London Bridge Tower - the "Shard of Glass"
Southwark

Height: 310m | Floors: 72 | Architect: Renzo Piano | Developer: Sellar Property Group

Links: WSP Shard brochure (http://www.wspgroup.se/upload/documents/PDF/UK/WSP_Shard_Brochure.pdf) | Official website (http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/) | Renzo Piano Building Workshop (http://www.rpbw.com) | Skyscrapernews listing (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=46) | Station redevelopment (http://www.tpbennett.co.uk/project.aspx?siteid=2&projectid=13)

Notes:

This landmark tower will be the first building in the UK to break the 1000 foot barrier. It will be nearly twice the height of the Gherkin,
and one of the tallest buildings in Europe.
London's first truly "mixed use" tower, the floors will be divided (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=25998656&postcount=3645) into a mixture of residential, office, hotel, retail and public space.
Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the tower was structurally redesigned to improve stability and reduce evacuation times.
The tower went through a lengthy public inquiry. It was approved by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on 19th November 2003.
The total cost of the project is in excess of £1.2bn and includes major refurbishment of the neighbouring train and bus stations.
The tower has two main tenants lined up - Shangri-La Hotels (http://www.shangri-la.com/en/property/london/shangrila), who will be occupying floors 34-52 - and Transport for London (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=595) who will
take some of the office space.
Financial issues plagued the tower for years, but were resolved in 2008 when four Qatari banks took an 80% stake
in the project (buying-out both CLS and Simon Halabi). All funding and contracts were subsequently secured.

Current Status:
Under construction! Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WYKyCrK9tM) for a video of the schedule. The tower will be topped-out in late 2010 and is scheduled for practical completion by May 2012.


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/46TheShard_pic2.jpg


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/46TheShard_pic1.jpg


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/46TheShard_pic3.jpg



---



Thread landmarks

24th Nov 2006 - PwC staff informed that they will vacate Southwark Towers (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=10613887&postcount=125)

15th Nov 2007 - Mace chosen to build the Shard (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=16496003&postcount=2210)

10th Jan 2008 - CLS Holdings sells stake in the Shard (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=17612436&postcount=2453)

18th Jan 2008 - Halabi sells stake in the Shard (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=17781935&postcount=2489)

22nd Jan 2008 - Sellar Property Group sets up Qatari consortium to carry out the Shard development (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=17873271&postcount=2505)

24th Mar 2008 - 'White sheet of death' appears on Southwark Towers (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=19219507&postcount=2798)

12th Feb 2009 - Demolition of Southwark Towers structure complete (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=32187072&postcount=4443)

23rd Feb 2009 - Mace secures contract to build the Shard (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=32720050&postcount=4538)

16th Mar 2009 - Shard officially starts construction (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=33685318&postcount=4741)

17th Mar 2009 - First piling rig (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=33759394&postcount=4764)

18th Sep 2009 - First steel column (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=43273008&postcount=5967)

19th Sep 2009 - Installation of Tower Crane 1 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=43326016&postcount=5982)

1st Oct 2009 - Installation of Tower Crane 2 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=43971194&postcount=6168)

10th Oct 2009 - First concrete pillars (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=44408468&postcount=6254)

25th May 2010 - First glass panel of the external envelope (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=57511925#post57511925)

Thanks for starting this!
I'm still fascinated by the prospect of that large spike going half way up the height of the tower.

And wouldn't it be lovely if we at some point got one of those ultra-realistic renders like the one for 122 Leadenhall? :D

is this the 2nd official thread, or the 3rd? Not sure we'll be up to the level of the Burj Dubai which had about 10 1000 page threads before it even started construction. Mind you, if its another year till PwC exit, and they get Southwark Towers down then we might be onto another Shard London Bridge thread. One can start to get a teensy impatient!

some rich people should buy PwC and disband them so we can get a move on with this lol

surely they can't sleep at night knowing what building they're holding up by being there

lol PWC are one of the biggest privately owned companies in the world... i think forbes ranks them third.

they aint tesco's or asda though.

if they were id be worried. my views on the on the people who run the company are unprintable but anyway.. i wish they'd grow up

they aint tesco's or asda though.

if they were id be worried. my views on the on the people who run the company are unprintable but anyway.. i wish they'd grow up

pwc are massive, they have headquaters throughout the world theyre much bigger than tesco as a company. and no developer with sanity would try a just kick them out of anywhere. burning bridges with companies like pwc is never a good idea

PWC is believed to be about to pre-let the last site in the More London development
(More London 7, 400,000 sq ft) as their new london office HQ with delivery
date planned in 2009. Preparation works are underway at More London 7.:ohno:

Meanwhile PwC has a 100,00 sq ft requirement to relocate the staff
due to leave Southwarks Towers. PwC is said to be close to sub-letting either Bankside 1
from IPC Medias or Bishops Square from Allen & Overy.

cheers for the info jef. not really suprised theyve chosen the more london 7 as headquaters. i dont think an accountancy firm would ever warrent pating extra for the sake of being in a landmark building

some rich people should buy PwC and disband them so we can get a move on with this lol

surely they can't sleep at night knowing what building they're holding up by being there

^^ :ohno:

I do wonder what planet some people are on.

PWC is believed to be about to pre-let the last site in the More London development
(More London 7, 400,000 sq ft) as their new london office HQ with delivery
date planned in 2009. Preparation works are underway at More London 7.:ohno:

Meanwhile PwC has a 100,00 sq ft requirement to relocate the staff
due to leave Southwarks Towers. PwC is said to be close to sub-letting either Bankside 1
from IPC Medias or Bishops Square from Allen & Overy.

the voice of reason and knowledge! I don't see one piece of bad news in that post. Providing the terms are equitable, I'd plump for Bankside 123, PwC already have a big presence south of the river, and I think that this simply consolidates it and adds to the impetus in Southwark. Or something like that.

lol PWC are one of the biggest privately owned companies in the world... i think forbes ranks them third.

That's not the case. PwC, like the other big accounting firms, is not a single company - it is a series of partnership firms that operate under a common brand but exist as legally separate entities in each country.

Have any of you guys seen the plans for Borough Market? I beleive it's part of the Shard of glass scheme..anyway in Fridays Southwark News, they have a pic of what they plan it to be like...basically it's like a crap Tesco glass front thing..no imagination absoloutely disgusting..I'm praying this doesn't get approval because it will scar this area irreperably forever...The area they plan to do this to has some fantastic little Georgian/Victorian buildings..surely they must be protected..right?
http://images19.fotki.com/v354/free/ff676/3/390074/1377715/11112006162-vi.jpg?1163207674
Sorry for the poor quality of the pic, and if I've posted this in the wrong place.

That would totally ruin the character of Borough Market. It will become like a shopping mall. :no:

^I agree.Borough Market is great I love it.It has character.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7807/boroughmarketin4.jpg

^^ :ohno:

I do wonder what planet some people are on.

Planet Naive in a lot of cases it seems! :D

Have any of you guys seen the plans for Borough Market? I beleive it's part of the Shard of glass scheme..anyway in Fridays Southwark News, they have a pic of what they plan it to be like...basically it's like a crap Tesco glass front thing..no imagination absoloutely disgusting..I'm praying this doesn't get approval because it will scar this area irreperably forever...The area they plan to do this to has some fantastic little Georgian/Victorian buildings..surely they must be protected..right?
http://images19.fotki.com/v354/free/471d2/3/390074/1377715/11112006162-vi.jpg?1163207674
Sorry for the poor quality of the pic, and if I've posted this in the wrong place.

Borough Market is threatened by the Crossrail plans I believe.

Borough Market is threatened by the Crossrail plans I believe.

Thameslink.

And no, it isn't threatened. They are building a new viaduct which means the removal of a couple of buildings, and a new rail line straddling the eastern end of the Market.

Granted, the design of the new viaduct is atrocious, but Borough Market certainly isn't being destroyed.

And anyway, after the Shard is built the area is destined to become the new Islington or Canary Wharf, with stripmalls and gated communities a go-go, so at the end of the day, the market will either have to adapt or die, just like other commercial enterprises have done throughout London's history.

Thameslink.

And no, it isn't threatened. They are building a new viaduct which means the removal of a couple of buildings, and a new rail line straddling the eastern end of the Market.

Granted, the design of the new viaduct is atrocious, but Borough Market certainly isn't being destroyed.

OK well that's good news!

And anyway, after the Shard is built the area is destined to become the new Islington or Canary Wharf, with stripmalls and gated communities a go-go, so at the end of the day, the market will either have to adapt or die, just like other commercial enterprises have done throughout London's history.

I think that Borough Market has been rather successful with adapting, it certainly seems to fit well with the Jamie Oliver, organic food zeitgeist and is absolutely rammed on a Saturday.

Why will the Shard turn Borough into the new Islington or Canary Wharf? They seem rather polar opposite areas! Believe me there's already plenty of gated communities around SE1, the Jam Factory being a prime example, and property prices have been going absolutely mental over the last year or so, SE1 is an area with its own definate character, not comparable with Islington and certainly not with Canary Wharf, it's got a nice blend of City workers and creatives. Local developers have been trying to rebrand the Bermondsey Street area as Bermondsey Village and have labelled it the new Hoxton Square, a very lazy comparison and I'm pleased to report that the Garrison is yet to be overrun by Nathan Barley types!

Didnt they film ' The pride of Ms Gene Brody here"? What was her catch phrase?


Tubeman.....I lied!

I was down there today, the buildings there knocking down arent "in" the market..so it makes me wonder why they want to replace them with a new market section..which will not be particularly big..surely they can keep atleast the frontages of these buildings....we don't need extra market space here whatsoever, I've rarely seen the market anywhere near capacity..for aesthetic and heritage reasons we really need to save these buildings...your telling me there aint enough money floating around in London for this viaduct project to stretch to saving these..there is, and it will be a disgrace if this gets the go ahead...yes I am pissed off!
http://images20.fotki.com/v355/free/ff676/3/390074/1377715/102_0238-vi.jpg?1163446235
to this..
http://images19.fotki.com/v354/free/ff676/3/390074/1377715/11112006162-vi.jpg?1163207674

^^ has the benefit of opening up the view of the top of Southwark Cathedral, although not sure it mitigates the loss of those existing buildings. They're not outstanding really - this looks like one of those major planning decisions, lose a little bit of history, and replace with something significant, and considerable inward investment for Borough Market, and Southwark. Hmmm undecided, need to see more renders before dismissing the new scheme out of hand.

