just becuae i dont liek the freedom tower doesnt mean i dont like any tower in the US. and for your info. i live in chicago. i guess even voice your own opinion.

it's funny that u say that cuz you said that about the russian tower.

and the reason i say this is a joke, because this tower was proposed or approved for got what it was exactly and that was back in November, 2003. and its going to be done by 2012. now thats a joke, it takes them That long just for some 310m building.

Well then you dont know how hard it is for a skyscraper to get approved in London. Just take a look at the other LDN projects :nuts:

now thats a joke, it takes them That long just for some 310m building.

No. This isn't just 'some' building... It is going to be more expensive than the Freedom Tower, and the same price as the Burj Dubai, £2bn ($4bn). The price tag alone shows that this won't just be 'some 310m building'.

This is London's premiere skyscraper project, and the first supertall building in the UK. It has come up against alot of opposition from different people, and has had funding issues for a long time, which are thankfully now sorted out. It takes a long time for London to build skyscrapers, but when they do them, they do them right, just look at this, which is now full steam ahead, and Swiss Re in the past too.

In my view, the design is stunning and most elegant. It's sleek and modern: it soars gracefully and yet it's bold and virile. An outstanding skyscraper.

:banana:

The Shard, The Pinnacle, 122 Leadenhall, The Walkie Talkie, The Gherkin

Those are/will be some of the best skyscraper designs in the world, far better than most American 'box' cities. And don't get started with 'oh my skyline is far better than yours'. Of course they are, London is terribly hard to get tall buildings approved, but the architectural quality of ours is/will be so much better,

The walkie talkie? Your joking right?

The Shard, The Pinnacle, 122 Leadenhall, The Walkie Talkie, The Gherkin

Those are/will be some of the best skyscraper designs in the world, far better than most American 'box' cities. And don't get started with 'oh my skyline is far better than yours'. Of course they are, London is terribly hard to get tall buildings approved, but the architectural quality of ours is/will be so much better,

Great idea: don't get us started with the 'oh my skyline' crap.

The Shard, The Pinnacle, 122 Leadenhall, The Walkie Talkie, The Gherkin

Those are/will be some of the best skyscraper designs in the world, far better than most American 'box' cities. And don't get started with 'oh my skyline is far better than yours'. Of course they are, London is terribly hard to get tall buildings approved, but the architectural quality of ours is/will be so much better,

Is the Pinnacle the same as Bishopsgate Tower? That one is outstanding!

Renzo Piano did some excellent buildings, oh yeah Renzo did NY Times!!! (HUGE SPIRE!!)
The shard is a unique building, I see no similar designs anywhere else, I hope for a few more feet, but the present height is a real supertall.

I wonder where you get 'American box city'??? NYC is quite SPIREY if you ask me only LA is completely devoid of spires

The Shard, The Pinnacle, 122 Leadenhall, The Walkie Talkie, The Gherkin

Those are/will be some of the best skyscraper designs in the world, far better than most American 'box' cities. And don't get started with 'oh my skyline is far better than yours'. Of course they are, London is terribly hard to get tall buildings approved, but the architectural quality of ours is/will be so much better,

Thats your opinion about architecture, not more and for me a great silly joke!!
London has in my view with exceptions lousy unremarkable skysrapers, from the desing and also from the heights, the bridge tower is maybe for London relations not bad, also not from the height, but in comparison with other world towns, 300meters and the theatre around this shed is a little bit ridiculous, and almost not mentionable, incredible, how great is the exaggerated opinion of oneself by british people, they mean they rule the world.

Thats your opinion about architecture, not more and for me a great silly joke!!
London has in my view with exceptions lousy unremarkable skysrapers, from the desing and also from the heights, the bridge tower is maybe for London relations not bad, also not from the height, but in comparison with other world towns, 300meters and the theatre around this shed is a little bit ridiculous, and almost not mentionable, incredible, how great is the exaggerated opinion of oneself by british people, they mean they rule the world.

(Sorry if I get anything wrong here, but I can barely even understand what you are saying.)


Like I said, this won't just be 'some' building. It will cost something similar to the Burj Dubai, $1bn more than the Freedom Tower, New York's premiere skyscraper project. What does that say to you? To me it says we take design and quality over height any day, and that this will be an amazing building, surpassing most over skyscraper projects once completed.

Swiss Re is the first remarkable skyscraper we have had. A taster of what is to come. And now, thanks to her, we are getting some of the best schemes, and certainly some of the most high quality and remarkable, in the world. The Shard, the Pinnacle, 122 Leadenhall, Strata... even the Walkie Talkie, which is by no means to everybody's tastes, but it is nothing if not remarkable.

London is a colossus, and has been so for many years. It is perhaps the worlds preminent place to live and work. There is no exaggerated opinion, London is infinite.

The process of rejuvenation and reinvention continues.

In terms of a Global City, London has only one rival in New York. There is an international body, the GaWC, that reviews and measures the influence of cities on global matters. Under their criteria only London & NY have the 'Very Large Contribution' grade. It has long been a wonder why such an important city with the highest property proices in the world has not gone more high-rise. Historical & geological matters are I believe the main influences. The Prince of Wales' recent comments on the Shard show the strength of feeling that run through the country when ever a new skyscraper is planned for London. Until recently it was almost impossible to build a large, tall tower in Central London due to the proximity to the Thames, it's flood plain and the deep clay that dominates the local geology. Technology has moved on, so that now it is possible, just very expensive. As a result London has relatively few tall buildings, but what there is are of a very high standard as demanded by the costs to build them. The Shard will be London's first supertall, but others will slowly follow.

Thats your opinion about architecture, not more and for me a great silly joke!!
London has in my view with exceptions lousy unremarkable skysrapers, from the desing and also from the heights, the bridge tower is maybe for London relations not bad, also not from the height, but in comparison with other world towns, 300meters and the theatre around this shed is a little bit ridiculous, and almost not mentionable, incredible, how great is the exaggerated opinion of oneself by british people, they mean they rule the world.

Height isn't everything.

No. This isn't just 'some' building... It is going to be more expensive than the Freedom Tower, and the same price as the Burj Dubai, £2bn ($4bn). The price tag alone shows that this won't just be 'some 310m building'.

This is London's premiere skyscraper project, and the first supertall building in the UK. It has come up against alot of opposition from different people, and has had funding issues for a long time, which are thankfully now sorted out. It takes a long time for London to build skyscrapers, but when they do them, they do them right, just look at this, which is now full steam ahead, and Swiss Re in the past too.The cost of a building not only includes materials, but also labor and for The Shard, demolition of an existing structure. This is why your {greater cost = greater quality} logic is flawed.

Currently London has 1 great skyscraper and yet you talk of London as if it were a pre-eminent skyscraper city. You should accept the fact that in terms of skyscrapers, London is nowhere near the top of the list.

The cost of a building not only includes materials, but also labor and for The Shard, demolition of an existing structure. This is why your {greater cost = greater quality} logic is flawed.

Currently London has 1 great skyscraper and yet you talk of London as if it were a pre-eminent skyscraper city. You should accept the fact that in terms of skyscrapers, London is nowhere near the top of the list.

1. Actually, from what is known the Shard will be of superb quality. The glass will apparently be like crystal, very fine cladding, possibly some of the best of any building. The building isn't a regular pyramid either, it has a number of sides, it really will be like a Shard. The design of this building has been refined over years, and it will show in the final product. The building, despite being quite alot shorter, will still be more expensive than Freedom Tower even with the demolition of the current building taken into account. Atleast I would think so, something tells me the demolition of Southwark Towers isn't going to cost $1bn.

2. No one thinks of London as a 'skyscraper city' now or in the near future. It may have about 30 skyscrapers in the coming years, compared to real skyscraper cities that isn't very much. But what we do think, however, is that London's 'big' proposals can easily match the rest of the world's best in terms of design and quality.

1. Actually, from what is known the Shard will be of superb quality. The glass will apparently be like crystal, very fine cladding, possibly some of the best of any building. The building isn't a regular pyramid either, it has a number of sides, it really will be like a Shard. The design of this building has been refined over years, and it will show in the final product. The building, despite being quite alot shorter, will still be more expensive than Freedom Tower even with the demolition of the current building taken into account. Atleast I would think so, something tells me the demolition of Southwark Towers isn't going to cost $1bn.

2. No one thinks of London as a 'skyscraper city' now or in the near future. It may have about 30 skyscrapers in the coming years, compared to real skyscraper cities that isn't very much. But what we do think, however, is that London's 'big' proposals can easily match the rest of the world's best in terms of design and quality.Fair enough, I must be mis-interpreting what you were saying then. My main point was that higher cost doesn't necessarily mean better quality but I would agree that it is definitely indicative. London does have some very nice proposals and The Shard should be great. As far as its quality, I'll wait until I see the actual product before I pass judgement.

If it shines like a crystal, it should be beautiful. NYC's Bank of America Tower was inspired by the New York Crystal Palace, which interestingly was inspired by The Crystal Palace in London. The facade of Bank of America Tower is less than crystalesque and has instead turned out to be quite dull. The same architect that designed The Shard, Renzo Piano, also designed the New York Times Tower which has a very bland facade that looks nothing like the render.

All this considered, I hope for London's sake The Shard turns out better.

Fair enough, I must be mis-interpreting what you were saying then. My main point was that higher cost doesn't necessarily mean better quality but I would agree that it is definitely indicative. London does have some very nice proposals and The Shard should be great. As far as its quality, I'll wait until I see the actual product before I pass judgement.

If it shines like a crystal, it should be beautiful. NYC's Bank of America Tower was inspired by the New York Crystal Palace, which interestingly was inspired by The Crystal Palace in London. The facade of Bank of America Tower is less than crystalesque and has instead turned out to be quite dull. The same architect that designed The Shard, Renzo Piano, also designed the New York Times Tower which has a very bland facade that looks nothing like the render.

All this considered, I hope for London's sake The Shard turns out better.

No, you are right, it doesn't always mean better quality. But here, I really think it will. The cost, for a building that is 'only' 310m, is very high, and I do believe that will be reflected in the finished product.

Technology has moved on, so that now it is possible, just very expensive. As a result London has relatively few tall buildings, but what there is are of a very high standard as demanded by the costs to build them. The Shard will be London's first supertall, but others will slowly follow.

Lol, you better crawl back into your "raw house", as to vertical and horizontal resonance, London is mainly following suit, where precise scale with respect to light matters, which is in Paris of course :)

I look forward to seeing some of the proposals for tall towers in Paris coming to fruition. In terms of the over-all city planning and architecture I don't think anywhere comes even close! A design similar to The Shard would look stunning in La Defense! The one thing I would say about the recent London developments outside of Docklands is that they are all inovative in design.

