrible. i think i'll miss it, it's nice filler.

-

Canary Wharf is in talks to manage the development of the proposed Drapers Gardens scheme in the City of London, which would be its first outside its Docklands estate:

Drapers Gardens, the former MEPC site at 12 Throgmorton Avenue, has planning consent for 400,000 sq ft (37,161 sq m) of offices in two 13- and 18-storey buildings.

Construction News Magazine-
McAlpine and O'Rourke are biding for the construction contract.
Kier will finish demolition in Summer 2007.
Project completion in 2009.

Demolition is being carried out by Keltbray, not Kier.

Here is a picture from today. It is strongly recommended to visit this building before it disappears. It is inspiring to see this whole building supported on these cantilevers and small core.

WWW

http://www.cranesetc.co.uk

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/cranesetcphotos/drapers3.jpg

Right you are. Although they do both begin with a K :runaway:

One of Drapers behind her final curtain . :crazy:

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h126/wildheart99/100_0922.jpg

What's the timeframe for her demolition? How long before she's a hole in the ground or a construction site again...?

Dear Tower!

Under your wraps...

To some of us, you are a chrysalis, awaiting the beautiful emergence of a fantastic (or at least familiar) fluttering glorious butterfly.


...to others.....you are a penetrated chrysalis, a parasite.. consuming the flesh of a much love friend, and only to emerge as a caricature modern building without your grace or stature. :ohno:

perhaps..like Citycorp in NewYork...they discovered the design was unsafe!!!!!

The first floors have been demolished, the scaffold has started to descend...

^ very poetic. ;)

http://i7.tinypic.com/2ltt01y.jpg

I think apart from the gherkin most will be visible here, DIFA, i think heron too?

almost too sad to post, but as JGG confirmed, the top part of the building is coming down, suggesting that the concrete crown has been removed and the floors are coming down one by one. The plinth looks incredible, and the demolition of the basement levels is nearly complete. Omega Land have their signage all over the place and I expect that the new scheme may start pretty soon after demolition finishes (Q3 2007 at least).

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6867/img1263ar4.jpg

^^
:(

That shot from The Eye shows how much lamer Angel Court will look on its tod once Draper's disappears... It will look really isolated from the rest of The City, and will be heightened when 122 Leadenhall and Bishopsgate spring up.

Surley it won't be long for Angel Court though??? Somebody must want to stick a healthy new tower there?

With the inside stripped and the plant rooms removed, this should drop pretty quickly now. Interesting to note the timetables here, as 20 Fenchurch and Southwark Towers are similar in size. I Imagine the demolition of Southwark Towers to be both exhilerating and fustrating(YES its coming down! Why's it taking so long?).

^^
:(

That shot from The Eye shows how much lamer Angel Court will look on its tod once Draper's disappears... It will look really isolated from the rest of The City, and will be heightened when 122 Leadenhall and Bishopsgate spring up.


Poor little Angel Court...leave it alone!
Dont forget the replacment for Draapers is going to be...what is it? about 80m?

move angel court to Slough or Basingstoke!