The new viaduct is 'clipped' on to the existing bridge, so this block would have to be demolished anyway to make room for the new tracks. I'm all for retaining existing facades when the facade is worthy of being kept, but I can't seen any particular historical feature that needs saving in this.

This new glass atrium will create an open gateway with a landmark entrance to Borough Market and I really can't see the fuss being generated over it.

What I do not like, however, is how the fact no-one has brought up the idea of pedestrianising the small streets inside Borough Market or redirecting the roads to compensate for the new route of the viaduct. This would be a much grander option and allow the market to expand.

^^

I totally disagree with this attitude....These type of modest buildings are what I love most about London, the everyday victorian building that sits there with handsome gentility and makes up the urban fabric. You cant get more English, more British, more London than this. To me they have huge historical and architectural merit. It is wholly wrong to replace them. At least keep the facades. To lose them would be lazy and shortsighted.

Does anyone know whether the fate of New London Bridge House has been decided? I really wouldn't want to see another 60's Seifert building lost.

Does anyone know whether the fate of New London Bridge House has been decided? I really wouldn't want to see another 60's Seifert building lost.
Yes, the 'Baby Shard' was approved earlier this year.

And frankly, I'll be glad to see the demolition of the current building.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=296278

Thanks for the info. Sorry to see it go, especially to be replaced by another mediocre glasshouse. What I love about London's architecture is the mix of buildings from across the decades and centuries. The way 60's high rises are going - Drapers Gardens, 20 Fenchurch St. and this all within a few years - we're going to have a whole generation missing from our cityscape. Of course, nobody cares now, but in 20-30 years I think there will be some regret.

I take your point about "preserving the past", but I seriously doubt many people are going to miss New London Bridge House. It's a really old, grey, forgettable concrete building. No redeeming features. A cold, unfriendly, windswept base and plaza.

I wouldn't call its replacement mediocre - I think it has potential to enhance its taller parent and will greatly improve the view from the west.

The renderings below demonstrate this best. I mean, which would you honestly rather have?

This -


http://www.technochitlins.com/mt-archives/London_Bridge_Tower.jpg




Or this...


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/London_general/1-4.jpg

Wow, that makes a big difference. I definitely like the second one better.

^I agree.Borough Market is great I love it.It has character.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7807/boroughmarketin4.jpg

Great picture!

2nd one.

Great renders! Now if only Guy´s would disappear...

Thanks for the info. Sorry to see it go, especially to be replaced by another mediocre glasshouse. What I love about London's architecture is the mix of buildings from across the decades and centuries. The way 60's high rises are going - Drapers Gardens, 20 Fenchurch St. and this all within a few years - we're going to have a whole generation missing from our cityscape. Of course, nobody cares now, but in 20-30 years I think there will be some regret.
SirDenys - keep going! I like these thoughtful and occasionally subversive views - I'm not automatically a big fan of anything tall and shiny either. Although - I do dislike much of the 60's/70's legacy. Seems to me that there's lots of dross (Barbican for e.g.) which overshadows the ocasional gem (Centrepoint)

Now if only Guy´s would disappear...

:bash: :bash: :bash:

^^ El Greco, your love of Guys is almost legendary! lol!

I suppose the one thing about Guy's you can say is; as long as it's a hospital that's way too big, (...and way too expensive for the NHS) to relocate nearby anytime soon, it'll probably outlast one or two of the glass boxes itself and become London's nod to post-war brutalism.

I'm not sure yet whether it will add or remove from the view of LBT. I suppose there's the contrast... Oh man, what am I saying... I'm sorry, but I don't like it either... ;)

I love 60s tower blocks too ;)

Man, I hate the current 'New London Bridge House'. One of the most disgusting buildings in London; does little for the eye or its surroundings.

As for Guy's... I think El_greco already knows my opinion on that ;)

2nd one 100% it makes the shard look more beutiful.:banana:

I quite like Guys, it could do with either a right old scrubbing or a reclad. The concrete just looks so dirty now, with a bit of Cilit Bang it would make an excellent contrast to LBT.

I take your point about "preserving the past", but I seriously doubt many people are going to miss New London Bridge House

It’s not about people missing it. My point is that we will be depriving people of the opportunity to see it in future generations. What people seem to forget is that high-rise office blocks like this were the first in London, albeit this one was towards the tail end of that period. Following them you had the likes of the Nat West Tower, the Gherkin and the skyscrapers which so many people here are excited about. In 30 years time, if someone wants to visit the historic first generation of skyscrapers, they won’t be able to because we’ll have pulled them all down. I make this comment particularly following the demolition of Drapers Gardens and the forthcoming demolition of 20 Fenchirch Street.

It's a really old
I think it’s about 33 years old. In a city boasting buildings which are several hundred years old, it hardly counts as old.

grey, forgettable
Grey/pink, cream, blue/green, silver. There's lots of colours there Several people here, ourselves included, haven’t forgotten it.

concrete building.
I have 2 responses to this: 1) I don’t think it’s a concrete building 2) There’s nothing wrong with concrete buildings. I’ll just stick to the first for now. There is very little concrete on show here. Some of what you might think is concrete is actually white tiles. Some of the facing may be stone, but I’m not sure. Even if everything that looks like it could be concrete is, I think it’s misleading to call it a concrete building. National Theatre, Hayward Gallery, Balfron Tower, Alexandra Road. These are concrete buildings. This building doesn’t belong on that list.

No redeeming features.
Obviously that’s a subjective point. To me, the main feature is that it’s a superb example of a building that reflects the optimism and forward thinking of the period. If you want to talk detail, then I’m not very good at that, but I’ll have a go.

http://www.cromar.org/linked/NewLond008_small.jpg

There’s the v-shaped columns at the front which kind of reflect the slight v-shape of the tower created by the centre indentation.

http://www.cromar.org/linked/NewLond012_small.jpg

The rather unusual design of the metal riveted windows.

http://www.cromar.org/linked/NewLond009_small.jpg

The classic metal entrance doors and canopy, and the floor to ceiling sloping glass window revealing the open stairway to the first floor.

I’d better leave it there as I’ve probably lost everyone by now. Thanks for the debate. Needless to say, I prefer the picture that shows New London Bridge House.

I love 60s tower blocks too ;)

I have nothing against 60's blocks I just cant stand concrete. Glass is much more elegant and makes the skyline look more alive rather than a series of grey and brown boxes.

It's classic Seifert I'll give it that. But it doesn't resonate with me, the fittings are shabby and in terms of looks hasn't aged well.

As long as Centrepoint stands (and I believe it should be listed as soon as possible) and the base celebrated by pedestrianisation, I'm not that concerned that other Seiferts are being wiped from the London skyline.

SirDenys - keep going! I like these thoughtful and occasionally subversive views - I'm not automatically a big fan of anything tall and shiny either. Although - I do dislike much of the 60's/70's legacy. Seems to me that there's lots of dross (Barbican for e.g.) which overshadows the ocasional gem (Centrepoint)
Thanks. I hope to be able to put forward my thoughts now and then, although I wasn't expecting a lot of agreement. Looks like we might be a bit like minded, although we differ on the Barbican. This isn't meant to be condescending, just a genuine question. Have you been inside the central open area or have you just seen it from the outside? In the middle is one of the most striking but peaceful and atmospheric places in London. Probably the Barbican and Dartmoor are my favourite places in England.

I love 60s tower blocks too ;)
Me too. I was out walking in Southwark last week and I unexpectedly came across a cluster of three. I was quite excited.

Man, I hate the current 'New London Bridge House'. One of the most disgusting buildings in London; does little for the eye or its surroundings.
I take it you haven't been to Wood Green or Tottenham then. :wink2:

As long as Centrepoint stands (and I believe it should be listed as soon as possible) and the base celebrated by pedestrianisation, I'm not that concerned that other Seiferts are being wiped from the London skyline.

'In 1995 Centre Point became a Grade II listed building. Noted architecture critic Nikolaus Pevsner described Centre Point as "coarse in the extreme".' centre point already is listed.. and theres always t42 as the best example of seiferts work

'In 1995 Centre Point became a Grade II listed building. Noted architecture critic Nikolaus Pevsner described Centre Point as "coarse in the extreme".' centre point already is listed.. and theres always t42 as the best example of seiferts work
No surprise there. His books are very good from the encyclopaedic point of view but the opinions are those of one or two people, so they're not particularly helpful unless you are like minded. He did have some good words to say about the National Theatre, though, so I'm not going to be too critical.

I take it you haven't been to Wood Green or Tottenham then. :wink2:

:rant: Eh..watch what your saying, don't go dissin my hood ;)

My second ever render so be nice ;)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/81119237_2fa0c65cac_b.jpg

^^ All good, but come on, guy's is just wrong... ;)

Thanks. I hope to be able to put forward my thoughts now and then, although I wasn't expecting a lot of agreement. Looks like we might be a bit like minded, although we differ on the Barbican. This isn't meant to be condescending, just a genuine question. Have you been inside the central open area or have you just seen it from the outside? In the middle is one of the most striking but peaceful and atmospheric places in London. Probably the Barbican and Dartmoor are my favourite places in England.
It's not condescending at all.
I go to the Barbican frequently - at least once a month. I have been a member of the Arts Centre for years, and it is easily the best thing about this otherwise dreadful place. It is actually the middle part that is the worst (although the rain-stained tower block balconies are pretty bad - they remind me of people who wipe their nose with their sleeve, but that's another matter). What I dislike is how everything has such an artificial and unforgivingly man-made colour and texture, an unnatural harshness, highlighted by the occasional sad patch of green. Any foliage unlucky enough to be in that environment is in a seemingly perpetual state of demise. The garden is the worst: trailing greenery over that trademark beige, stained concrete seems to mock nature. I love the concert hall (one of the best in Europe) but when I come out I cannot wait to leave.

:rant: Eh..watch what your saying, don't go dissin my hood ;)

:eek: Sorry. I should have made it clear that I wasn't talking about your particular part of Wood Green .... or Tottenham.

It's not condescending at all.
I go to the Barbican frequently - at least once a month. I have been a member of the Arts Centre for years, and it is easily the best thing about this otherwise dreadful place. It is actually the middle part that is the worst (although the rain-stained tower block balconies are pretty bad - they remind me of people who wipe their nose with their sleeve, but that's another matter). What I dislike is how everything has such an artificial and unforgivingly man-made colour and texture, an unnatural harshness, highlighted by the occasional sad patch of green. Any foliage unlucky enough to be in that environment is in a seemingly perpetual state of demise. The garden is the worst: trailing greenery over that trademark beige, stained concrete seems to mock nature. I love the concert hall (one of the best in Europe) but when I come out I cannot wait to leave.
Fair enough. I just think that a lot of people see the towers and form an opinion without really exploring it. That's obviously not the case with you.