Thats your opinion about architecture, not more and for me a great silly joke!!
London has in my view with exceptions lousy unremarkable skysrapers, from the desing and also from the heights, the bridge tower is maybe for London relations not bad, also not from the height, but in comparison with other world towns, 300meters and the theatre around this shed is a little bit ridiculous, and almost not mentionable, incredible, how great is the exaggerated opinion of oneself by british people, they mean they rule the world.

London will never be top of the Skyscraper list and I hope it stays that way. I do not want Fleet Street to become Park Avenue. London is full of a great mixture of buildings, which stand out. Not by being big and tall, but by there beauty and originality. The Shard, Gherkin, and Pinnacle are great additions but they are merely a small chapter in London’s Architectural History.

Off to the Pub now


:cheers::cheers::cheers:

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/2008/04/cleveland_bridge_favourite_for_shard_of_glass_steel_prize.html

Cleveland Bridge favourite for Shard of Glass steel prize

Published: 02 April 2008 10:18

Cleveland Bridge is being tipped to carry out the steel contract on the Shard of Glass in London as front runners for the key subcontract packages on the 310 m-high building begin to emerge.

Main contractor Mace is due to make a series of decisions on trade contracts by the middle of next month before it makes a summer presentation to developer Teighmore, which has told it not to bust a £300 million budget.

The steelwork deal would be the Darlington firm's most high-profile scheme since the £60 million Wembley Stadium contract, which it turned its back on when it walked off that job nearly four years ago.

The firm has priced the work along with a rival team featuring ZNS, the sister firm of Dutch company Hollandia - the contractor that ended up replacing Cleveland Bridge at Wembley - and Belgian contractor Victor Buyck.

A winner is expected to be named in May with the deal carrying a price tag of about £25 million for 11,000 tonnes of steel.

Steel will be used in the first 42 storeys of the project, which will house hotel and commercial space, with the next 30 floors residential and featuring a concrete frame, before steel is used again in the remaining floors.

Two firms, Byrne Bros and John Doyle, are pricing the concrete contract, also expected to come in at around £25 million, with Mace due to make an announcement on the winner after the steel contract has been sorted.

Demolition firm Keltbray finally began tearing down the main fabric of the existing building this week as part of its £7 million contract at the site, which is next door to London Bridge railway station. It has been on site for more than two months carrying out asbestos removal.

Mace is hoping piling work, which will be carried out by Stent, can begin by July with construction work finishing in 2011. The M&E deal is expected to be the last major package to be sorted out with the contract split into two. Phoenix Electrical is one firm looking at the deal.

Author: David Rogers. News Editor



:banana:

Steel will be used in the first 42 storeys of the project, which will house hotel and commercial space, with the next 30 floors residential and featuring a concrete frame, before steel is used again in the remaining floors.
Steel then a concrete frame then steel again. Is this true?

Great to hear that things are finally moving on this project. Presume we should start to see the exhisting building coming down pretty rapidly.

Presume we should start to see the exhisting building coming down pretty rapidly.

A few well placed sticks of TNT and it'll come down nice a fast! Might improve the surrounding area too!

Joking aside I might have to find an excuse to get down to our London office in New London Bridge House to see what's going on. We won't be there much longer.

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3110309&c=1

Bernard Ainsworth is hired to take on the Shard

2008 Issue 13

By Roxane McMeeken

Legendary project director leaves Atkins to lead development of 312m London Bridge tower

Bernard Ainsworth, the project director of the Millennium Dome, has been brought in to head the development of the 312m Shard tower for Sellar Property Group.

Ainsworth is leaving Atkins, where he is currently projects director, to project manage the Shard, and the surrounding London Bridge Quarter.

Ainsworth, 61, said he had intended to retire this year from his role at Atkins but changed his mind after he received Sellar’s offer. His work for Atkins included a secondment to doomed London Underground consortium Metronet.

He will start his job on 14 April. He said: “I am very excited. I’m a project management guy, I like big projects and the Shard is a great project.”

Ainsworth, who is in Building’s Hall of Fame, made his name on the Millennium Dome before becoming chief operating officer for the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester, which was lauded for regenerating the east of the city.

Ainsworth’s title is project managing director with specific responsibility for the £2bn London Bridge Quarter, which includes the Shard development.

The 72-storey Shard has an estimated construction value of £350m. Building revealed last week that Mace, which is building it under a fixed-price contract, may revert to a construction management procurement route if a deal is not agreed by September.

Irvine Sellar, chairman of Sellar Property Group, said: “We’re absolutely delighted to have attracted one of the construction industry’s leading builders to lead what we believe to be Britain’s most prestigious regeneration project.

“He has a superlative track record of delivering large and complicated construction projects on time and within budget.”



http://www.building.co.uk/Pictures/316xAny/j/w/p/St_Thomas_Street_Small_300d.jpg

Ministry of Truth anyone?

I must confess, the buildings itself is quite alright, but in those surrounding, kinda bleak'ish, it looks like something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Hope it'll turn out better in reality.

You're absolutely right, Kobtke, this is a grim architectural area, a total 70's disgrace. But, like a heart patient in need of a bypass, this regeneration will help.

South London has many gems, and several of them of them are at ground level, within 300m of the site. In fact one of the pleasures of life is the Thames Walk, which hits street level just here. Crossing the road is a terrible experience, but so worth it just to experience the genuine pubs, affordable restaurants, and Southwark Cathedral (where I was christened by a one-armed Australian toper, my parents at that time living in Tooley Street - don't ask, I survived the Christening - and 1950's Tooley Street).

I just hope I never end up in the nightmare Guy's hospital, which is the 450 ft monstrosity you see there. Better dead than that. But I live in Bangladesh, right now so hopefully it won't come to that.

There are many mistakes that London has made, and this area is one. London heals itself, but the mistakes are replaced by new ones, that is the beauty and frustration of London!! But at ground level, there are few places more interesting.

I think the Shard will work out just fine. In 2112, it will still stand, and someone will say this is an Olympic nightmare, but in my lifetime, it will do nicely.

But I have history there, so I have a serious soft spot!!!

In 2112, it will still stand, and someone will say this is an Olympic nightmare, but in my lifetime, it will do nicely.
Really? Will The Shard be postponed/delayed that much?? ;)

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/5261/s11280x768eo9.jpg

This is definitely one of the most anticipated towers. Will look great in the skyline.

I love the design of this building. It's very modern. It's sleek. It soars!! A very refined crystal-like shape it manages to overcome the problem with so many newer towers ... it is not banal! A worthy trophy for the great and glorious city of London. Nine tenths of the structures in Dubai or the mideast region don't even come close to the class and elegence of this structure!

:banana::carrot::pepper::banana2::cucumber:

From almazUK on flickr:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2407/2434086653_68bf001067_b.jpg

seems they're bringing down the old building very fast :)

Is this bulding U/C?

no, the old building is still under demolishing

Don't know the exactly construction site.. Is this the tower under demolition?
Made this one on Tuesday.
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4813/dsc00252pq6.jpg

Yes, that's it.

im excited.
demo is going very fast

I was up town yesterday. The building is virtually completely clad in scaffolding and plastic, although no sign yet of actual demolition.

^But it´s a lot shorter compared to previous photo updates.

whats the time scale for demolition , will there be any construction this year?

i cant understand wats going on ! is thy using an existing bulding to buld even higher or wat end wat das Demo meen ?

they demolish the whole building to make place for the Bridge Tower ^^

I know it's not my money, my city, or my country, and I certainly hate to agree with Charles, but that building just doesn't fit. I like modern architecture, don't get me wrong, but I think London is better off sequestering its bolder projects to that one area east of the city center, toward Greenwich (I've forgotten the name of that area, only that there's elevated light rail through it).

And I don't mind the smaller modern projects along the Thames. However, this tower just throws the balance off. Without other projects to counter it, I think it was ill-advised for metro planning to approve this project.

Also, without sounding old and grouchy, I hope that Londoners realize what a beautiful city they live in. In America we've gotten into the habit of destroying anything that isn't shiny and replacing it with shoddy, crass construction that we'll tear down in 30 years if we're not happy with it. Don't make our mistake.

I know it's not my money, my city, or my country, and I certainly hate to agree with Charles, but that building just doesn't fit. I like modern architecture, don't get me wrong, but I think London is better off sequestering its bolder projects to that one area east of the city center, toward Greenwich (I've forgotten the name of that area, only that there's elevated light rail through it).

And I don't mind the smaller modern projects along the Thames. However, this tower just throws the balance off. Without other projects to counter it, I think it was ill-advised for metro planning to approve this project.

Also, without sounding old and grouchy, I hope that Londoners realize what a beautiful city they live in. In America we've gotten into the habit of destroying anything that isn't shiny and replacing it with shoddy, crass construction that we'll tear down in 30 years if we're not happy with it. Don't make our mistake.

I disagree....

This is an amazing tower, for one....it may not be among the world's tallest of supertalls, but it makes up for it in every other department.

I also feel that this tower is far better as a "stand alone" tower. I don't think it'd look right in the ever-increasing density of Canary Wharf, or the City itself.

London won't make the same mistakes....trust me. London made more than its fair share of "mistakes" in the 60's and I like 90% of the newly built, approved and proposed towers (they are of good quality).

^^ To Tamhavpolis

Have you been to London? Did you know that a third of it was destroyed by WW2 and much dross built in it's place. We are very lucky to have such a magnificent city, and enough survived for us to have many beautiful areas. London cannot be summed up in one word, it is everything, which is why the London Bridge Tower is perfect for it. You have to understand that this building replaces ugly digusting dross, and in an area not renowned for it's beauty.

I suspect you haven't been to London, or you would understand why this building is perfect for it. I am not having a go at you, and I totally appreciate your nice comments about our capital.

Also, without sounding old and grouchy, I hope that Londoners realize what a beautiful city they live in. In America we've gotten into the habit of destroying anything that isn't shiny and replacing it with shoddy, crass construction that we'll tear down in 30 years if we're not happy with it. Don't make our mistake.

They certainly arent tearing down anything nice to build this tower.

I am personally a bit concerned that the size of this building will just shrink the existing buildings in the City/Southbank.

However overall I think this will be a bit like the Eiffel tower in the end - a visible symbol of London from everywhere on the south bank, if not the north.

^^ To Tamhavpolis

Have you been to London? Did you know that a third of it was destroyed by WW2 and much dross built in it's place. We are very lucky to have such a magnificent city, and enough survived for us to have many beautiful areas. London cannot be summed up in one word, it is everything, which is why the London Bridge Tower is perfect for it. You have to understand that this building replaces ugly digusting dross, and in an area not renowned for it's beauty.