My second ever render so be nice ;)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/81119237_2fa0c65cac_b.jpg

Great Render...thanks!...you know I think that those who dont know the layout of London could assume the tower and guys are part of the city....it is so close!

A3D created a 4D Bid Tender model for Mace that was intended to show how this complicated design would be constructed and dealing with the major logistics of the site.

The model was created in 3D from a set of 2D drawings and then linked with the programme within A3D's PAL (Planning & Logistics) system. The prrogramme was reviewed and revised in the model until it was signed off and incorporated as part of the Bid Tender.

4D was delivered via a project website where downloads of the 4D PAL models, a series of avi's and an extensive 4D gallery was available to the stakeholders.

http://www.a3duk.com/2006/projects_London_LBT.htm


http://www.a3duk.com/2006/images/proj_LBT_06.gif

when i saw that jef had posted i thought - its gonna be good, and i wasnt dissapoinmted. Its Exciting to get a glimpse of what the construction process will be like, im desperately looking forward to when people who dont know about it start noticing it getting bigger, and bigger, and then appearing on the skyline, and then becoming the most prominent landmark in london. Its going to be magic.

sirdenys you havent lost me. i cannot agree with you more. this sort of architecture is being lost through london because of the failure to list a single good example of it. we should be fighting to preserve at least some of our modernist past. ive written about this in the press many times and will continue to do so - it is a failing of every generation to preserve the architecture of the generation immediately before. just look at what was destroyed in the 50s and 60s that was wonderful victorian like the imperial institute and you can see the same disdain then for the immediate past. we should learn from our mistakes but we dont.

The immediate past is vile, nothing like the victorian's beautiful legacy. Perhaps we could keep some of the very best examples of brutalism, but then clear the way for something more humane and easy on the eye. I nominate that London keep the following buildings: Centrepoint, National Theatre, Royal Festival Hall, Barbican Tower (not concert hall area). Please demolish the following: Trelleck Tower, Guy's, Hayward gallery, Elizabeth theatre, Young Vic, Swiss Centre, Bucklebury house, Thistle Hotel Victoria station

Oh, and Euston station and BT Tower

thistle hotel victoria station??? what you must mean thistle tower bridge surely??

Please demolish the following: Trelleck Tower, Guy's,

Man I hate you! :bash:
Ok maybe these two buildings are not beautiful but theyre impressive very impressive.And theyre much better than those boring glass boxes.They have character!Leave them alone!

The immediate past is vile, nothing like the victorian's beautiful legacy. Perhaps we could keep some of the very best examples of brutalism, but then clear the way for something more humane and easy on the eye. I nominate that London keep the following buildings: Centrepoint, National Theatre, Royal Festival Hall, Barbican Tower (not concert hall area). Please demolish the following: Trelleck Tower, Guy's, Hayward gallery, Elizabeth theatre, Young Vic, Swiss Centre, Bucklebury house, Thistle Hotel Victoria station

Go easy on me here, but I think Guys and The Shard compliment each other quite well, from El_Greco's rendering they look pretty good together

thistle hotel victoria station??? what you must mean thistle tower bridge surely??

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b316/BenL26/LON_THVI-exter-1.jpg

Go easy on me here, but I think Guys and The Shard compliment each other quite well...

Sorry Frag old boy... :ohno:

i came across this thread, nick taylor an old SSC fourmer posted that LTB is to be delayed because PWC screwed up on their relocation! do you think there is any truth in this?

here is the link:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6580&page=13

sorry, thistle tower...that victoria building is --c'est formidable--

I'm not keen on the colour of the trelleck tower, it might be a tad more acceptable if it was white rather than grey

sorry, thistle tower...that victoria building is --c'est formidable--

thistle victoria is a beautiful building (even if its operator isnt so great)
http://static.flickr.com/18/23762017_ed576c44bc.jpg?v=0
http://static.flickr.com/106/298772097_d0ac9d30bc.jpg?v=0

Wrong Thistle Hotel...Get rid of this affront to the eyes..(not the bridge, duh)

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p49/zedferret/Thistle2.jpg

i came across this thread, nick taylor an old SSC fourmer posted that LTB is to be delayed because PWC screwed up on their relocation! do you think there is any truth in this?

here is the link:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6580&page=13

Don't worry, this is well known news. The good side is that enabeling works can start before PWC even move out.

Thistle looks like a stepped pryamid--would be OK if not for the material. Its a pity they allowed that there. I wonder if someday it will be demolished or reclad. I think that it would be ideal for a 5 star hotel chain, perhaps someone will buy that building.

its far more likely to be a more profitable site as office/residential development with maybe a hotel element incorporated as part of a mixed use. but the current site is a succesful business so the only hope of it ever going is that either thistle hotels go bankrupt (not exactly ideal) or if the site is actually not owned by thistle then there would be a possibility that its owner would want to change it when the lease runs out. as it stands i dont really hold too much hope of this going anywhere in the next 10 years at least

Great bit of news- sadly it doesn't say when there moving.

from propertyweek

PWC’s City fringe shuffle deals Shard a free hand

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ three-way move leaves Southwark Towers site free for Sellar tower


17.11.2006

PricewaterhouseCoopers is to leave its Southwark headquarters for three separate offices around City of London fringe locations, allowing the Shard tower to start on site.

The accountant is to take a total of nearly 200,000 sq ft (18,580 sq m) around the City on leases that will expire in five years or less.

PWC will leave the 200,000 sq ft (18,580 sq m) Southwark Towers, enabling the Shard consortium to move forward with its skyscraper.

The accountant will take more than 100,000 sq ft (9,290 sq m) at the St Martins-owned Hays Galleria on Tooley Street on a sublease from Lloyds TSB.

PWC will also take almost 20,000 sq ft (1,858 sq m) from Marylebone Warwick Balfour Business Exchange at 6 Hays Lane in London Bridge City, which is also part of the Hays Galleria complex.

It has also agreed a third letting of around 50,000 sq ft (4,645 sq m) at Shell-Mex House on the north side of the Thames near the Strand, which has been placed on the market by its owners the Tchenguiz brothers, the Reuben brothers and Jack Dellal. The space is understood to be on a sublease from publisher Pearson.

The accountant only needs the office space for five years, after which it will move the staff into a longer-term office location.

Last year, PWC surrendered its lease to the consortium of Sellar Property Group, CLS Holdings and Simon Halabi that owns its existing building.

It is looking at two sites for the longer-term requirement of up to 400,000 sq ft (37,160 sq m): More London and British Land’s 201 Bishopsgate.

It is thought that More London has the advantage given its rent levels and location.

A final decision has not yet been taken on the move, although a decision is expected before Christmas. PWC’s lease at Plumtree Court expires in 2009.

Jones Lang LaSalle is advising PWC. No one would comment.

sirdenys you havent lost me. i cannot agree with you more. this sort of architecture is being lost through london because of the failure to list a single good example of it. we should be fighting to preserve at least some of our modernist past. ive written about this in the press many times and will continue to do so - it is a failing of every generation to preserve the architecture of the generation immediately before. just look at what was destroyed in the 50s and 60s that was wonderful victorian like the imperial institute and you can see the same disdain then for the immediate past. we should learn from our mistakes but we dont.

http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/feist/05.jpg
the main building was demolished in 1963, only the collcutt (now queen's) tower remains.

the preservation of examples from every era of british architectural heritage is an essential duty, it's just unfortunate that the legacy bequeathed to us from the 1950s and 60s are so - in most cases - genuinely derisible.

Thistle looks like a stepped pryamid--would be OK if not for the material. Its a pity they allowed that there. I wonder if someday it will be demolished or reclad. I think that it would be ideal for a 5 star hotel chain, perhaps someone will buy that building.

It's far too big for the river-front. If it has to be there at all it should be stepped back from the river and the front opened up. Of course, a nice park wouldn't go amiss, but where's the profit in that? :ohno:

Great bit of news- sadly it doesn't say when there moving.



Mid 2007.

The reason for the three way move is so the various Southwark Towers based groups can stay close to their industry clients - thus the government and public sector group will move to the Strand while the financial services group will stay in the London Bridge area close to the City.

At F*****G last, I thought they'd never leave

Thx for the info Mole. It was reported in the press yesterday that Jones Lang LaSalle has been dropped as an agent from the More London development after seven years on the scheme. The only building left is More London 7, a cheap and dull groundscaper, that PwC was tipped to be close to prelet as their new head offices. I 've also heard that the possible problem with More London 7 is that it can accomodate 400,000 sqft while PwC is reported to be searching for up to 500,000 sqft to cope with expanding operations. PwC also made it clear they want cheap accomodations in "fringe" locations. The City is ruled out. Any chances that PwC are reconsidering the selection of More London 7 ? Is the move of 2/3 of KPMG staff to the CW likely to influence PwC?

I just don't understand why they won't move their Southwark offices into the future newly built Shard. It makes sense to me. They're the largest partnership joint company. Their operations are really big. When their customers want to see their headquarters, they want to see something spectacular. Not More London!

I just don't understand why they won't move their Southwark offices into the future newly built Shard. It makes sense to me. They're the largest partnership joint company. Their operations are really big. When their customers want to see their headquarters, they want to see something spectacular. Not More London!

if they had their offices based in the Shard, the most likely reaction of their clients would be along the lines of 'no wonder you're charging us so much per hour'!

okay - good news there - walked past the site on Weds evening, and I guess one of the first visible signs we might get is the shutting of the footbridge across Thomas Street which skirts round the front of Southwark Towers. That said, they could start the main internal clearance of the building well before shutting the bridge. 2007 will be the year of demolition in the City (+ fringe) then: Crosby Court (Bishopsgate Tower), 122 Leadenhall, Heron, 20 FC Street and Southwark Towers, and construction in Canary Wharf.

PwC issued a memo to their London staff yesterday announcing that they will vacate Southwark Towers in July/August 2007.

I just don't understand why they won't move their Southwark offices into the future newly built Shard. It makes sense to me. They're the largest partnership joint company. Their operations are really big. When their customers want to see their headquarters, they want to see something spectacular. Not More London!

Their UK headquarters are at Embankment Place and there is no intention to move out of there.

Any chances that PwC are reconsidering the selection of More London 7 ? Is the move of 2/3 of KPMG staff to the CW likely to influence PwC?

The London Bridge area is good for the financial services group because it's close to the City, it's a 10 minute ride to Canary Wharf on the Jubilee Line and it's also in the right commuting location for many of the staff, including several of the senior partners who will be making the decisions.

The idea of a building that overlooks E&Y's European headquarters, despite only being PwC's secondary London location, is also appealing.

I think it's fair to say that Moscow wins in the height department.


http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6091/rtlbtjn0.jpg

I agree, but we will have to wait until they are built to see which is the best skyscraper overall. Height isn't everything!

Height isn't everything, but when youre talking skyscrapers...its very nearly everything.

Height isn't everything, but when youre talking skyscrapers...its very nearly everything.

^^ But come on. Would you say Russia tower is better than, say The Chrysler building? And it's only half the height. I do like the Russia Tower, I think it is one of the few times Moscow has actually gotten it right(but that's probably down to Norman Foster lol) I mean they really don't have much more than height to their name. come on, Federation tower? For god sakes make an effort! I would much rather have the shard represented Europe as our tallest skyscraper than that piece of unimaginative architecture.

http://i2.tinypic.com/sv1loj.jpg

http://shardlondonbridge.com/images/left_bar/tl_open.jpg

http://shardlondonbridge.com/images/left_bar/dev_legal_advisors.jpg

I just think this has 'stunning' and 'amazing' written all over it. The wayit only reflects the sky, and changes colour excellently according to the light level and weather...

Oh not this discussion again.:bash:
The last thing we want is that twat COTH on this thread.
To be honest I couldn't give a monkey's about that tower in russia, as long as we get LBT.
A 600m tower in London would look utterly ridiculas

Why would a 600m tower look ridiculous in London?
Sorry if this is contentious, and/or old ground, but I honestly don't know why 300m is OK, but 600m not.
And I'll resist referring to M***ow for the same reason that Ismail has pithily described.

Moscow is also a low-rise city so it wouldn´t look any worse in London.

A 600m tower in London right now would be totally overbearing. The river would be overshadowed and quite frankly it's not London's style. 600m is showing off, why ever would a place like Moscow need to build a tower that size? I'd much rather have the space offered in several 100-200-300m towers, just like London, rather than one mahoosive tower, no matter how good it looks.

Why would a 600m tower look ridiculous in London?
Sorry if this is contentious, and/or old ground, but I honestly don't know why 300m is OK, but 600m not.
And I'll resist referring to M***ow for the same reason that Ismail has pithily described.
It's all about scale and context.

Surely you can see, a building of 600m would completely dominate Central London. A good building is one that contributes to its surroundings, not overwhelms them. It would interfere with historic views, it would draw attention away from dozens of other important landmarks, it would look almost scarily out of scale, and it would overshadow huge tracts of land around it. Even if you built such a tower in the Docklands or Stratford, it would still be visible all over the place, cropping up in countless views and sticking out like a sore thumb, no matter how slim or elegant the design.

Anyway - as we've said countless times on this forum, London doesn't need to compete for the world's tallest building in order to improve its status. It is already one of the greatest and most successful world capitals; the centre of modern civilization, and the most cosmopolitan place on Earth. It has the strongest and most international financial centre, the busiest and most connected airport hub, the greatest sporting pedigree of any city, one of the most important media and creative industries, a world-renowned arts and music scene, the world's biggest nightlife district, a history and heritage spanning two millenia, a cultural influence which is unmatched anywhere, and is one of the most visited places on Earth. Need I go on?

I believe that, one day, London will be ready for towers of that height, and higher. But not for a long time. A good few decades yet. And they would have to respect the cities heritage just like todays towers tend to do.

Moscow has a river too, and if there is one thing that most major cities like to do, it's show off. That's why they all wanted to Olympics.
I still cannot see why 600m is overbearing, and 300m not.

I still cannot see why 600m is overbearing, and 300m not.

Just look at this rendering from South London.

Frankly, even 300m is bordering on overbearing -


http://www.skyscrapernews.com/lbt10a.jpg

Does make LBT look tiny though doesn't it? :)

Still lovin LBT though... nothing can ever change that.

Moscow has a river too, and if there is one thing that most major cities like to do, it's show off. That's why they all wanted to Olympics.
I still cannot see why 600m is overbearing, and 300m not.

600m is, not suprisingly, double the height. When 300m is as tall compared to it's surroundings as The Shard is, 600m would just be unimaginable. It would be visible anywhere, there would be no escaping it, and London would just look like Dubai, building ridiculous buildings in ridiculous sizes, who wants that?

It's all about scale and context.

Surely you can see, a building of 600m would completely dominate Central London. A good building is one that contributes to its surroundings, not overwhelms them. It would interfere with historic views, it would draw attention away from dozens of other important landmarks, it would look almost scarily out of scale, and it would overshadow huge tracts of land around it. Even if you built such a tower in the Docklands or Stratford, it would still be visible all over the place, cropping up in countless views and sticking out like a sore thumb, no matter how slim or elegant the design.

Anyway - as we've said countless times on this forum, London doesn't need to compete for the world's tallest building in order to improve its status. It is already one of the greatest and most successful world capitals; the centre of modern civilization, and the most cosmopolitan place on Earth. It has the strongest and most international financial centre, the busiest and most connected airport hub, the greatest sporting pedigree of any city, one of the most important media and creative industries, a world-renowned arts and music scene, the world's biggest nightlife district, a history and heritage spanning two millenia, a cultural influence which is unmatched anywhere, and is one of the most visited places on Earth. Need I go on?

Do you work for Ken or the touristboard?:)
I'll leave aside how the residents of Paris, New York, Rome etc etc could take you to task on most of those descriptions of London, and focus instead on the original point.
Why would 600m be overbearing, and 300m not? Clearly you would not place such a tower in the West End, or the City, but why not somewhere else? I'm not saying it should, and I'm not convinced that you're in error, but I just haven't heard any compelling argument in this forum against a building of such magnitude. You seem to be suggesting that London should not because it doesn't need to - culture, sports, nightlife etc etc. I think that the number of tall buildings that are constructed because a city needs to are in the minority (New York needs a 1774ft tall building?) so that shouldn't hold London back. And anyway, how does that rationale tie in with it being overbearing?

I think you could still easily have a 1km high towers in Stratford or Wembley, redifine the sprawling deserts of London give the villages back to the village, why should they all cow to central London? Imagine epic vertical towns looking out over the green belt, defining and solidifying the boundary

The base of a 600m building would be too big for Central London. It wouldn't fit into the existing townscape.

what would you have thought the cancelled Milennium tower, I mean that was almost 400m tall. it made T42 looks ridiculous and short arse.

Abso-bloody-lutely. I know this is a skyscraper website but sometimes it isn't all about the height. A 600m tower would look ridiculous in London, it would completely dominate the city in a hideously overbearing way. What London needs are attractive, tall modern buildings that compliment it's current mixed skyline, which includes buildings such as the Houses of Parliament, St Pauls Cathedral and the Tate Modern. A 300m tower such as LBT will be huge and will dwarf said buildings, but in a 'humane' way i.e. your eye will still be drawn to the other buildings around you. The day that London's great landmarks are forced to pay second string to a bunch of supertall skyscrapers is the day that the city loses it's soul. Let's hope that it never happens.

Do you work for Ken or the touristboard?:)
I'll leave aside how the residents of Paris, New York, Rome etc etc could take you to task on most of those descriptions of London, and focus instead on the original point.
Why would 600m be overbearing, and 300m not? Clearly you would not place such a tower in the West End, or the City, but why not somewhere else? I'm not saying it should, and I'm not convinced that you're in error, but I just haven't heard any compelling argument in this forum against a building of such magnitude. You seem to be suggesting that London should not because it doesn't need to - culture, sports, nightlife etc etc. I think that the number of tall buildings that are constructed because a city needs to are in the minority (New York needs a 1774ft tall building?) so that shouldn't hold London back. And anyway, how does that rationale tie in with it being overbearing?

i believe wjfox just gave you the reasons. AND wjfox is completely correct about londons cultural, financial, etc status compared to other cities. a tower of 600m would only fit in, in the centre of a cluster. lets look at burj dubai, that tower is being built in around a cluster and even that looks odd, go and look at the renderings and i bet u look at them and say"hhmm something isnt right" and its because its far to overbearing.. well my opinion

Well, this is how it would appear in the City -


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/city/towerofrussia.jpg

In the City, no way, but what about CW (assuming there were no issues with the flight paths)?

Well, this is how it would appear in the City -


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/city/towerofrussia.jpg

As I said before, "hideously overbearing". St Pauls looks completely insignificent next to this monster.

Thats one big mo'fo

There is absolutely no way a building of that height would compliment London, and i can only see it having a negative effect on Moscows relatively low rise skyline.

^^ Where the hell would you find a plot of land the size that needs!

my god thats a beast! however i belive in moscow it will be surrounded by quite a few very large buildings, so it may not look so out of place as it does there.

makes ours look like midgets ( i mean vertically challenged)!

Well, this is how it would appear in the City -


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/city/towerofrussia.jpg

I rest my case!!

It burns the eyes!

I think we've probably gone as far with this as we need to. However, a couple things strike me. Renders of large towers will always show how they dwarf towers around them - you could have shown the same kind of image for any of the first tall towers in any city of the world. The reaction to T42 was probably the same when that was proposed - ironic, given the nature of this forum. Second, I think it's mostly a question of familiarity. For example, CW. How is that not overbearing, for a district with no buildings of a comparable height? And it is by the river, exacerbating this effect. It is visible from many parts of London, and has very little in common with the architectural heritage that we're all keen on protecting. Yet....few voices are raised against it. Why? Because we're used to it, and now it has a critical mass it is no longer a single, stand-out tower. Rather, it's a group of buildings that complement each other, albeit it a rather uniform and uninspiring fashion.
I'm not looking for an argument (or for agreement, for that matter) here, but imagine wjfox's render with other 400, 500m towers around it, which would be a fairer image to present given the eample of CW. It would look pretty shocking because it would be so different to what we are used to seeing every day, but why would it be bad? The CW effect, where balance and coherency helps us come to terms with what initially can appear somewhat challenging would, in time, allow to adjust and accept. What is so magical about 300m? It just so happens to be the limit that London has imposed because of an airport.
I believe it's all about bounded rationality: we've become so accustomed to a "maximum" that to consider anything else is too difficult, and to our (render-adjusted) eyes, super-talls look overbearing, or too dense, and we try to explain it away by saying London is too cultural, too historic to consider them. One final question: 100 years from now, do you think that 300m will be the maximum considered height for London? Towers will only get bigger, and the skyline will continue to rise, and the notion that 300m is the maximum suitable for London will appear rather quaint.