I suspect you haven't been to London, or you would understand why this building is perfect for it. I am not having a go at you, and I totally appreciate your nice comments about our capital.

I've spent quite a bit of time in London in recent years as a law student. It's one of my favorite cities (duking it out with Berlin and San Francisco).

I have to admit that I haven't spent a lot of time in the neighborhood in which this tower is being built - most of my stay in London was spent around Tottenham Court Road and Charing Cross. I know that London suffered heavy bombing by the Germans. I'm also sure that in areas that were leveled, a lot of the rebuilding would have been in the 60s and 70s, which were generally an unfortunate time in the world of architecture (my hometown in Florida bears many scars from the era of brutalism and cheap, lazy design).

I'm not against modern architecture, and in an already heavily-towered area this project would not get the same comments. I suppose that the mockups I've seen of the tower in the surrounding cityscape just look unbalanced to me.

In a city as old and storied as London, I feel that it may be best to keep the modern, supertall architecture in an area separate from the old city, much like Paris has done with La Defense. But hey, I'm sure people griped after the Great Fire when the city built imposing structures like St. Paul's. There's nothing new under the sun. :)

I suppose one of the things I like about London is that it's not defined by its man-made phallic towers. I didn't like the BT tower. In the United States by contrast, almost every city seems to have a vast sprawl of single family homes and low-rise apartments surrounding a core of really tall office towers. Blah.

Anyway, cheers from an opinionated friend in America.

Why don't hey build it near city? It looks like 3rd cluster for London.

Because it is designed to be isolated (although who knows for the future). This is a tower that soars individually, so it is not masked, and can be seen as a beacon for miles around. A spire to represent all spires of London. To crowd it with other talls would diminish it. The city has it's skyscraper cluster, as does Canary Wharf. I get tired of the opinion that no tall building can stand alone, when that is a chance for it to shine proudly. Of course we couldn't have this approach all over London, but LBT is quite rightly an exception. People need to look at structures like the Eiffel Tower to see a comparison (although not a direct one). The fact that this building doesn't need to be built entirely central is a testimony to London's confidence, and perhaps lack of pomposity.

The area this tower will sit in is a very historic one (they all are) but it is anything but beautiful. There are gems of course, but largely the area had suffered previous war damage, post war urban horrors, and much neglect.

I also get tired of people calling these tall buildings phallic (although they are from a certain viewpoint), as if our main motivation is driven by sexual desire, or domination. I've lost count of the people who call the Gherkin an exercise in phallic obsession or some such. It is a shape that is unique, beautiful, and works.

The shard is exactly that, a 'shard' punctuating the largely lowrise southern skyline. May'be don't look at it as a tall building exercising it's power over it's lower neighbours, look at it as a proud covergence of that areas success, of London's success, and a beacon for it.

The shard is a spire like those sitting atop many remaining, wonderful churches of London...it just happens to be super-tall, and made of glass.

Anyway sorry that turned into an overly romantic essay, but then that is me sometimes...not an essay....romantic.

I feel this tower is in the middle of nowhere ... Architecture in London is a mess ! :)

^^ just because there arnt any skyscrapers around it doesnt mean its the middle of nowhere, just across the river is the City Of London, Europe's most important center of business and finance.

lol our Architecture can be a bit mismatched, i blame the Luftwaffe

I blame poor planning and a distinct lack of ambition (until very recently) over the last half century or so

I blame poor planning and a distinct lack of ambition (until very recently) over the last half century or so

I agree, i think the Architects and council planning departments that designed and approved most of the utter garbage that was built in the 50's,60's and 70's should be hunted down and shot...:), at least those that are still alive...:)

London just elected a new mayor...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7380947.stm

... who is very anti-highrise. He may cancel the deal between TFL and the Shard consortium. This would mean the loss of a major tenant, and could potentially leave the project in grave danger.

London just elected a new mayor who is very anti-highrise.

That's a bit of a problem. It doesn't look good. :ohno:

London just elected a new mayor...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7380947.stm

... who is very anti-highrise. He may cancel the deal between TFL and the Shard consortium. This would mean the loss of a major tenant, and could potentially leave the project in grave danger.
Wrong.

Boris Johnson in U-turn on London skyscrapers (http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3105318)
31 January, 2008

By Helen Crump

London mayoral candidate Boris Johnson today backtracked over his skyscraper policy for the capital, promising to encourage tall buildings in the City, London’s financial district, after all.

The Conservative MP had drawn criticism after attacking recent designs for skyscrapers as “drab and featureless” and criticising incumbent mayor Ken Livingstone for giving the green light to 27 “phallocratic” towers, many of which, BD has revealed, are to be sited in business areas in or near the City and in high-rise Canary Wharf.

But addressing an audience of property industry professionals at central London’s Café Royal on Thursday (January 31), Johnson stressed he was “not against tall buildings” and would want to encourage “wonderful new developments”.

Highlighting Cesar Pelli’s 1980s Canary Wharf tower, he said: “The Conservatives were behind some of the great, wonderful property developments that now distinguish the London skyline.”

“I hope to play my own part in helping you to distinguish the London skyline.”

In his Building a Better London (http://www.backboris.com/assets/complete_housing.pdf) plan, it states:

"The protection offered by the London View Management Framework to existing strategic views is wholly inadequate."

"We would appoint a panel of experts, including the building industry, representatives of the architects, and the heritage industry. We would also welcome the involvement of UNESCO to restore confidence that our great city’s skyline will be protected."

--

UNESCO being the people who "deeply regret" the building of the Gherkin, and who want LBT and the Pinnacle to be stopped.

Also -


The current London Plan gives undue priority to skyscrapers, in particular policy 4B.9, which outlines how “the Mayor will promote the development of tall buildings”. We need more balance in the London Plan. This will be achieved by removing the promotion of tall buildings from it, and amending the Plan to adhere to the original viewing corridors set in the RPG3A.

I agree, i think the Architects and council planning departments that designed and approved most of the utter garbage that was built in the 50's,60's and 70's should be hunted down and shot...:), at least those that are still alive...:)

I thought Brits weren't very keen on guns. :)

I think they should just be forced to live and work in buildings like those they designed and approved. That would be punishment enough.

In his Building a Better London (http://www.backboris.com/assets/complete_housing.pdf) plan, it states:

I believe well-designed tall buildings should play a part in London’s development, but they must not overshadow existing landmarks.
(page 4)

Thanks for the link wjfox.

Problem is, EH and other people think a building can be "overshadowed" from half a mile away...

^^ Foxy - disappointingly negative from you, especially on the world forums. I honestly don't think that all this overbearing caution is particularly relevant. Nor is BJ's elevation to mayor. Obviouosly I'll be much assuaged and happy when the thing becomes officially u/c, but in my view, all the signs are positive that the Shard will get built.

The Mayor of London can not repeal planning permission for a building that has gone through all the proper legal planning hurdles as set out in English law. Possibly Boris might be able to stop some future tower proposals but he can not stop this one.

With regard to him pulling out of the pre-let. If he wants to be seen wasting public money by pulling out of a very advantageous deal for office space & be forced to compensate the developers by pulling out of a legally binding contract then he would not look very clever & dispel his supposed pledge of cutting waste.

i thought the building had been passed already ?

We fear BJ the Mayor has little clue what he's doing, in many respects including architecture... but he will say what pleases an audience.
Our Prime Minister on the other-hand is able to make unpopular moves an stand by them - but he will not interfere in the Shard.
The new Mayor will probably blunder and fall well before the Shard is finished.
Must go and pray for him now.
Blessings.

This is the official timetable, apparently:-

Demo complete: 15 Dec 08
Substructure works: 12 Jun 08
Superstructure works - 31 July 09 -> 27 Oct 11
Shell and Core - 4F to 30F 11 May 10 -> 26 Aug 11
Shell and Core 31F to 51F 30 Nov 10 -> 08 Mar 12
Completion/Fit out - 14 Feb 11 -> 10 Sep 12
Shell and Core 52F -> 72F 20th June 2011 -> 20th Jan 2012

Shell and Core complete - 11th May 2012

Target completion - 10 Sep 2012.

I go to L Bridge everyday, and go past the proposed site. The shops on L Bridge station (Boots, costa coffee, and a bar restaurant) have already been shut down, probably, so the construction work can start

With a whole 2 years before the core rises, it's worrying to read about the new Mayor's plans. :ohno:

Let's hope the Shard is unaffected...


--


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3908506.ece


Skyline review

Boris Johnson is planning to topple Ken Livingstone’s schemes for skyscrapers in London.

Johnson’s team are determined to preserve the capital’s skyline, but privately fear that hopes of blocking some projects could descend into a legal quagmire, with developers and architects seeking compensation.

The new mayor has appointed Sir Simon Milton to lead a review of all high-rises planned for the capital. The Westminster councillor became a strident critic of Livingstone’s plans.

Milton said earlier this year: “[Livingstone] has made it very clear that he and his people want more tall buildings.

“This fetish for tall buildings anywhere and everywhere will be a disaster for London.”

^^

That's a bad news. I hope this supertall will be built!

i knew something like this would happen, it was just a matter of time. hope the best for this project

Are you kidding me? I have been hearing about this project for almost a decade with numerous of delays. Please do not tell me that project will delay again. This beautiful tower MUST be built period!

Oh good fucking lord :)

I think this one will get through though ;)

Johnson’s team are determined to preserve the capital’s skyline, but privately fear that hopes of blocking some projects could descend into a legal quagmire, with developers and architects seeking compensation.


If you think for 1 mintue that Tory central office will allow Johnson and is Toff cronies to potentially waste millions of pounds in court actions with no guarantee of successfully stopping a project that has legally gained planning permission, your nuts.

The only projects that will likely stall are those waiting to go through planning and then only if they are to be built outside of the 2 London clusters.

Economic reality will ensure that the City and Canary Wharf are left alone.

With fully approved planning, the Shard is safe, Johnson and his cronies have more important things to be getting on with.

hey guys, yes i also hope the shard continues its process.
just on its height
why 310m? 305m= 1000ft which sounds more iconic.
what is height above sea level? has that got something to do with it? here is sydney we have variuos height limits in CBD which are measured from sea level not street. i suppose because that how high they appear on skyline/
cheers

^that and a combination of the 5 airports round London and their blimmin 20 mile long approaches. Heathrow and London City are within the urban boundaries, notably the latter not a mile from the Canary Wharf cluster.

in sydney we have a 330m hieght limit above sea level imposed by CASA-sydney airport which is only 6km away. thus sydney tower is 309m high or RL328m.
our tallest bldgs are even limited more to 235m to roof.