I actually quite like the look of that tower, it has a decent design imo, but I agree with the rest of you, it really doesn't fit in well with the City cluster, just totally detracts attension from the the beautiful buildings below it.

non sense.

kinda reminds me of that eastern european city in half life 2 with its gigantic citadel

Well, this is how it would appear in the City -


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/city/towerofrussia.jpg

Holy shit that's some monster!! :eek:

I completely agree with Wjfox, totally overbearing and is actually an eyesore in this context so matter how good the design is. Also Moscow is not the same. What's the next tallest building in that area? The Federation Tower's tall and quite beefy aswell, also the masterplans show another tower of around 450m that's not announced yet. Same applies to burj dubai, the next tallest tower in the area is around 500m.

What I'd love to see though is a tower of around 350m built where the moscow tower was placed with a 250-280m building to the left. That would make my day :)

My opinion...one day, but not now, no way. Probably not in my lifetime.

And not in the City, or Canary Wharf, it's only really conceivable way out of central London.

Thats one big mo'fo

There is absolutely no way a building of that height would compliment London, and i can only see it having a negative effect on Moscows relatively low rise skyline.

At the moment its low rise but not including this building theres at least three 300m+ towers going up and quite a number of 200m+.

In london this doesnt look right and i agree that it doesnt compliment st. pauls at all but it shows how well the leadenhall building, bishopsgate tower and heron tower will complement it. We're very lucky :)

I don't think we will see a taller building in london than the shard in our lifetime.

My opinion...one day, but not now, no way. Probably not in my lifetime.

And not in the City, or Canary Wharf, it's only really conceivable way out of central London.

One of the main requirements would be access. It would have to be built on or around a major transport interchange. Most of these are in Urban Centres - although perhaps in London Clapham Junction could handle it...

Anyway, there is a higher chance of Mike Tyson becoming Mayor for London than something like this being built for the foreseeable future.

I thint that is daring and wonderful...if you are going to state the here and now, do it with ability and technology...I think that would be the new St .Pauls

May be towards the the end of the next decade (2020 and onwards) we will see 400m plus towers in London, this will be the next generation of planners and politicians.
I personally think that as soon as LBT is finished, some will put in a proposal to try to top it, I think we may have a 350m proposal in the pipe line by 2012.

May be towards the the end of the next decade (2020 and onwards) we will see 400m plus towers in London, this will be the next generation of planners and politicians.
I personally think that as soon as LBT is finished, some will put in a proposal to try to top it, I think we may have a 350m proposal in the pipe line by 2012.

Your forgetting that there's CAA height limits of around 310m. not to mention the protected viewing areas. if 160m 20FC & 220m Beetham tower can get called in & reduced in height due to infringing on royal parks & palaces then a 350-400m would stand no chance IMO.

^^ But like he said, the new generation of planners may be more supportive. I certainly expect them to be anyway. And if the owners of LCY had a brain cell between them they would use the land to develope towers. What is the airport worth? 2, 300million? Swiss Re sold fortwice the price, and that is only a single, 180m tower. You could create a development worth tens of billions on that land.

update PwC/Shard.

PWC have informed staff yesterday they will move out Southwarks Towers by July/August 07. They will move into Union Street training centre, 80 strand and Hays Galeries just near London Bridge, and any available space at Plumtree Court and Embankment Place.

PWC are still discussing with developers over a "exciting" brand new building for 2008/2009. This will leave PwC with two main offices - Embankment Place and the new building. Canary Wharf is apparently ruled out as well as tall buildings. It is believed, as indicated in previous posts, that PWC will select either 201 Broadgate or More London 7. Both of them are u/c spec.

The consortium behind the Shard will thus take full site possession in September 2007.

PS. Thanks to the insider for informing us:)

^^
Thanks Jef and the Insider.

It's still appauling after 3-4 years of chasing them up they decide to move mid next year.
Appauling.

update PwC/Shard.

PWC have informed staff yesterday they will move out Southwarks Towers by July/August 07. They will move into Union Street training centre, 80 strand and Hays Galeries just near London Bridge, and any available space at Plumtree Court and Embankment Place.

PWC are still discussing with developers over a "exciting" brand new building for 2008/2009. This will leave PwC with two main offices - Embankment Place and the new building. Canary Wharf is apparently ruled out as well as tall buildings. It is believed, as indicated in previous posts, that PWC will select either 201 Broadgate or More London 7. Both of them are u/c spec.

The consortium behind the Shard will thus take full site possession in September 2007.

PS. Thanks to the insider for informing us:)

so effectively we won't see the Shard going upwards till late 2008 at the very least then. Assume demolition will be fairly tricky with the site linked so directly to the station, and then significant groundworks needed as well.

Theoretically in two years time we could have rising cores and steelwork on LBT, Bishopsgate Tower, 122 Leadenhall and Heron, nevermind whats happening in Canary Wharf.

Hmm, so with this news it looks like we will have LBT on the skyline by the Olympics I hope, though I doubt it will be finished on the interior.

^^ The Hotel in LBT will not be too happy about that

My gut feeling is that one way or another LBT will be ready for the Olympics, though perhaps only just! Demolition and prep work may be completed by Autumn 2008, and thereafter the tower will have three and a half years to be completed (late 2008 to April 2012).

Remember, it will be externally complete long before it's 100% complete.

^^ Exactly, which is all that really counts as far as the vast majority of us are concerned. I mean, unless you are one of the (lucky) people who are actually going to work in it, externally complete may as well be fully complete for all the difference it will make to how you see the building, we will just see one great big piercing sex diamond soaring into the sky in a creshendo of beautiful glass!!

There is usually at the very LEAST 6 months or so time difference between externally complete and fully complete....as far as I know...anyone got a better estimate??

:cheers:

^^ Swiss Re certainly looked externally finished along time before the interior

The HSBC and Citigroup buildings at CW also seemed to take ages to fit out...i would say a year or more.

^^ Exactly, which is all that really counts as far as the vast majority of us are concerned. I mean, unless you are one of the (lucky) people who are actually going to work in it, externally complete may as well be fully complete for all the difference it will make to how you see the building, we will just see one great big piercing sex diamond soaring into the sky in a creshendo of beautiful glass!!

But then there is the public viewing gallery which I believe is predicted to have as many visitors as the Eye?

LBT should be able to be fitted out more quickly than the HSBC and Citigroup Buildings, it has less space to be fitted out (particularly at high level) and the fit outs involve a significant proportion of apartments and hotel rooms which are simple in comparison with the systems and related interior fit outs needed by banking/finance offices.

^^
Thanks Jef and the Insider.

It's still appauling after 3-4 years of chasing them up they decide to move mid next year.
Appauling.

indeed, im glad this snivelling company (PwC) are finaly leaving though. not before time i might add

It is believed, as indicated in previous posts, that PWC will select either 201 Broadgate or More London 7. Both of them are u/c spec.


I hope they take 201 Broadgate, that would hopefully give BL that little extra push to start 122 Leadenhall.

indeed, im glad this snivelling company (PwC) are finaly leaving though. not before time i might add

Certainly not indeed. One could say they're pushing it at the date they have set, it's ridiculous really :ohno:

Does London really need anything taller than 310m? Where would a tower like that fit in? London doesn't need skyscrapers at all. They are just attractive additions, superfluous.

^^ I think skyscrapers are the only alternative, especially as there is no more room for expansion, the only way is up if we want to continue growth.

I wouldn't say that Skyscrapers are superfluous, I think they add scope and dynamism.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=414393

*smirk*

^^ It looks like a doctors hand, poised to "cup", they should have called it "Tour Cough Please"

I didn't want to say it in the original thread incase I insult the French but that tower is truly hideous. :puke:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=414393

*smirk*

c'mon Will, be nice lol

I didn't want to say it in the original thread incase I insult the French but that tower is truly hideous. :puke:

Based on that initial rendering I'd agree...

However - remember how we felt about the first ever rendering of the Bishopsgate Tower? It seemed very odd looking. Then as more renders were released, and we saw it from different angles, opinions were greatly improved.

Anyway, lets forget about that (we don't want a flame war or anything)

Lets just think about how this time next year Southwark towers will be getting demolished!

Sorry for my rudeness but "it looks like a beheaded cock without balls". ;)

Well I think I like it. It is organic, which has lacked so much in La Défense and Paris so far.

I like this quote. :lol:

Subliving.

Based on that initial rendering I'd agree...

However - remember how we felt about the first ever rendering of the Bishopsgate Tower? It seemed very odd looking. Then as more renders were released, and we saw it from different angles, opinions were greatly improved.

I loved it the second I saw it!

It looks like a lump of playdo that has just been punched... lol

Well, I'm glad it isn't 800m like many of the trolls were saying.

It looks nice from one of the angles, but the rest, not so much.

Well, you can probably tell what I think of the tower!!

Does London really need anything taller than 310m? Where would a tower like that fit in? London doesn't need skyscrapers at all. They are just attractive additions, superfluous.

i disagree, i think london definetly needs skyscrapers. a skyscraper skyline is amazing and londons skyline is amazing, just think of the 2 combinded. as has already been said, london has only one option for expantion and that is up. as well as the fact huge corperations prefer highrise buildings and enjoy the arrogance of being in one.. plus we dont want to be left behind other cities now do we

huge corperations prefer highrise buildings

In London, I see little evidence of this.

i disagree, i think london definetly needs skyscrapers. a skyscraper skyline is amazing and londons skyline is amazing, just think of the 2 combinded. as has already been said, london has only one option for expantion and that is up. as well as the fact huge corperations prefer highrise buildings and enjoy the arrogance of being in one.. plus we dont want to be left behind other cities now do we

You've probably never worked for a huge corporation in the UK. Many institutions are now so concerned with Business Continuity Planning and the threat of terrorist attack that they rarely centralise operations. The big banks in Canary Wharf don't focus all their operations there, part of each tower is sub-let to much smaller occupiers. A spread of offices across the city gives a better presence, and also, as alluded to above, reduces the threat (however unlikely) of a Cantor Fitzgerald-like disaster (their entire NYC operation was wiped out when the World Trade Centre went down).

Your point about maximising use of space by building upwards is still valid though.

Arrogance? these are huge corporations typically headed by people typically appointed into senior executive roles for the max of 3-5 years (half of my company's execs are American with no ties to a company which was formed 300 years ago). A company may have a demonstrative and arrogant CEO (re: Black at the Daily Telegraph), but that's not enough to build a skyscraper purely as a vanity project (in the UK we're talking here). Investors want return on their investment and divident payout, not the Board sitting in a Boardroom eyrie eyeballing the city beneath them. Donald Trump in the US is a prime example of 'skyscraper arrogance', and his company has seen both the zenith and nadir of this approach.

Just looked at Paris's proposed 300 metre whoppers. They are absolutely disgusting. Poor old Paris. London gets the LBT and the Helter-Skelter. Paris gets a tower with an upside down spike and a big blob of grey goo. Looks like a nanotechnology experiment gone wrong. I guess it is London's turn to look beautiful :lol:

These two buildings will destroy Paris and will be visible all over the place. Tour Granite, EDF, T1 and Soc Gen are all great. These two are a disaster.

Just looked at Paris's proposed 300 metre whoppers. They are absolutely disgusting. Poor old Paris. London gets the LBT and the Helter-Skelter. Paris gets a tower with an upside down spike and a big blob of grey goo. Looks like a nanotechnology experiment gone wrong. I guess it is London's turn to look beautiful :lol:

These two buildings will destroy Paris and will be visible all over the place. Tour Granite, EDF, T1 and Soc Gen are all great. These two are a disaster.
You're absolutely right.

I was genuinely worried about what Paris might come up with - but after seeing today's renderings I have real confidence in London's skyline now. Our capital will have the best collection of skyscrapers in Europe, I'm sure of it. Moscow will lay claim to the tallest, Paris and Frankfurt will have more density, but London will easily have the most beautiful and well-designed skyscrapers.

The Tour Signal looks too pretentious to me. It's too contrived, it's trying too hard to be creative. London's proposals seem to have an "effortless" grace and quality about them.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=414393

*smirk*

I couldent of put that any better myself. ^^ :master:

I liked it, pisses all over anything created in Canary Wharf, maybe too wide in the City but would look good further inland near Beetham

Moscow will lay claim to the tallest
height is the figure. so... winner could be easily found in this title.

Paris and Frankfurt will have more density
density is the figure. so... winner could be easily found in this title.

London will easily have the most beautiful and well-designed skyscrapers
but i see no figures here. it's just your personal subjective opinion...

yes because stats have always made beautiful places... you complete idiot!

Moscow will lay claim to the tallest
height is the figure. so... winner could be easily found in this title.

Paris and Frankfurt will have more density
density is the figure. so... winner could be easily found in this title.

London will easily have the most beautiful and well-designed skyscrapers
but i see no figures here. it's just your personal subjective opinion...

Oh go away coth for christs sakes!

Coth, you moronic imbicilic fool, its sooo clear that you have something against london.. get back to Mother russia, and live in your snow-infested, commie block saturated, isolated and "too far" inland hell-hole and stay far away from us, thank you. :bash: :ohno:

On second thoughts, He must love all this notoriety, best not stoke the fire, we're playing into his coniving little hands.

Moscow will lay claim to the tallest
height is the figure. so... winner could be easily found in this title.

Paris and Frankfurt will have more density
density is the figure. so... winner could be easily found in this title.

London will easily have the most beautiful and well-designed skyscrapers
but i see no figures here. it's just your personal subjective opinion...
http://www.altheabraithwaite.net/Feeling%20Jealous.JPG

C'mon Coth, you're better then this, you're not the kind of guy who goes arond posting bitter, moronic comments that make you look like a discontented KGB loyalist....oh no wait...you are...sorry, my bad, continue! :)

The very fact that you commented in this thread in such a way says everything about you my friend!

:cheers:

this is no place to play "my dick is bigger than yours".
as for density several towers are not visible there because its SO dense... frankfurts cluster is almost 2km by 2km counting frmo the edges of each other. the city of london one from north to south from its longest 20 fenchurch street/broadgate tower is 1km. counting from west to east (tower 42 to swiss re) it is a mere 300m! in otherwords frankfurts cluster is spread over 4 million sq m of space which will have 12 towers over 150m, london's over 300,000 sq m of space will have 9 or one every 33,333 sq m to one every 333,333 sq m for frankfurt. the city of london's main skyscraper cluster is far denser by a factor of ten and thats with excluding minerva.
if we take into account the size of frankfurts cluster and transpose this to london it will reach from broadgate tower to london bridge tower and guys hospital in the south and all the way west into southwark taking in beetham london and the w/e blackfriars tower too and unlike frankfurt it has a river sucking up space too.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/468320FenchurchStreet_pic5.jpg

Why coth is still a mod?

He must hang around here all day just waiting to hear the word Moscow said, then he can chip in with his bit and piss off content. He'll do it in a couple of weeks when he feels like he needs some attention

Why coth is still a mod?
because there are many kids like you, aquablue and others on this board.


@Fragmentor
I have said nothing about Moscow. Not even one word. I have even said nothing about density of Moscow IBC. But as I said - beauty - is a personal subjective opinion that cannon be stated as a fact. Everyone have own feel of taste and beauty.

You're absolutely right.

I was genuinely worried about what Paris might come up with - but after seeing today's renderings I have real confidence in London's skyline now. Our capital will have the best collection of skyscrapers in Europe, I'm sure of it.

The Tour Signal looks too pretentious to me. It's too contrived, it's trying too hard to be creative. London's proposals seem to have an "effortless" grace and quality about them.

I know what you mean but to be honest I'd rather London have a great skyline and Paris an equal or better one, than London having the best and Paris having Sesame Street play-doh accident. Just don't like to see such a beautiful city screw up. However, Paris has a history of designing buildings that everyone seem to hate that end up being iconic - starting with the eiffel tower.

IMO we should be wishing our sister cities to get great additions, otherwise we hardly deserve to have them in our own. :lovethem:

England and France are the brother and sister that never get on yet have a deep affection and who's competition to be better than each other benefits both parties.

because there are many kids like you, aquablue and others on this board.

That has nothing to do with making a total tit head a mod, even if it was true which it isn't.

Moscow will lay claim to the tallest
height is the figure. so... winner could be easily found in this title.

Paris and Frankfurt will have more density
density is the figure. so... winner could be easily found in this title.

London will easily have the most beautiful and well-designed skyscrapers
but i see no figures here. it's just your personal subjective opinion...But London really will have the most beautiful scrapers (so long as they get built of course....). It may be a subjective opinion but it's an honest one - for me and most people with some taste and aesthetic discrimination. Height isn't that important. I personally think Taipei 101 is ugly. I'm not too keen on the Sears Tower either. Height may be measurable but what value does it have if the buildings that are visible so far around are actually eyesores? None....

And I'm not sure if La Defense is denser than the City. I'm sure the City already has more office space in the same land area. The buildings in La Defense are higher than in the City but much further apart and less space efficient. The City also lacks the vast windswept plaza that runs through the centre of La Defense that must seriously reduce its density. I also don't see how La Defense is denser than Canary Wharf. La Defense covers a larger area but Canary Wharf certainly has more really large buildings in close proximity.

And I share the dislike of Paris's new proposals. They are just awful.

kids will not understand any other explanation.

Why do you come here Coth, do you just feel the need to check up on the best future skyscraper of Europe?

oh coth... i got that new magazine (my fame spreads to russia!). ill email you a copy later ok.

because there are many kids like you, aquablue and others on this board.


Listen cat why dont you take your childish behaviour somewhere else (guess the city forum for example)?We dont need you here - we dont like trolls you see and youre one of them.
I think Ill send a PM to Jan others should do the same.

^^ Great idea Greco

England and France are the brother and sister that never get on yet have a deep affection and who's competition to be better than each other benefits both parties.

I have a deep affection for France...they are too muh like us to want out of your life.


CAREFUL ALL OF YOU...stop picking on that man called Coth...I dont wanna come on here and find I have to be decontaminated cause your arseholes are glowing!!!.....

(wow that was cheap, but if the national cap fits)

What's going on here?

Last I knew this thread was about The Shard : London Bridge, not about Frankfurt having taller towers, or Paris having a denser skyline.
Sure it's nice to have competition, but, if we ever want to compete with the big fish, we need to concentrate on matters at hand.

And what we have at hand is Shard: London Bridge, which will, make or break the London skyline :)

But London really will have the most beautiful scrapers (so long as they get built of course....). It may be a subjective opinion but it's an honest one - for me and most people with some taste and aesthetic discrimination. Height isn't that important. I personally think Taipei 101 is ugly. I'm not too keen on the Sears Tower either. Height may be measurable but what value does it have if the buildings that are visible so far around are actually eyesores? None....

And I'm not sure if La Defense is denser than the City. I'm sure the City already has more office space in the same land area. The buildings in La Defense are higher than in the City but much further apart and less space efficient. The City also lacks the vast windswept plaza that runs through the centre of La Defense that must seriously reduce its density. I also don't see how La Defense is denser than Canary Wharf. La Defense covers a larger area but Canary Wharf certainly has more really large buildings in close proximity.

And I share the dislike of Paris's new proposals. They are just awful.
It's just your opinion. But i don't consider The Shard as the most beautiful skyscraper in Europe. I don't like it. As well as i don't like new Russia Tower, Leadenhall etc... because i don't like pyramid and triangle buildings. That is my opinion. Also, in my opinion - it's cladding makes the building beautiful, not its form. 20 Fenchurch Street have the best form in the City - in my opinion.




Why do you come here Coth?
for equity


oh coth... i got that new magazine (my fame spreads to russia!). ill email you a copy later ok.
nice. have they started with digital versions only?

It's just your opinion. But i don't consider The Shard as the most beautiful skyscraper in Europe. I don't like it.


I don't like the Federation tower. It is, IMO, one of the most boring, corporate super talls ever. But as you said, opinions.

There are lots of comments on this site.

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/655.php

There are 1 or 2 clueless people - such as Antonio Maria Braga, who thinks it will be "anti-ecological and non-sustainable" - but the majority seem to agree it will be a spectacular addition to London.

^^ I went on there a while ago, it's a good site.