May 9th :
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1561/londonbridgetower01xv4.th.jpg (http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=londonbridgetower01xv4.jpg) http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1663/londonbridgetower02wm8.th.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=londonbridgetower02wm8.jpg) http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7663/londonbridgetower03zp3.th.jpg (http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=londonbridgetower03zp3.jpg) http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3055/londonbridgetower04ho0.th.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=londonbridgetower04ho0.jpg) http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2074/londonbridgetower05ir8.th.jpg (http://img81.imageshack.us/my.php?image=londonbridgetower05ir8.jpg)

May 11th :
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6595/londonbridgetower06fl4.th.jpg (http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=londonbridgetower06fl4.jpg)

why 310m? 305m= 1000ft which sounds more iconic.
what is height above sea level? has that got something to do with it? here is sydney we have variuos height limits in CBD which are measured from sea level not street. i suppose because that how high they appear on skyline/
cheers

The site at LB is a few meters above sea level but I don't think that planning restrictions on height were the reason for the final height. There are height restrictions on tall buildings outside of London which effedct the other major cities - Birmingham in particular. The restrictions are measured from sea level and Birmingham has the highest elevation of the major UK cities, therefore new tall buildings cannot be as tall as in other cities, notably Manchester. There are of course exceptions where planning is given.

In the case of London, the general trend is towards taller and taller buildings with the biggest hurdle now being the new city mayor who is rather more anti-tall buildings than the last. However, I suspect he won't be in the job more than 4 years as he's a buffoon (in the nicest possible way).

With a whole 2 years before the core rises, it's worrying to read about the new Mayor's plans. :ohno:

Let's hope the Shard is unaffected...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3908506.ece

Come on wjfox, stop the propaganda, there's not one mention of the Shard in this article.

There are height restrictions on tall buildings outside of London which effedct the other major cities - Birmingham in particular. The restrictions are measured from sea level and Birmingham has the highest elevation of the major UK cities, therefore new tall buildings cannot be as tall as in other cities, notably Manchester. There are of course exceptions where planning is given.

In the case of London, the general trend is towards taller and taller buildings with the biggest hurdle now being the new city mayor who is rather more anti-tall buildings than the last. However, I suspect he won't be in the job more than 4 years as he's a buffoon (in the nicest possible way).

Errm Assa...have you actually visited the Birmingham forums lately post HCT (Beetham Tower Birmingham to the world forumers)? The height restrictions have been eased since and taller projects and proposals have been put forward since.

Sorry to go off topic Mods, and don't worry, the Shard is getting built. @ Astounded and others, ignore British pessimism at all times!!

Come on wjfox, stop the propaganda, there's not one mention of the Shard in this article.

Skyline review

Boris Johnson is planning to topple Ken Livingstone’s schemes for skyscrapers in London.

Johnson’s team are determined to preserve the capital’s skyline, but privately fear that hopes of blocking some projects could descend into a legal quagmire, with developers and architects seeking compensation.

The new mayor has appointed Sir Simon Milton to lead a review of all high-rises planned for the capital. The Westminster councillor became a strident critic of Livingstone’s plans.

Milton said earlier this year: “[Livingstone] has made it very clear that he and his people want more tall buildings.

“This fetish for tall buildings anywhere and everywhere will be a disaster for London.”
:ohno:

This marks me as a foreigner (which I most assuredly am), but is the Mayor of London the executive for the whole of Greater London, or is he the executive for The City (the financial district)?

I thought I had read somewhere that the Mayor of London was largely a ceremonial office without much in the way of political power.

Hope you can indulge a Yank with an earnest question. Here in America mayors can range in power from chief executive and head of the city council to guy (or gal) who cuts the tape for parades.

I retract my question. I was thinking of the Lord Mayor of the City of London, which is different than the London Mayor. (Just as the Judean People's Front will have nothing to do with the People's Front of Judea - if anyone gets the reference).

Man, you Brits can be confusing some times :)

This marks me as a foreigner (which I most assuredly am), but is the Mayor of London the executive for the whole of Greater London, or is he the executive for The City (the financial district)?

I thought I had read somewhere that the Mayor of London was largely a ceremonial office without much in the way of political power.

Hope you can indulge a Yank with an earnest question. Here in America mayors can range in power from chief executive and head of the city council to guy (or gal) who cuts the tape for parades.

I retract my question. I was thinking of the Lord Mayor of the City of London, which is different than the London Mayor. (Just as the Judean People's Front will have nothing to do with the People's Front of Judea - if anyone gets the reference).

Man, you Brits can be confusing some times :)

The confusion is due to the fact that "London", officially, is not a city. There are many ways to define the area of London, most of which I won't get into here.

"Greater London" is the closest thing to defining the urban area of London, consisting of the 32 boroughs now generally believed (officially) to define where London begins and ends. The area of Greater London is about 609 square miles (1580 square km)--about the same size as Houston--and it's population is about 7.5 million and mainly stagnant for a density of 12,300 people per square mile. For comparison's sake, New York City is about 470 square miles (1214 square km) and has 8.3 million people for a density of over 27,200 people per square mile.

British boroughs are most similar to U.S. counties, though London's are much smaller than most in the U.S. They could be compared best with New York City's boroughs, which, confusingly, are officially classified as counties.

Greater London is also actually a "county" of the UK (closest thing to a U.S. state that the UK has). This makes London (not to be confused with the City of London) really a conurbation of areas, some of which historically were not considered part of London until relatively recently.

So...as TamHavPolis correctly pointed out, the Mayor of London (more commonly known as just the London Mayor) is the top level elected official who governs Greater London. The position was only created 8 years ago in 2000 to better help manage the growth of London and to better shape it for the future.

On top of that, within Greater London, there are two areas that are officially classified as cities (administratively on par with Birmingham or Manchester, for example). They are the City of London, mentioned above, and the City of Westminster.

I'm hoping (not very confidently) that this clears up any confusion amongst the foreigners in the forum. I lived in London for a while while studying city planning at University College London, so I got to know quite well the arrangement of administrative areas in the UK. Visiting City Hall and meeting with London's planners was a regular activity for students in my program.

The confusion is due to the fact that "London", officially, is not a city. There are many ways to define the area of London, most of which I won't get into here.

"Greater London" is the closest thing to defining the urban area of London, consisting of the 32 boroughs now generally believed (officially) to define where London begins and ends. The area of Greater London is about 609 square miles (1580 square km)--about the same size as Houston--and it's population is about 7.5 million and mainly stagnant for a density of 12,300 people per square mile. For comparison's sake, New York City is about 470 square miles (1214 square km) and has 8.3 million people for a density of over 27,200 people per square mile.

British boroughs are most similar to U.S. counties, though London's are much smaller than most in the U.S. They could be compared best with New York City's boroughs, which, confusingly, are officially classified as counties.

Greater London is also actually a "county" of the UK (closest thing to a U.S. state that the UK has). This makes London (not to be confused with the City of London) really a conurbation of areas, some of which historically were not considered part of London until relatively recently.

So...as TamHavPolis correctly pointed out, the Mayor of London (more commonly known as just the London Mayor) is the top level elected official who governs Greater London. The position was only created 8 years ago in 2000 to better help manage the growth of London and to better shape it for the future.

On top of that, within Greater London, there are two areas that are officially classified as cities (administratively on par with Birmingham or Manchester, for example). They are the City of London, mentioned above, and the City of Westminster.

I'm hoping (not very confidently) that this clears up any confusion amongst the foreigners in the forum. I lived in London for a while while studying city planning at University College London, so I got to know quite well the arrangement of administrative areas in the UK. Visiting City Hall and meeting with London's planners was a regular activity for students in my program.

I knew that Greater London was a metro area made up of smaller municipalities and neighborhoods, and that the City of London proper was quite small (I think its borders are those of the Roman settlement). I was just confused about which London mayor had political power over the metro, and which London mayor gets to wear fancy outfits and ride around in carriages.

The concept of London not as an actual city but a metropolitan area is common in the United States as well. In many of the big "cities," the actual city limits account for only a small land area, and the metro area can have 10-20 times as many citizens as the city itself - but the boundaries blur because all the townships and neighborhoods have grown together organically. Boston is much like London in that way.

I spent a wonderful summer in London back in 2004 studying comparative law and staying at some dormitories of UCL. It deserves its status as one of the world's great cities (or conurbations, or whatever). My home city of Tampa, Florida is not tiny, but London made it feel like a quaint suburb by comparison.

Art, theater, museums, great places to booze and phenomenal Indian food... I miss it :) I'd get a job in London if I could find one from over here.

Oh Jesus...


http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/2008/05/mace_hit_by_fresh_budget_setback_on_350m_shard.html

Shard busts budget

Published: 14 May 2008 15:56 Author: David Rogers

Mace has been given more time to work up costs on plans for London's tallest building after blowing its £350 million budget by more than 10 per cent.

The firm was due to have delivered cost details on the Shard of Glass to developer Teighmore yesterday. The proposal was timed to coincide with the arrival of a delegation of investors from the Qatari banks funding the scheme, which have insisted on a £350 million fixed-price contract.

The current figure is understood to be around £400 million. Mace now has until the end of the month to get the figure down - although it is expected to be still well above the £350 million demanded.

John Doyle is being lined up for the concrete contract, which includes the basement, sub and superstructure work.

Mace is believed to have asked the firm to redraw designs for the substructure to get the cost of the concrete package down. This has come in at around Ł45 million Đ more than 20 per cent higher than Mace was expecting.

Mace declined to comment but one source said: "There are a few areas that need to be rebid and re-engineered. It is tight on budget and whether they get it on budget is a big question."

The main problem is with the basement works - because of its proximity to London Bridge railway station - and these are expected to take up to a year to complete. The source added: "The real risk is in the basement and Doyles and Mace are trying to work out how to carry this without carrying too much exposure."

Keltbray has already begun tearing down the existing building at London Bridge that will make way for the Shard and is also carrying out groundworks ahead of Stent moving in for piling work. The official completion date is still the end of 2011.

But news of the latest budget problems raises fresh fears that Teighmore, which is led by the chairman of Sellar Property Group, Irvine Sellar, will have to pay more for the 310 m high structure or risk it never getting off the ground.

Teighmore has a month to decide what to do with Mace's offer. The most likely outcome is that it asks Mace to retender some of the bigger packages such as M&E and steel. These are priced at £60 million and £28 million respectively.

Last autumn, Teighmore turned its back on Mace when it asked Laing O'Rourke to come up with proposals for the building after deciding the original route of construction management would be too expensive.