I coincidentally went on it last night. Very good site.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=414393

*smirk*Just looked at Paris's proposed 300 metre whoppers. They are absolutely disgusting. Poor old Paris. London gets the LBT and the Helter-Skelter. Paris gets a tower with an upside down spike and a big blob of grey goo. Looks like a nanotechnology experiment gone wrong. I guess it is London's turn to look beautiful :lol:

These two buildings will destroy Paris and will be visible all over the place. Tour Granite, EDF, T1 and Soc Gen are all great. These two are a disaster.Hehe.... :laugh:

I'm sure the more artistic of you can do a better job but this is my reaction to this design: :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/ParisOldMan.jpg

:lol:

Poor Paris. They should reject this one and ask for a revised or new design.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/ParisOldMan.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/treebeard-action-figure-lord-of-the.jpg

:laugh:

i hope it gets scaled down for their sake. that is horrific!

and i thought dubai's skyscrapers were bonkers..

^^ I love this building!!!! I wish we could have it here in CW!!!!!! Art meets architecture- bold, daring and subtle all at once. I love the contrast between the organic form and the visible structure at the base, the skin peeling back to reveal it's true nature, it's almost spooky. Once again those darn Frenchies
show that they have the guts and the style to build really challenging , quality schemes!!!
:)

^^ I love this building!!!! I wish we could have it here in CW!!!!!! Art meets architecture- bold, daring and subtle all at once. I love the contrast between the organic form and the visible structure at the base, the skin peeling back to reveal it's true nature, it's almost spooky. Once again those darn Frenchies
show that they have the guts and the style to build really challenging , quality schemes!!!
:)

:eek: I sentence you to exile in Paris!

To be honest, the building's not half bad. Would look fantastic at Canary Wharf. I don't see much wrong with it. Height and design equally proporioned. Do they wanna' swap for 20 Fenchurch Street?

^ id take that swap A N Y D A Y ...........

^^ That is too cruel!! I have been to Paris many times and while I can't deny it's beauty it is one of my least favourite places- give me London any day!!!!!:)

From my Interrailing days I recall Paris being the only place that felt like a real city outside London. All other capital cities I visited just felt like big versions of Chelmsford.

Its obvious... the French version of Age concern HQ and political too.. a snapped support stocking?

You know, i'd really like to hate that French tower, but i reckon in years to come it will be viewed as ahead of it's time, i would hate to see it in London though, and if built now it'll look out of place.

I love this building!!!! I wish we could have it here in CW!!!!!! Once again those darn Frenchies show that they have the guts and the style to build really challenging , quality schemes!!!

Nice sarcasm! :lol:

Sorry I don't normally moan but,.........

Perhaps we should change the name of this thread to " the lets talk about every other building but the one this thread is about" thread, if you get my drift.

Oh and COTH, go eat some sushi:bash:

Yeah, let's keep discussions about the Tour Signal in this thread please -

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=10670225

Btw, you'll see a couple of "fantasy" renderings I've just posted in there... :)

aah I think people are trying to keep the thread awake until something happens....

hopefully that's not too far away, in 2007 please!

this has nothing to with the shard but is an eye opener. if it gets on their it'll be dwarfed. i cant believe some of those buildings..:-

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=414905

Yeah, I noticed that thread... 50 buildings over 300m.

The whole world seems to be going skyscraper mad. After the events of 9/11, you'd have thought the opposite would happen.

I love your new avatar Will. Delicious.

Yeah, I noticed that thread... 50 buildings over 300m.

The whole world seems to be going skyscraper mad. After the events of 9/11, you'd have thought the opposite would happen.

it is crazy, but LBT will put London on to the diagram eventually, so let's hope culwulla doesn't raise the threshold up to 350m on his diagrams!

Looking forward to a Chicago trip next May to see two of their new ones going up and revisit two of the old ones. Hurrah.

Thanks Jef.

Btw, you can upload avatars to 85 x 85 pixels now! :)

Use this one, if you want -

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/LBT.jpg

this has nothing to with the shard but is an eye opener. if it gets on their it'll be dwarfed. i cant believe some of those buildings..:-

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=414905

Yes, but most of those buildings don't have what the shard will, that is, a fantastic world city surrounding it. I don't care what anyone says, they still won't have the soar factor that Piano's building will.

You could go to China or Dubai or even Moscow in a few years and it'll just be loads of good to mediocre to poor supertalls next to each other; it just won't look the same.

Well that's my opinion, after all I live in London, the midrise, no, groundscraper capital of Europe. But still one of the best three cities on the planet, and no ones going to tell me their baby looks better! :blahblah:

Rant over; I still can't wait until we see the Shard on that list...

Yeah, I noticed that thread... 50 buildings over 300m.

The whole world seems to be going skyscraper mad. After the events of 9/11, you'd have thought the opposite would happen.


No...the opposite. 9/11 has cuased the world to stick finger up at them creatures! Just look at the WTC, its going to be even higher.

There is some mis-underastanding about not building anything higher than a minaret in their perverse interpretation of the Quor'an

Yes, but most of those buildings don't have what the shard will, that is, a fantastic world city surrounding it. I don't care what anyone says, they still won't have the soar factor that Piano's building will.

You could go to China or Dubai or even Moscow in a few years and it'll just be loads of good to mediocre to poor supertalls next to each other; it just won't look the same.

Well that's my opinion, after all I live in London, the midrise, no, groundscraper capital of Europe. But still one of the best three cities on the planet, and no ones going to tell me their baby looks better! :blahblah:

Rant over; I still can't wait until we see the Shard on that list...

Spot on. London is unique.

However, the developments in Dubai, Moscow and China do have a certain uniqueness about them as well when coupled with their surroundings. This all adds to the great diversity of cities around the world. For instance I don't know anywhere else in the world where you can be in the desert on a camel and see a row of supertalls running side by side for 2 miles silhouetted on the horizon, a la Sheikh Zayed Road. I think that is pretty special too.

The difference between London's 300m+ and China/Dubai's 300m+, is that theirs will date VERY quickly while as with most London skyscrapers, ours will be timeless :cheers:

^ I agree that The Shard is timeless but then I think designs like Shanghai World Financial Center and Burj Dubai are timeless too - as are existing tower like The Bank of China or The Chrysler Building. Real beauty is always timeless.

just accept that london is johnny come latley and has conservative people running the show -- not too high, tall, etc...ooh, golly gosh

^^ We have always been conservative in this country- afraid of new ideas- especially any that may come from Europe. We had the biggest empire the world has ever seen and yet Lodon hardly reflects that- we have always wanted to be understated you can see that in our cities and in our art. However I do sense that there has been a growing understanding of design in the last ten years or so - the only way to go was up after the dark days of the Prince Charles era in the 80's.

Here my music here!!! http://www.myspace.com/randolphryeder1

Just seen this design for a new tower by Renzo Piano in Boston , about the same height as the Shard. Would look great here in CW!

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=649

Hear my music here!!! http://www.myspace.com/randolphryeder1

Can someone clear this up? I thought LBT was 310m to the top of the spire? That is what was said when Bishopsgate Tower was first announced and the consortium said LBT was still taller to spire

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=2486792&posted=1#post2486792

it is, the consortium has added a 4m spire to be higher than initial bishopsgate (307m): 306m+4m=310m.
there was a paper in The Economist explaining DIFA was at war with CLS about this 4m add-on.

PS: When I was a young chap, I was always told The Eiffel Tower was 330m. In fact it is 300m. But i am sure most people would say about 330m. Tour Signal is not 300m either. But it is announced as something 300m tall.

:)

Will someone be able to post it in the thread then because it seems I'm not to be believed:)

PS: When I was a young chap, I was always told The Eiffel Tower was 330m. In fact it is 300m. But i am sure most people would say about 330m. Tour Signal is not 300m either. But it is announced as something 300m tall.

:)


The eiffel tower is only 300m? To the top of it's spire/antenna?

PS: When I was a young chap, I was always told The Eiffel Tower was 330m. In fact it is 300m. But i am sure most people would say about 330m. Tour Signal is not 300m either. But it is announced as something 300m tall.
:)
Like 1CS was always quoted as 800 feet.

^^ We have always been conservative in this country- afraid of new ideas- especially any that may come from Europe. We had the biggest empire the world has ever seen and yet Lodon hardly reflects that- we have always wanted to be understated you can see that in our cities and in our art. However I do sense that there has been a growing understanding of design in the last ten years or so - the only way to go was up after the dark days of the Prince Charles era in the 80's.
http://www.myspace.com/randolphryeder1

I think the dark days were the 50s, 60s and 70s and Prince Charles was just a reaction to that. If you realize how much damage has been done to London's urban fabric during this period, a conservative backlash was unavoidable. Expect the same thing now, if many more crap projects like MoreLondon happen. In my opinion the real problem of London is weak and bureaucratic planning departments where any type of long-term vision is completely lacking and as a result all you get is indeed what you call an "understated approach". For instance, eveybody in architecture agrees that London needs clusters, yet nobody has defined them yet, which creates a situation that developers have to fight hard to build a tower anywhere, and once again we will end up with a lot of towers in the wrong places (and we already inherited quite a few of those from the 60s) which will leade to new towers being questioned even more, etc. In my opinion, London's "understated approach" is mainly a result of planning being very weak in the London and certainly not visionary.

The difference between London's 300m+ and China/Dubai's 300m+, is that theirs will date VERY quickly while as with most London skyscrapers, ours will be timeless :cheers:

there are a few that look genuinely good. Just type in Dubai on SSP diagrams and you'll see that some have class while the majority simply look poor, it's the same with alot of the booming Asian cities, maybe with HK as one of the few exceptions

Jef, can you perhapse help here, I don't think he believes me or Will:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=120661

Edit: BTW I think his sources are the guys at Emporis, and we all know they aren't always accurate.

Thanks Jef:)

I think the dark days were the 50s, 60s and 70s and Prince Charles was just a reaction to that.

Yes Prince Charles was echoing the backlash of the likes of John Betjeman the previous decade, whose TV documentry against the demolitian of georgian and victorian britain by mock modernism drew huge Christmas audiences.

Prince Charles was reacting to the souless globalised 1980s (we were conned with the cheap alternative of post modernism that lubriacted vast commercial space with the odd primary shape to please the child in us). He pointed out the lack of human scale, which was as much about the use of a building as its architecture. He is a great believer in the human as conductor and in tune with its surroundings and existence; most of Britian in the 80s with her vast retail spaces chewing up towns and the retreat of food production into back office and industrial scale artificial enhancers.

The architectural world was very arrogant at the time scoffing at his aesthetics rather then reading the context.... human scale, self-worth, local identity

His ideas of environmentalism and human connection, for example using local materials in buildings and small-scale organic food production are now mainstream so you have to ask if he was ahead of his time?!

I'm not saying he thought up these ideas just that when he tried to promote them he was shot down by the media and establisment in the industry and look who has done the U-turn?

I think Charles was ahead of his time. A lot offcritisism focused on the more `kitsch` ideas such as fake chimneys or his blasts at modern buildings such as his famous `carbuncle` comment. The problem was behind all this as an essentially sound message about the need for human scale developments and carful thought to the use of materials. I think Poundbury in Dorset is slowly being viewed as visionary and I for one would be more than happy to see some of the ideas adopted there applied accross a larger urban context.

Poundbury is hideous.

Poundbury is hideous.

But some of the ideas such as traffic management, use of appropriate materials and human scale developments are not. I'm not suggesting we should be building mock historic villages everywhere but surely if some of these ideas are applied to housing projects in cities we can avoid repeating some of the mistakes that led to the White Cities of this world?

The eiffel tower is only 300m? To the top of it's spire/antenna?

The Eiffel tower is 324m high:

http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/documentation/chiffres/page/identite.html

Poundbury is hideous.

Why?

I think the problem with much of Charles' architectural views was that it relied on an asthetic that has often dubious symbolic meanings. Indeed in the work of Leon Krier (upon which Charles formed much of his views and brought in to masterplan Poundbury) there is no written rule for some form of pseudo vernacular style that he repeatedly fell into. If anything i think some of the best developments of recent times have used much of the principles of Krier (look as RR better cities book) but have applied it to an modern style that is argubly more fitting with the technological, social and economic position we find ourselves in.

Why?

Because it's so twee. The idea that a successful city needs to be one 'entity' with some kind of overaching ideal stamped all over it, controlled by one form of taste, usually by people living there who have never set foot outside of their own version of what they like and are comfortable with smacks of some kind of prurient facism.

Whilst I agree with the underlying principles of what the Prince was trying to achieve (a city revolving around the people, not the car, local communities together, etc) he then stamped his own preference for it to look like some pastichey twee English countryside village, with no updating for the modern world (there are even bricked up windows built, on purpose, because of the Victorian 'window tax' meant it would be more 'authentic') sounds more like someone stuck in the dark ages rather than a pioneer the Prince thought he was being.

I for one would never want to live there. It looks like an artificial filmset. Or something out of the Truman Show.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Dorset_poundbury_01.jpg

http://www.bized.ac.uk/images/poundbury.jpg

http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/gfx/images/poundbury_pummerysquare.jpg

My girlfriend works in West Dorset Hospital on the edge of Poundbury, have been throught there many times I can tell you it's an insidious cancer thats beginning to leech the life out of the historic county town of Dorchester. It will soon be bigger than Dorchester itself, and the town doesn't reall have the infastructure to cope. Its basically a huge (and it is huge) new looking estate with no road markings and where they mix expensive property with too many chav dwellings. The wholeplace is fake, with no character, no history and its increasing by 15% every year.

Whilst I agree with the underlying principles of what the Prince was trying to achieve (a city revolving around the people, not the car, local communities together, etc) he then stamped his own preference for it to look like some pastichey twee English countryside village, with no updating for the modern world (there are even bricked up windows built, on purpose, because of the Victorian 'window tax' meant it would be more 'authentic') sounds more like someone stuck in the dark ages rather than a pioneer the Prince thought he was being.

I for one would never want to live there. It looks like an artificial filmset. Or something out of the Truman Show.

So if I get it right it is a bit like these Disney towns in the US where you get a visit by the neighbourhood police if you have forgotten to cut your lawn or trim your hedges. Well, yes that is a bit artificial and removed from the real world, certainly as are these purpose-built bricked-up window openings, well that is just funny. :lol:

So if I get you right, the underlying principles are good, the execution a bit pedantic in its "historicism"...

I have never been there but now I read this stuff I think I want to go and have a look for myself. Do we have a thread on Poundbury? One thing I really do like from the pictures is that it looks very human-scale, community-based and friendly to the landscape, also in that it uses brick and natural stone and is rather green.

My girlfriend works in West Dorset Hospital on the edge of Poundbury, have been throught there many times I can tell you it's an insidious cancer thats beginning to leech the life out of the historic county town of Dorchester. It will soon be bigger than Dorchester itself, and the town doesn't reall have the infastructure to cope. Its basically a huge (and it is huge) new looking estate with no road markings and where they mix expensive property with too many chav dwellings. The wholeplace is fake, with no character, no history and its increasing by 15% every year.

Why is it then so popular? I can only assume that these houses don't come cheap.

Why is it then so popular? I can only assume that these houses don't come cheap.


Its the area, central Dorset is very expensive. I live in Weymouth 8 miles away and all the houses get snapped up by second home buyers. If fact Weymouth and Dorchester have one of the highest ratios of what people earn to what houses cost, and therefore the lowest percentage of first time buyers in the country. Poundbury would be OK if it was on its own, but it isn't, its an estate of Dorchester, and its beginning to dominate the town, and sure it looks nice to visitors, but the locals hate it, and its been non stop constrution for 15 years. I came from Stoke Newington before it was big, and prefered the old Dorchester.

you live in Weymouth? I lived in Weymouth for 15 years! I agree the Poundbury has become a tad like a cancer growth but that is just its location where it was at once seperate from Dorchester but not far enough away to be able to expand before becoming almost part of it. Also it tries to be socially aware with affordable housing but as the post above tells, that is an impossible task in this part of the world where 2nd home buyers and rich retiring people rape the housing market.

HOWEVER it pisses all over any new housing estate that has been built for the past 50 years, there is individuality and a desire to explore the landscape, with twists and turns... it feels organic, which takes a lot of effort to achieve in a new build. The individuality comes from mix of materials, all local stone and architectural touches. All very solid and will last a long time.

I am suspicious of copying the style of ye old cottages as they were limited architecturally by being homes for the poor and as such arent the most environmentally aware. This is a minor flaw as I believe they got a lot right, now we just need some more modern architecture... no hope for those on lower incomes though

... no hope for those on lower incomes though

Maybe all of these conributions should be moved to some Poundbury thread because they have little in common with LBT.

Just browsing on the internet, I read Poundbury had 20% social housing... that is actually very good, certainly compared to these Disney developments in the US (as well as many otehr developments in this country outside of the big cities). The desnity is actually quite amazing because from the pictures is all looks very spacious; I guess a lot of the properties must be small inside.

But I don't understand why Pounbury outgrows other towns or developments if people would not like it. On some interent site it explained ground prices had risen much faster in Poundbury than anywhere else around it over the last 10 years, including Dorchester.

Some of the articles about Poundbury make it appear as if it comes out of the Truman Show and are quite funny... I also read there are baby Poundburies popping up all over the country now. :lol:

^^ lol, i had actually forgotton this was the Shard London thread, Poundbury is as far away from a 310m tall tower as is possible.

Its very interesting, and no doubt could lead to some interesting debate, so perhaps a Poundbury thread should be started somwhere (and these contributions so far moved to it) :)

Originally Posted by Newcastle Guy
The eiffel tower is only 300m? To the top of it's spire/antenna?

The Eiffel tower is 324m high:

It is 300m + antenna, see Emporis.

Ah, yes. Antennas don't count like spires do.

Will anybody be able to email the developer or someone working on the Shard, to find out if it definately is 310m to spire? I really need to sort that out, and I have no luck emailing developers for some reason. They never reply. Can Gothic possibly clear this (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=120661) up?

London Bridge Tower will have the taller roof height; Eiffel Tower will retain the highest pinnacle.


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/London_general/LBT-vs-ET.jpg

310m is to spire. not to roof.

Yep, that needs to be corrected on the diagram.

Also there aren't that many spires that point downwards.

"Roof height = 305.8m
Spire height = 305.7m"

Anyway, what matters most is the viewing platform, no? And that seems to be quite a bit higher on the Eiffel Tower. And obvioulsy the Eiffel Tower has more soar because there is no crap standing around it such as 70 m high daleks. Anyway, I think that is high enough for Central London, what would be nice is some tower of 400 m high for the docklands to give provide the CW skyline with some pinnacle. Any chance of the CAA allowing that?

Anyway, what matters most is the viewing platform, no? And that seems to be quite a bit higher on the Eiffel Tower.

The debate was about height. We have made it clear it was 306m to roof and 310m to spire whereas Eiffel was 300m+antennas.

And obvioulsy the Eiffel Tower has more soar because there is no crap standing around it such as 70 m high daleks.

It has more soar because the Shard does not yet exist. The Shard will bring this "critical mass" Southwark need to be further regenerated, amongst others with the Baby Shard. But I agree Eiffel Tower has this soar factor.

what would be nice is some tower of 400 m high for the docklands to give provide the CW skyline with some pinnacle. Any chance of the CAA allowing that?

I would not like something 400m high in CW. I agree with the LBTH Masterplan regarding this very specific northern area in the Isle of Dogs. 1 CS must remain the pinnacle. What CW needs instead is more architectural quality. Pan Peninsula is a step in the right direction.

I would not like something 400m high in CW. I agree with the LBTH Masterplan regarding this very specific northern area in the Isle of Dogs. 1 CS must remain the pinnacle. What CW needs instead is more architectural quality. Pan Peninsula is a step in the right direction.

Jef - How high could they go in the northern area of the Isle of Dogs? Any CAA restrictions? And isn't there a lot of residential there that would (try to) block it?

Jef - How high could they go in the northern area of the Isle of Dogs? Any CAA restrictions? And isn't there a lot of residential there that would (try to) block it?

I think Columbus was 239m with full pp. But in the revised Masterplan the LBTH indicate building heights must respect and complement the dominance of One Canada Square. "Heights should be progressively reduced from this central landmark to the periphery of the Northern sub-area." I understand from this that maximum height cannot exceed 235m. In addition to this, there are futher restrictions imposed by CAA at the northern edge of this area.

This map shows the last remaining development sites. Note that ID50-51-52
are or will soon be u/c (15Canada Square, and Churchill plc buildings).
ID32 is Hertsmere House - Columbus which is not to be developed until Crossrail is built. It remains:

ID38: Riverside South (full pp)
ID12: Heron Quays West (not submitted)
ID5: Wood Wharf (detailed planning permission submitted in Q1 2007)
ID1: North Quay (full pp, part of the site available for construction)
ID2: Billingsgate Market and surroundings land/water.

All of them are earmarked for skyscrapers.

http://i16.tinypic.com/4c8aix4.jpg

Roof Height (AGL) 305.78
Pinnacle Height (AGL) 310.00
Pinnacle Type Spire
Roof Height (AOD) 309.98
Top Floor Height (AGL) 244.00