But the country's largest private contractor never actually came up with a firm bid - after being trumped by Mace which agreed to carry out the deal on a fixed-price.



Who's won what

Demolition/groundworks Keltbray
Piling Stent
Concrete John Doyle
Steel Cleveland Bridge
M&E Hotchkiss (mechanical); Phoenix (electrical); Balfour Kilpatrick (electrical)
Cladding Scheldebouw


Analysis: Will fear of risk cut down the project?

By David Rogers

Right now, it is fair to say that two questions arise with the Shard. First, is this ever going to get built?

And if it does, who will build it?

Nobody can give a definite answer to either question. It's likely that the best answers would be "probably - but we've no idea when" and "at the moment Mace, but who knows?".

There was a certain inevitability that a new method to build the Shard - beset by budgetry problems for years now - would end up costing more than the bankers would ideally like.

It is up to Mace to get the figure down to what it wants. If not, it and the developer face a terrible dilemma - pull it now or go ahead and build it knowing it could end up costing even more than they ideally want to pay.

The trouble, as ever with a project like this, is the risk. No one wants to catch a cold. Not Mace, not its subcontractors and not the banks. A state of impasse or a rethink - lopping some floors off perhaps? - is looming.

a blurry vision of the future?

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8052/bbkb9.jpghttp://img377.imageshack.us/img377/5272/nmvj3.jpg

Oh Jesus...


http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/2008/05/mace_hit_by_fresh_budget_setback_on_350m_shard.html

Shard busts budget

Published: 14 May 2008 15:56 Author: David Rogers

Mace has been given more time to work up costs on plans for London's tallest building after blowing its £350 million budget by more than 10 per cent.

The firm was due to have delivered cost details on the Shard of Glass to developer Teighmore yesterday. The proposal was timed to coincide with the arrival of a delegation of investors from the Qatari banks funding the scheme, which have insisted on a £350 million fixed-price contract.

The current figure is understood to be around £400 million. Mace now has until the end of the month to get the figure down - although it is expected to be still well above the £350 million demanded.

John Doyle is being lined up for the concrete contract, which includes the basement, sub and superstructure work.

Mace is believed to have asked the firm to redraw designs for the substructure to get the cost of the concrete package down. This has come in at around Ł45 million Đ more than 20 per cent higher than Mace was expecting.

Mace declined to comment but one source said: "There are a few areas that need to be rebid and re-engineered. It is tight on budget and whether they get it on budget is a big question."

The main problem is with the basement works - because of its proximity to London Bridge railway station - and these are expected to take up to a year to complete. The source added: "The real risk is in the basement and Doyles and Mace are trying to work out how to carry this without carrying too much exposure."

Keltbray has already begun tearing down the existing building at London Bridge that will make way for the Shard and is also carrying out groundworks ahead of Stent moving in for piling work. The official completion date is still the end of 2011.

But news of the latest budget problems raises fresh fears that Teighmore, which is led by the chairman of Sellar Property Group, Irvine Sellar, will have to pay more for the 310 m high structure or risk it never getting off the ground.

Teighmore has a month to decide what to do with Mace's offer. The most likely outcome is that it asks Mace to retender some of the bigger packages such as M&E and steel. These are priced at £60 million and £28 million respectively.

Last autumn, Teighmore turned its back on Mace when it asked Laing O'Rourke to come up with proposals for the building after deciding the original route of construction management would be too expensive.

But the country's largest private contractor never actually came up with a firm bid - after being trumped by Mace which agreed to carry out the deal on a fixed-price.



Who's won what

Demolition/groundworks Keltbray
Piling Stent
Concrete John Doyle
Steel Cleveland Bridge
M&E Hotchkiss (mechanical); Phoenix (electrical); Balfour Kilpatrick (electrical)
Cladding Scheldebouw


Analysis: Will fear of risk cut down the project?

By David Rogers

Right now, it is fair to say that two questions arise with the Shard. First, is this ever going to get built?

And if it does, who will build it?

Nobody can give a definite answer to either question. It's likely that the best answers would be "probably - but we've no idea when" and "at the moment Mace, but who knows?".

There was a certain inevitability that a new method to build the Shard - beset by budgetry problems for years now - would end up costing more than the bankers would ideally like.

It is up to Mace to get the figure down to what it wants. If not, it and the developer face a terrible dilemma - pull it now or go ahead and build it knowing it could end up costing even more than they ideally want to pay.

The trouble, as ever with a project like this, is the risk. No one wants to catch a cold. Not Mace, not its subcontractors and not the banks. A state of impasse or a rethink - lopping some floors off perhaps? - is looming.


When you work on these projects you'll know that budgets are always too small, costs always too high, plantrooms and structure too big, finishes too expensive and programmes too ambitious. Additionally, contractors never make any profit and neither do developers.

I'm not going to worry just yet.

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/imageGallery.html?articleTitle=Shard%20drafts%20in%20T&T&articleUri=tcm:18-1401004&pageUri=tcm:18-1401014-64&xlImageUrl=/images/shard_scaffold1_resized_150_tcm18-731561.jpg

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/images/shard_scaffold1_resized_250_tcm18-731564.jpg


Shard drafts in T&T

Published: 22 May 2008 09:07

Project manager Turner & Townsend has been drafted onto the Shard of Glass project in London to help get the scheme on budget.

A half dozen strong team led by UK director Tim Coleman formally began working on the job this week and will report to the man in charge of the whole development - known as London Bridge Quarter - Bernard Ainsworth.

Mr Ainsworth said the T&T team would be staffed up to around 15 people.

He said: "It is a fairly rapid appointment but we need an expansion of my role and T&T will report to me.

"Every major project needs a project manager and they will be getting involved in all aspects of the job."

T&T will be working with Mace, the firm appointed by developer Teighmore to make sure the scheme is built for £350 million, as well as cost consultant Davis Langdon and engineers WSP and Arup.

Bids for most of the major packages have come back to Mace but Construction News understands that some of these have helped blow the Shard's budget by around 10 per cent.

It is believed the concrete package Đ which John Doyle is slated for - and the M&E deal, which is heading for a team featuring MJN, Phoenix and Hotchkiss, have caused the most headaches.

Mr Ainsworth, who joined the project last month from Atkins and whose previous jobs include running the 2002 Commonwealth Games and working on the Millennium Dome for John Laing, declined to comment on the specifics of the budget. But he said: "I can see a picture that is emerging that is going in the right direction.

"We will be reviewing the picture over the next four or five weeks and it will be a very intensive four or five weeks ahead of us."

Mace had been expected to provide a final figure for the building work this month but Mr Ainsworth said the slip would not affect the main building programme, which is scheduled to start by next January and finish in March 2012.

He said: "A lot of the bids only came back two or three weeks ago but we're still on course to start by the end of the year."

Demolition contractor Keltbray has already taken down three floors of the existing site building, which sits next door to London Bridge station, and is due to finish this work later this year.


Who's who on the Shard

Teighmore is the developer on the project and this is made up of four banks from the Gulf state – Qatari National Bank, Qatar Islamic Bank, Q Invest and Barwa International – and Sellar Property Group, headed by Irvine Sellar. Each owns a 20 per cent slice.

The team charged with building the 310 m-high tower is Mace, while the cost consultant is Davis Langdon, the structural engineer WSP and M&E engineer Arup. A Paris-based company called Tyrrell is advisor to the banks.

London Bridge Quarter is the name of the entire redevelopment – which includes the Shard – and is headed by Bernard Ainsworth, who reports to Teighmore. This week Turner & Townsend was appointed project manager.

Jeeezzz, maybe it will be never built...

so wait. Is this being built as a square design or triangle?

The triangle is the one that has been accepted by the planners but currently is running overbudget as made clear above, if they are to change the design then it would have to be OK'd by the relevant authorities such as the GLA and LB Southwark.

This tower is a waste of time and money

This tower is a waste of time and money

agree

WTF are you all talking about? Who's money is it wasting exactly? Why wouldn't it be built now?

It is going to cost $700million to $800million. But it is going to be worth about $2.5billion once it is completed. I think it is safe to say this is NOT a waste of time or money, so get your facts right before you go posting BS like that.

i love how the people calling it a waste of time and money are from different countries. not some one british like usual.

This tower is a waste of time and money

agree

I don't see how.

Well its not your money and its not your time so shut it...

This tower is a waste of time and money

Yes we should all go back to living in the trees, everyone was happy then... it's not even as though it's a case of "if you build it they will come", it's more a case of "people will definitely come so lets make lots of money by building it"!!

ja exactly what are we arguing about again

This tower is a waste of time and money

What the hell are you talking about. If you have something to say make it constructive, or elaborate on your points.

Oh then all the skyscrapers in the world must be waste of money...

What the hell are you talking about. If you have something to say make it constructive, or elaborate on your points.

pls don't encourage him to elaborate

^^No you're quite right, please don't elaborate.

What the hell are you talking about. If you have something to say make it constructive, or elaborate on your points.

so are they gonna build this one or not? pretty annoying...we are waiting soooo long for this one :ohno:

Why don't you just read the thread?

:sigh: Demolition is now well underway. The tower has had problems, but they are all finally over and the funding is in place, construction starts as soon as the old building is down. If you're that impatient then there are a few towers in The City that are now starting construction, Heron and Leadenhall. They can tide us over while the old building is being demolished here.

You can see why groundscrapers are so popular in London. They must have happily and profitably built hundreds in the time from the start of this project until where they have nearly half way demolished the previous building.

London is ready IMHO - let us have this first real skyscraper ASAP
and completed by 2012 - with a chapel near the top.. OK PM?
(go on Gordon.. help it along !)
Am off sick so must go pray now..

I'm sure that this has already been mentioned but I would like to reiterate this point. This building is not wasting ANY tax payer's money. This is not a project like the 2012 Olympic Games: this is funded 80% by Qatari money: it is none of anyone's business, Londoner or not, what they do with their money.
If they don't like the building, fair enough; that's a different issue. But you cannot oppose the construction of this building on the grounds that it is "a waste of time and money".

Never a truer word spoken.

This does look certain... There are only like 14 apartment to go on the market, but they will be the most sought after apartments in the country, possibly even in Europe. I wouldn't be suprised if they alone paid for a massive chunk of the project costs. And there is already a hotel operator and the first tenant signed up. Once the apartments are sold, the building will be mostly let. It's pretty much guaranteed to go up niw. Knock on wood.

I can't wait. It will be the modern day Eiffel Tower. Soaring and slender, and sitting pretty much by itself so that it's full impact can be felt.

I welcome the new tower/building i think it looks good not too wired looking nice .

The tower is ok. The location is bad. London is already starting to look very dislocated. A few more towers in random locations, and it will be even worse.

Again, the tower alone is fine.

The tower is ok. The location is bad. London is already starting to look very dislocated. A few more towers in random locations, and it will be even worse.

Again, the tower alone is fine.

This tower is more than just "ok" - it will be truly spectacular. A giant, soaring, crystalline structure in the middle of one of the world's most famous cities. When people think of London, they don't tend to think of skyscrapers, and they certainly don't think of 1,000ft supertalls. The Shard will surprise everyone and is going to completely redefine London's image, skyline and architectural scene.

The location is exceptional - over a major transport node, in a rundown area that's badly in need of regenerating. Being outside the City and Canary Wharf, it will stand alone, without being obscured by other towers. Why is this such a bad thing? Look at this (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=21909010&postcount=282) rendering to see what I mean. Clearly it's better in isolation and will be appreciated more. As for your comment about London being "dislocated" - well, it's always been this way. London is more like a patchwork of large towns than a single city. It's easily big and sprawling enough to accommodate several different clusters, mini-clusters, and individual landmarks.

Yeah and Sydney was a great success, putting everything in the centre, must just be a coincedence that the rest of the town is a boring concrete jungle.melbournes way better

The tower is ok. The location is bad. London is already starting to look very dislocated. A few more towers in random locations, and it will be even worse.

Again, the tower alone is fine.

I don't think you quite understand the reasoning behind the tower's location. It is on a major transport node that is in desperate need of redevelopment. That is what the Shard (and the London Bridge Quarter) will bring, redevelopment.

Like the Eiffel Tower, the Shard is not supposed to be part of a cluster. It is supposed to stand on it's own. It doesn't belong in The City or Canary Wharf, it belongs here, forming a gateway with The Pinnacle on the other side of the river.

people who are not from london dont seem to understand where this tower is, it does stand alone but its just across the river from the city of london, perfect location IMO

I prefer LBT not being clustered. It really is a beaut and deserves to *erm* have its sightlines protected *erm*.

What's the height limit for skyscrapers in London and England???

I think this is as high as they can go at this point in time due to London City Airport.

I understand what you are saying, ladies and gentlemen. I know London rather well, having lived there some time ago.

I am NOT against a redevelopment of a run-down area. Far from it. I am always happy to see a worse-off area being rejuvenated. But there is more than one project you can contemplate for gentrification. I find that contextually, this tower does not fit there.

You make it sound like dislocation is a good thing. Well, I do not think so. Patchwork - yes, there may be different flavours, different trends. The city of London (the financial core) is a bit of a patchwork in itself and it works well. I love it - used to work there and it was an exhilarating place.

In essence: I do not want to say " a diamond in a gutter somehow shines less". What I am saying is: "if you have a diamond, you make sure it has a proper setting". You create more value (emotional, esthetic) in that way.

There's nothing new or stange about the positioning of the Shard. The LB area already has a number of high-rise offices, one of which is coming down to make way for the Shard. It's not like this is going up in the middle of a low-rise residential area. The Shard will also be as close to the City cluster as some of the outlying tall buildings are to CW in the docklands area. London has a number of other isolated tall buildings - Centre Point & BT Tower being the two obvious ones, and no-one criticises these anymore. Seen from a distance the Shard will look very much part of the City cluster.

London has always had an amazing way of blending old and new, amazing and less so architecture together, it creates a strong urban vibe that London does so well. And the regeneration of the area is sorely needed, Imagine this towering,elegent diamond juxtaposed to the brickwork and railway bridges of Borough.. Perfect!

I actually cannot wait to see this Icon rise from the ground and move London into a new era.

I understand what you are saying, ladies and gentlemen. I know London rather well, having lived there some time ago.

I am NOT against a redevelopment of a run-down area. Far from it. I am always happy to see a worse-off area being rejuvenated. But there is more than one project you can contemplate for gentrification. I find that contextually, this tower does not fit there.

You make it sound like dislocation is a good thing. Well, I do not think so. Patchwork - yes, there may be different flavours, different trends. The city of London (the financial core) is a bit of a patchwork in itself and it works well. I love it - used to work there and it was an exhilarating place.

In essence: I do not want to say " a diamond in a gutter somehow shines less". What I am saying is: "if you have a diamond, you make sure it has a proper setting". You create more value (emotional, esthetic) in that way.

The Shard IS in the right place though. It was designed for this location. Along with the redevelopment of New London Bridge House and the station next to it, it will completely transform the area. The Shard in The City or Canary Wharf simply wouldn't work, as has been said it is specifically designed to stand alone. In terms of the skyline, the location is absolutely perfect.

Shard construction contracts in place

10:09 | 25.06.08

By Deirdre Hipwell

The development of Europe’s tallest tower The Shard moved a step closer today after Irvine Sellar’s property company awarded a number of key construction contracts.

Sellar Property Group, on behalf of the Shard development consortium London Bridge Quarter, said four construction contracts covering piling, facades, steel and lifts had been agreed.

It said the four contracts amount to almost a third of the total build costs to the 310m high tower. The piling for the tower will be carried out by Stent and forms a major part of the construction element of the tower, will get underway towards the end of the year once demolition is complete. Scheldebouw has been awarded the facades contract while Corus/CBUK and Kone have been contracted to install the steel and lifts.

London Bridge Quarter comprises around 2m sq ft of mixed-use space including The Shard, the redevelopment of New London Bridge House and a piazza linking the two buildings.

Major milestone

Irvine Sellar, chairman of developer Sellar Property Group, said: ‘The placing of these contracts is in line with the programme and plan we established at the beginning of this year when the Qatari investor consortium, comprising Qatar Islamic Bank, QInvest, Qatar National Bank, and Barwa International, joined us as partners to create this iconic landmark building.’

Bernard Ainsworth, Sellar’s project managing director, said: ‘This is a major milestone in the Shard delivery programme. Intensive discussions are continuing with a number of other contractors including concrete and MEP.’

Mace is the main contractor at the Shard. Turner and Townsend is project director.

whats the latest on the demolishion?

love the renderings. it's gonna' be a beauty!!:okay:

is there any pics from the site?

You may wish to take a look at the thread in the London forum

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=407549

These are the most recently posted demolition pics

Demo from London Bridge station

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g51/turbosnail1/DSCF0788.jpg

Demo from other side outside station

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g51/turbosnail1/DSCF0789-1.jpg

Oh please, that 'rendering' that showed a square tower, cannot happen. If that is the case, it cannot even be called 'the Shard' anymore, it would be 'the Block' or the Brick, please let this be built as a Shard triangular glass as originally planned, the triangular one is exceptional, the block is ho-hum looks like some cheap ass skyscraper.

thanx jinkies

Oh please, that 'rendering' that showed a square tower, cannot happen. If that is the case, it cannot even be called 'the Shard' anymore, it would be 'the Block' or the Brick, please let this be built as a Shard triangular glass as originally planned, the triangular one is exceptional, the block is ho-hum looks like some cheap ass skyscraper.

You'd be better off focussing on the press releases than the random spammers!! It is the shard, it is a shard shape, it is being built. These are the things you should focus on... not "me mate dave reckons it will be a box"

Shard construction contracts in place

10:09 | 25.06.08

By Deirdre Hipwell

The development of Europe’s tallest tower The Shard moved a step closer today after Irvine Sellar’s property company awarded a number of key construction contracts.

Sellar Property Group, on behalf of the Shard development consortium London Bridge Quarter, said four construction contracts covering piling, facades, steel and lifts had been agreed.

It said the four contracts amount to almost a third of the total build costs to the 310m high tower. The piling for the tower will be carried out by Stent and forms a major part of the construction element of the tower, will get underway towards the end of the year once demolition is complete. Scheldebouw has been awarded the facades contract while Corus/CBUK and Kone have been contracted to install the steel and lifts.

London Bridge Quarter comprises around 2m sq ft of mixed-use space including The Shard, the redevelopment of New London Bridge House and a piazza linking the two buildings.

Major milestone

Irvine Sellar, chairman of developer Sellar Property Group, said: ‘The placing of these contracts is in line with the programme and plan we established at the beginning of this year when the Qatari investor consortium, comprising Qatar Islamic Bank, QInvest, Qatar National Bank, and Barwa International, joined us as partners to create this iconic landmark building.’

Bernard Ainsworth, Sellar’s project managing director, said: ‘This is a major milestone in the Shard delivery programme. Intensive discussions are continuing with a number of other contractors including concrete and MEP.’

Mace is the main contractor at the Shard. Turner and Townsend is project director.

Europes tallest tower? Ok western euoropes tallest tower if it built in a few years. I know that Frankfurt have plans for a 360m tower. And of course Russia Tower u/c will be the tallest tower in Europe. Hope the Shard will be built soon London need this building.

Nice tower

I've been dying to post on these forums. Ive visited them for ages now, keeping up to date, and finally its let me sign up. London Bridge Tower is going to be amazing when done.

Europes tallest tower? Ok western euoropes tallest tower if it built in a few years. I know that Frankfurt have plans for a 360m tower. And of course Russia Tower u/c will be the tallest tower in Europe. Hope the Shard will be built soon London need this building.

Well, London doesn't exactly NEED the building. However, what it will do for the cities' image in time for the Olympics is fantastic. I doubt many people not too long ago that London would be getting one of the finest skyscrapers in the world, I mean the Shard will be even better than Swiss Re and look at how well that has been recieved.

At this point, will the exterior be substantially complete by the time the Olympics roll around ?

At this point, will the exterior be substantially complete by the time the Olympics roll around ?

It's scheduled to be externally complete by May 2012 - a couple of months before the London Olympics.

Internal completion will be September of that year.

It's scheduled to be externally complete by May 2012 - a couple of months before the London Olympics.

Internal completion will be September of that year.

Gotcha.

Well, London doesn't exactly NEED the building. However, what it will do for the cities' image in time for the Olympics is fantastic. I doubt many people not too long ago that London would be getting one of the finest skyscrapers in the world, I mean the Shard will be even better than Swiss Re and look at how well that has been recieved.

I hope that the Shard would be a vanguard for even higher scrapers in London in the future. Thats why I wrote that London need this building.

cant see that is going to happen anytime soon to be honest, with the caa and boris!

:carrot::carrot:i cant wait to walk down the river and see this amazing skyscraper. it will look great:):carrot:

If there is fire in the building then how is this tower speciallised to it? I mean glass aren't fire proof.

After the 9/11 attacks,they revised the internal plan to include more fire escapes and ways or generally getting out the building in the event of an attack. :)

How the Shard may look on the skyline:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b281/SE9/DSC00437-1modi.jpg

Bloody awsome! guess we'll c somethin off the ground maybe at the end of this year aye? :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDCyeX-sbVg
idk if thats been posted here before

Good for London that finally it would have a Building above 1000ft... I actually like the design of the Shard London Bridge... Really Nice!

When will this be finished? Did it actually started?

When will this be finished? Did it actually started?

Demolition of the existing building is underway. The structure is due to be completed by May 2012 and internally completed a few months later.

Demolition of the existing building is underway. The structure is due to be completed by May 2012 and internally completed a few months later.

it will be very tight for them to finish it externally for that time, and I don't think it will happen. but we'll see.

It will be good to see construction start on this tower.

Heres a page shard pics.
A bit old,but hey!
:)
http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/information/downloads.php

the height limit for the london skyscrapers is?

the height limit for the london skyscrapers is?

330m (City and Southwark)
235m (Canary Wharf)

I keep thinking what'd "Demo" stand for... I was thinking they demolition the London Bridge Tower building LOL! I think the word EXCA is much better (stand for Excavation)

330m (City and Southwark)
235m (Canary Wharf)

Wasn't Bishopsgate Tower downscaled from above 300m to 288m (I think that's it) because of height limits in the City?

I keep thinking what'd "Demo" stand for... I was thinking they demolition the London Bridge Tower building LOL! I think the word EXCA is much better (stand for Excavation)

they've to demolish a building before they can start construction of the Bridge Tower, so DEMO ^^

Wasn't Bishopsgate Tower downscaled from above 300m to 288m (I think that's it) because of height limits in the City?

Yes. It was 307m originally, but scaled down because of the Civil Aviation Authority. Basically, the height limit is 330m - but this includes the crane heights during construction, so the actual practical limit is around 288m.

Wasn't Bishopsgate Tower downscaled from above 300m to 288m (I think that's it) because of height limits in the City?

English Heritage also complained, as they do about fricking everything beautiful and new in London because it 'destroys' the ''beautiful cherished Heritage''

Pfft

Get with the times, London!

Or more appropriately, grow up!

Yes. It was 307m originally, but scaled down because of the Civil Aviation Authority. Basically, the height limit is 330m - but this includes the crane heights during construction, so the actual practical limit is around 288m.

So the 235m limit for CW which you mentioned, excludes crane height then presumably?

http://www.contractjournal.com/Articles/2008/07/30/60532/shard-builder-pins-down-materials-costs.html

Shard builder pins down materials costs

07:00 30 Jul 2008

By Roxanne Millar

Developers of the £2bn Shard skyscraper in central London are confident they can keep costs on budget despite soaring material prices.

The forward-purchase of major basic materials, including glass and steel, has been locked down while the main contract with Mace is close to completion.

Mace is negotiating a fixed-price contract to build the 310m tower and has been told to keep costs to around £300m.

London Bridge Quarter Project managing director Bernard Ainsworth declined to detail prices of materials already purchased, but the steel package is thought to be worth £30m alone.

He said: "The prices will emerge as contractors are appointed.

"The key so far has been forward-buying those basic materials and we are very pleased with the prices and are in the process of fixing them."

Development director Hamish McKenzie said the credit crunch was having no impact on selling space in the building, with a major lease for seven office floors already signed by Transport for London.

He said: "If you start a 13-year project like this thinking you will have a good market the whole time, then you are deluding yourself.

"We hope that as the building starts coming out of the ground next year, the property market will also."

Early indications suggest luxury apartments in the building will be snapped up fast, with six callers a week inquiring about their price - yet to be fixed.

Work on site is currently limited to careful demolition of Southwark Towers, which is dropping at a rate of one floor a week.

Piling works are expected to begin in January 2009 and be completed in September 2009, while above ground works are scheduled to start in the second quarter of next year.

Shard contractors

* Management - Mace
* Demolition - Keltbray
* Steel - Corus/CBUK
* Piling - Stent
* Facades - Scheldebouw
* Lifts - Kone

So the 235m limit for CW which you mentioned, excludes crane height then presumably?

Not sure, to be honest. But either way, there will never be a supertall in Canary Wharf.

Does the height limit have anything to do with the vicinity of London City Airport?

so is canary wharf the limit over there then ?

^canary wharf is an area not a building, 1 canada square is the tallest building in canary wharf and no building will go bigger.

^^ ...no building will go bigger in Canary Wharf

Riverside South is taller. When Crossrail is complete in 9 years time, London City Airport is likely to shrink in size and change air paths, meaning much taller buildings in Canary Wharf will be possible. That theory is certainly possible. And the height limit for the Wharf is 240m.

Riverside South is taller. When Crossrail is complete in 9 years time, London City Airport is likely to shrink in size and change air paths, meaning much taller buildings in Canary Wharf will be possible. That theory is certainly possible. And the height limit for the Wharf is 240m.

You're completely wrong. City Airport is set for massive expansion. The flightpaths won't be changed anytime soon. There won't be a supertall in Canary Wharf for decades, if ever. Now let's get back on topic please.

any recent pics of the demolition please ?

330m (City and Southwark)
235m (Canary Wharf)

I though there is no height limit. Why is that so?

I though there is no height limit. Why is that so?

Because of City Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_City_Airport) to the east.


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/London_general/CityAirport2.jpg


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/London_general/CityAirport.jpg

I though there is no height limit. Why is that so?

Because of City Airport.

Oh that is very bad for London. So they can't construct more than 300 meters in high :(

^^ The Shard will be 310m;)

Stunning aerial video of the London 2012 skyline:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove/stories/behindthescenes/3dmodelling.shtml

Includes LBT, Pinnacle, Heron, Leadenhall, Beetham, etc... :eek:

Because of City Airport.

Unfortunately the Isle of Dogs lies partly within the boundaries of Annex 14 of the ICAO. The Shard doesn't have this same problem.

Any news on how the demo of southwark towers is progressing?

i went there today. its getting along well unforntully i neaver got any pics.

Update of Southwark towers demo a few days ago - essentially the towers have now dissappeared from the skyline though still a long way to go :(

Demolition update:
Taken today around 18:30.
http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/9565/shardupdateoz9.jpg

Stunning aerial video of the London 2012 skyline:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove/stories/behindthescenes/3dmodelling.shtml

Includes LBT, Pinnacle, Heron, Leadenhall, Beetham, etc... :eek:

Awesome... It reaffirms to me however that 20 Fenchurch Street is going to stick out like a sore thumb. Everything else looks 'right', even Beetham.

Stunning aerial video of the London 2012 skyline:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove/stories/behindthescenes/3dmodelling.shtml

Includes LBT, Pinnacle, Heron, Leadenhall, Beetham, etc... :eek:


Yeah.

Watched this last night.
I hate the way 20 Fenchurch sticks out like that.Lets hope they don't build it :)

Stunning aerial video of the London 2012 skyline:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove/stories/behindthescenes/3dmodelling.shtml

Includes LBT, Pinnacle, Heron, Leadenhall, Beetham, etc... :eek:

the night shots are amazing. i cant wait to see london like this!

Awesome... It reaffirms to me however that 20 Fenchurch Street is going to stick out like a sore thumb. Everything else looks 'right', even Beetham.

Yep, my view on it was starting to soften...not much mind. But after seeing this render i've gone back to completely hating it.

It looks fat, stumpy and ruins the soar and grandeur of the city cluster - it looks like a stroppy, sulky fat kid acting as a downer on everyone else.

Yep, my view on it was starting to soften...not much mind. But after seeing this render i've gone back to completely hating it.

It looks fat, stumpy and ruins the soar and grandeur of the city cluster - it looks like a stroppy, sulky fat kid acting as a downer on everyone else.
:lol: LOL

Sadly that video is only available to browsers in the UK. Any chance someone could rip it and repost it somewhere?, I would love to be able to see it.

Sadly that video is only available to browsers in the UK. Any chance someone could rip it and repost it somewhere?, I would love to be able to see it.

You can download the last 7 minutes from my website, in WMV format:

http://www.willfox.com/videos/skyscrapers/britainfromabove.wmv

It's around 96 megabytes.

You can download the last 7 minutes from my website, in WMV format:

http://www.willfox.com/videos/skyscrapers/britainfromabove.wmv

It's around 96 megabytes.

Thanks, I was going to rant at the BBC for not making its video available outside UK.

What gives, in all of my browsing over the last decade, I have never, ever seen a video restricted like that.

I have watched Russian TV and the news from Auckland NZ, Chinese sportscasts, world cup via Bahrain, Al Jezeera news, listened to Indian radio stations and so on. This is really a HUGE STEP BACKWARDs for the "World Wide" web.

BBC major :down::down::down:

Stunning aerial video of the London 2012 skyline:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/britainfromabove/stories/behindthescenes/3dmodelling.shtml

Includes LBT, Pinnacle, Heron, Leadenhall, Beetham, etc... :eek:

What a stunning London, London is the future of the world :lol:

London... The City!

What gives, in all of my browsing over the last decade, I have never, ever seen a video restricted like that.

I have watched Russian TV and the news from Auckland NZ, Chinese sportscasts, world cup via Bahrain, Al Jezeera news, listened to Indian radio stations and so on. This is really a HUGE STEP BACKWARDs for the "World Wide" web.

BBC major :down::down::down:

It's because of some legal constraint which means only UK viewers can watch it (same with the BBC Youtube channel etc)...it's because British people have to pay for the BBC through the license fee. I guess meaning that others can't watch it online because they haven't "paid" for it.

What gives, in all of my browsing over the last decade, I have never, ever seen a video restricted like that.

I have watched Russian TV and the news from Auckland NZ, Chinese sportscasts, world cup via Bahrain, Al Jezeera news, listened to Indian radio stations and so on. This is really a HUGE STEP BACKWARDs for the "World Wide" web.

BBC major :down::down::down:

It is not at all the only website which does it and it is hardly a step backwards. Certain bit's of media which they do not have the legal rights to show outside their country are not shown. Any news in text form on the news website you can still have full access to, so their is no restriction against the press. You will find that CNN, Foxnews, and all the other american channels have similar features which are inaccessible outside of the US!

It's absolutely right that people who do not contribute to the BBC shouldn't be allowed to watch its full content.

Excellent island-behavior. I like that.

i don think the pyramid design of this building is too unique or original

Neither do I

Damned Egyptians.

This design is more original then you think since it's already quite old, it just takes lot's of time to build something like this in London.

And let's be honest, any pyramid design can never really be original because of those Egyptians.

seen better but why name london bridge tower. its a pyramid and nothing says london bridge.

seen better but why name london bridge tower. its a pyramid and nothing says london bridge.

Well, erm... it's next to London Bridge. And it's a tower.

And it's to be built at London Bridge Station

... and because it sounds cool.

seen better but why name london bridge tower. its a pyramid and nothing says london bridge.

Have you now. How wonderful for you. By the way it isn't a simple pyramid.

Just watched the video. Wow, I had no idea that the view corridors for St. Pauls Cathedral were that protected.

Only because English heritage might complain about any building that blocks them. I can understand why they want you to be able to see it, but why would anybody need to see it from the City? The only tourists in the City are there to either look at the Gherkin or to look at St Pauls itself. Since there wont be a public viewing platform in the City until the Shard is built, nobody except from the bankers will see it from above. Added to which, the City cluster is already tall enough to block views from the East. Views from the South would already be blocked by guys and the remainder of Southwark towers.

In short, the sight lines are already pretty blocked, so I doubt any further development of highrises will really harm them.

Maybe a silly question, but what does The Shard mean?

Maybe a silly question, but what does The Shard mean?

Another name for the tower. The Shard London Bridge, also known as London Bridge Tower, the Shard of Glass and 32 London Bridge.

Or if you mean the definition of 'shard'.

The "Shard" was the first object spotted by Hoagland on frame LO-III-84M. Sticking some 1.5 miles above the Lunar surface, it is truly an inexplicable (by current theories) wonder of the universe. Casting a shadow across the Lunar plane, alignment with the local vertical rather than the "grain" of the film, and it's proximity to the "Tower" all argue strongly for it's artificial origin. Although no cross-confirming images of the "Shard" have been found, it's vicinity to the "Tower", which has been cross-confirmed, is a factor favoring it's existence as a "real" object. It has been suggested that the "Shard" may be a transient "out gassing" event. While this cannot be totally discounted, the absence of any "spray" around the "Shard's" sharply defined edges work against this explanation.

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/shard-ww2.jpg

The shard in close-up:

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/images/shardtip.jpg

This highly enhanced close-up of the tip of the "Shard" displays characteristics of a cellular, regular and geometric construction. The absence of any spray tends to diminish the "outgassing' theory, and the presence of a comparable glass like haze on the horizon behind "Shard" argues that it is amongst a field of artificial structures.

^ WTF... :sly:

Maybe a silly question, but what does The Shard mean?

Shard is the nickname of the tower. The word "shard" basically means "a sharp fragment" or blade-like piece of glass/ceramics.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shard

I think the nickname might have originated as an insult (from English Heritage or somebody), before it was actually marketed with that name. lol.

Dequal, please never mention Hoagland here again. He is a kook at the fringes of sanity who peddles childish theories about so-called alien structures, and he is an affront to anybody who likes real skyscrapers. I am sure you didn't mean any harm, but Hoagland is just too stupid to be mentioned in the same context as the London Bridge Tower.

Dequal, please never mention Hoagland here again. He is a kook at the fringes of sanity who peddles childish theories about so-called alien structures, and he is an affront to anybody who likes real skyscrapers. I am sure you didn't mean any harm, but Hoagland is just too stupid to be mentioned in the same context as the London Bridge Tower.

I'm sorry :nuts:

Thanks wjfox for clearing that up.

Dequal, interesting story.

Wjfox, forgive me my flawed english, but what does WTF stand for? Or is this another nickname for The London Bridge Tower?

Thanks in advance.

It stands for What the Fuck. As if you didn't know! We're getting closer to this starting construction all the time, it will be a day of dancing banana's when this starts.

There are still 2 years until the core rises. To be honest, I wish people would stop bumping this thread all the time.

I know what the words mean. I just didn't know the abbreviation. But thanks anyway.

I'm on the team bringing this to life.

I'm so proud that Qatar is a part of this historical project.

The five groups involved are Qatar National Bank, Qatar Islamic Bank, Q-Invest, QIA and Sellars

Is this the longest running supertall project in the history of high rises,was it like first concieved in the late 90,s or something??whats with the delay,is it the same when you build infastructure and other construction projects cause if thats the case the british economy should be on its death bed by now.

Is this the longest running supertall project in the history of high rises,was it like first concieved in the late 90,s or something??whats with the delay,is it the same when you build infastructure and other construction projects cause if thats the case the british economy should be on its death bed by now.

Our government are working hard on that one. They should have our economy devastated very shortly :nuts:

bullshit.

Is this the longest running supertall project in the history of high rises,was it like first concieved in the late 90,s or something??whats with the delay,is it the same when you build infastructure and other construction projects cause if thats the case the british economy should be on its death bed by now.

ohh,for fucks sake.

I'm on the team bringing this to life.

I'm so proud that Qatar is a part of this historical project.

The five groups involved are Qatar National Bank, Qatar Islamic Bank, Q-Invest, QIA and Sellars

Very cool!:) You make sure this happens now;)

Atleast this will be up for the Olympics, I don't think a lot of people who are excited about the London games really understand how different London will look come two thousand and twelve. I agree that this thread should be dormant until it starts construction.

From what I saw last week, the demolition is going well. From Tower Hill, the demolition was just still visible behind the building in front.

Edit: Heres the picture:

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2123/img1428cropbs8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2123/img1428cropbs8.2553c6b6af.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=166&i=img1428cropbs8.jpg)

I'm serious,look at the amount of posts and views on the uk forum,all this before a block has been laid,talk about been over eager,dont get me wrong the design is superb,but gime a break.

Be fair cubix, the shard will be tallest building ever constructed in the UK. It'll be the first and only supertall and probably wont be surpassed for quite a long time. If it was the same in whichever country you live in, your forumers would be reacting in the same way. The Shard is a real landmark development and could open the doors for more skyscrapers in an area of London that so far has none (Southwark that is, I know the City has two).

This will no doubt lead the way to more super talls in London.

Don't forget it's been an ongoing saga for the best part of a decade, what with planning obstacles, then funding problems etc etc. so of course there has been much chatter about it in the UK forum.

london bridge + tower bridge = London Bridge Tower, all sounds the same

cant fight with the british, looks ok.....

http://www.cnplus.co.uk/News/2008/09/mace_set_to_discover_if_price_on_shard_of_glass_is_right_for_client.html

Mace set to discover if price on Shard of Glass is right for client

The developer on the Shard of Glass scheme in London will decide by the beginning of next month whether Mace's latest price to build the tower is good enough.

Mace is due to put in its quote for the job this week - believed to be around £400 million on a fixed-price contract - with a decision expected to be made at a board meeting of client Teighmore early next month.

The take-it-or-leave-it offer is the third time Mace has come up with a price on the job - after being forced to amend its original figures when Teighmore sounded out Laing O'Rourke last autumn to come up with an amount that met its budget.

At £400 million, the number is at least £50 million more than the £350 million widely believed to be Mace's price first time around.

But it is understood this is down from the cost earlier this year, which sources said had escalated to £450 million.

The bid is being submitted to Bernard Ainsworth, the man in charge of the whole development in which the Shard sits - London Bridge Quarter - as well as project manager Turner & Townsend.

One source said: "They will be making some sort of decision by early October.

"They've spent so much on demolition already, I can't see it not going ahead."

Teighmore has already asked steelwork contractor Cleveland Bridge and cladding firm Scheldebouw to lock down prices for their respective packages ahead of work beginning in earnest next year.

CBUK has begun ordering the first amount of the required 12,000 tonnes of steel from Corus in order to reserve capacity.

Mace's latest bid comes after months of negotiations to get prices on some of the key subcontract packages down on the 310 m-high building which will go up above London Bridge railway station.

John Doyle has been lined up to carry out the concrete work, which carries a price tag of £50 million over 30 months.

The M&E contract has also caused Teighmore - which is made up of four Qatari banks and Sellar Property Group - problems. Hotchkiss and Phoenix are understood to be lined up for the split deal.

One source said: "Mace has kept shifting around £15 million worth of work between packages. It's been more of a logistics thing than about saving money.

"I think what Teighmore wants is a set price, rather than needing to know what the price is."

Piling firm Stent is due to start work on the job at the beginning of next year once Keltbray has completed demolition and groundworks. The building is due to be finished by March 2012.



Analysis: Rejection of bid will raise fresh doubts

By David Rogers

It was nearly eight years ago that Bovis Lend Lease was appointed to project manage construction of the Shard.

A lot has happened since - Wembley Stadium got built; London won the right to host the Olympics - but the Shard has resolutely refused to come out of the ground.

Yes, the building it will replace is being torn down and subbies are finally being appointed to key packages. But no one is craning their necks to peer skywards. Not yet anyway.

While it might not be the end of the line for the job if Mace's bid gets turned down, the consequences of such a decision would lead more and more to question whether, after nearly a decade in gestation, the thing ever gets off the ground.

Teighmore wants it built by 2012 and it's easy to see why. The eyes of the world will be on the capital later that summer and the Shard will be a stand-out structure. It would be great if it got built.


Author: David Rogers. News Editor

nice post, i'm just new here, and i found the contents rich

For me it is a bit too similar to Russia Tower :P

This was designed over half a decade before the Russia Tower.

OK, sorry ;)

New rendering which includes the Beetham Tower in the foreground, Pinnacle and the other City towers on the left -


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/London_general/19-1.jpg

New rendering which includes the Beetham Tower in the foreground, Pinnacle and the other City towers on the left -


http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/London_general/19-1.jpg



:drool:

how long till that render happens, cos it looks fab?

very beautiful tower with the bridge with it ..

Another new rendering. Includes the Blackfriars Road towers on the right -


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3146/2863032784_959ab7c9b2_o.jpg

I'm afraid I've seen one building like that, I don't really like that kind of designs but the high is too good, what a good new to know about you're building this.

What a super modern tower ! I didn't see that tower so far ! :bash: When will it be ready ?

OMG, I really want to see the first supertall ever built in England, it looks so tall compared to that midget one canada square, but a very rare photo above (its sunny in England)

empty too ! in the middle of london !

28 days later:lol:

^^ :lol:
The tower -project- looks very nice

28 days later:lol:

No; it's the Ministry of Truth! (1984)

28 days later:lol:


Took me a moment had look at the dates btwn the 2 posts. :nuts:

I like that rendering with the Beetham Tower in the foreground.

I like that rendering with the Beetham Tower in the foreground.

me too, if only it had the CW towers in it!

As demolition nears completion, the official website has been updated.

It now includes this stunning video and hi-res renders. Check it out… it’s ludicrously awesome:-

http://shardlondonbridge.com/

*drools*

Agreed wjfox, the flyby video makes it and London look gorgeous.

Has shades of the Ryugyong Hotel about it though.

that entering video is amazing :drool: