Tower 42
London, UK

HEIGHT: 183m
FLOORS: 42 floors
COMPLETION: 1980
ARCHITECT: Sir Richard Seifert


Links:
http://www.tower42.com
http://www.vertigo42.co.uk
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=57


Notes:
Tower 42 is the tallest skyscraper in the City of London, at 25 Old Broad Street. It was originally built for the National Westminster Bank, hence its older name, the NatWest Tower. Seen from above, the Tower closely resembles the NatWest logo (three chevrons in a hexagonal arrangement). The tower, designed by Richard Seifert, was built between 1971 and 1979, and opened in 1980, costing a total of £72 million.

It is 600ft (183m) high, which made it the tallest building in the UK until the construction of 1 Canada Square in the Docklands in 1991.

Its status as the first skyscraper in the City was a coup for the NatWest, but was extremely controversial at the time, as it was a major departure from the previous restrictions on tall buildings in London. The building is constructed around a huge concrete core from which the floors are cantilevered, giving it great strength but significantly limiting the amount of office space available. On opening, this was not a consideration - but following the 'Big Bang' in the City, trading in banks changed and the tower became obsolete thanks to the lack of large trading floors. The cantilever is constructed to take advantage of the air rights granted to it and the neighbouring site whilst respecting the banking hall on that adjacent site, as only one building was allowed to be developed. For a time it was the tallest cantilever in the world.

On April 24, 1993, the Provisional IRA exploded a huge truck bomb in the Bishopsgate area of the City of London. The bomb extensively damaged the NatWest Tower and many other buildings in the vicinity, causing over £1 billion worth of damage. The tower suffered severe damage and had to be entirely reclad and internally refurbished (demolition would have been too difficult and expensive). After refurbishment, NatWest decided not to re-occupy it, and renamed the building the International Financial Centre, then sold it. The new owners, small UK property company Greycoat, renamed it Tower 42, in reference to its 42 floors. It is now a general-purpose office building occupied by a variety of companies.



http://www.willfox.com/images/london/2/1.jpg



http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/London_general/T42_high.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/2.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/3.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/5.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/12.jpg



http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b387/wjfox2005/London_general/Aerial-centralcluster.jpg



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

"meh" not spectacular, however no horrible - 7.5

although it's soon to be absolutely blown away by 30 St. MAry's Axe............ bring it on ? :D

tays

I wish people would post more info with the original post. How tall is it? What year was it built?

Anyway, 6.5/10

my fav in London
8.5

ah, nice design for london. I like it. 8/10

7.5/10

I recall I didnt like it when I first saw it. Since then, it has grown on me but I think its better to stick with initial assessments.

i like it .. . 7/10, when was it built??

Height - 183 m / 600 ft
Built - 1980
No. of floors - look at its name

I like this little beauty, will look amazing with swiis re and heron around it

8/10 :)

it is good looking tower, i agree it will look nice when the others are around it:)

8.5/10

Its a nice tower but it shouldn't still be the City's tallest.

8/10

7.5 Doesn't impress me that much.

take into account these things

when it was built it was the tallest canterlevered tower in the world

it was almost destroyed by an IRA bomb, after which it was reclad

Jacob..when did the IRA bomb incident happen?

i think it was 1992

Fab tower, 8/10. more than 20 years as the crown of the City.

I think they should tear it down.
4/10

Originally posted by Peter The Great
I think they should tear it down.
4/10

why :?

It will be concealed by the new towers to come...What is worst is that swiss RE will be concealed too though it is the nicest tower by far.

Nice colours, and good shape. Not bad.

7/10

It has its good and its bad angles... nice structure overall.

7. the top doesnt fit well with the building. tall.

'very london'..(meaning it fits in the skyline well and it looks londonish:D :? )
i like it.. how about......8

i don't like it...i don't like the kind of beams going down the side of the tower. i gave it a 6 but if it didn't have those beams it would have gotten an 8

6/10 quite beautiful

9/10 I like this one more than the swiss re

8.5/10

i like it

I only like the entrance :D 7

5.5 I can't tell much from those photos... but it looks ugly.

8.5/10 Very nice building but also it's hard to underestimate the importance of this building for London. It gave the city a skyline and the chances are that none of the new proposals would be going up now if this baby hadn't been built!

Easily one of my favorite skyscrapers of all time. I don't know why but something about it just seems so sleek...so elegant...so London. It's even better in person. I got to see it when I went to London last month and while it may not be the tallest tower, it seems to spiral towards the sky and soars. For all of these reasons I give it a 9/10.

Does anyone have any photos of it before it's recladding? I'd be very interested to see it then.

I like it on the skyline, but not so much so as you get closer to it. From alot of the street angles, it actually looks like a vey dated 70's slab.


7.0/10

It doesn't really impress me. I think that the top could've been a lot better. 6.0/10

it looks pretty neat. 7.5/10

I'd actually take this building over so many others that try so hard to be something else (and failing.) Nevertheless, 7. Good vertical lines.

I actually saw this building when my plane was descending into Heathrow and its just so recognizable as it appears as this big black mass that dominates over a sea of low-rises..and yes I finally saw Swiss Re with those distinctive white stripes and light brown colour..yes Swiss Re looked light brown from the sky! :eek:

I love Tower42 more after that experience:guns1:

8/10

6/10

A good, modest skyscraper that fits in surprisingly well with its relatively low-rise surroundings. Obviously more impressive when you're actually standing there in the City.

7.5

Mm i actually don't like this one:(The base of tower is cool though
6.0/10

:tongue3: Lovely

8

8.8 out of 10.

Not very nice.
sorry just 6/10

Another picture

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/photopost/data/503/103tower42.jpg

7.5/10


nice tower

"Vertigo 42" - a posh restaurant is located at the top of Tower 42.

http://www.vertigo42.co.uk

http://www.vertigo42.co.uk/gallery/view1.jpeg http://www.vertigo42.co.uk/gallery/view2.jpeg http://www.vertigo42.co.uk/gallery/view3.jpeg

http://www.imagenode.com/files/transfer/6/2003/07/203567.jpg

6 out of 10

Swiss re is the new black, even though tower 42 is the centerpiece.
time goes by, things move on.

I gave it an 8, not that it's that great but the entrance is supah! It's also been a London landmark for some time.

8/10

7.5

Not my type, and quite ugly for me. But, gains a lot of respect for unique design, shape and facade.

Definately a core turning point skyscraper wise for London. Its had all its windows blown out when the IRA decided to take a hit at it (the Baltic Exchange was completely destroyed not far away - this historical building had to be pulled down and Swiss RE went up in its place). A lot of buildings had to be recladded (99 Bishopsgate has quite nice cladding), including Tower42. At the time it was owned by National Westminster Bank and my dad had an office on level 30 I believe - luckily he wasn't there!

A special treat: If you ever get the chance to go over Tower 42, look at its shape, you might get something like this (you might have to kinda imagine the other side.....):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38332000/jpg/_38332427_natwest150.jpg


http://www.technicalaccess.com/grafix/site/access_platform/case_studies/natwest/image7.jpg


Now dont forget this building was built for NatWest Bank as their headquaters. Now look closely at the logo for the bank and the actual top of the building. The whole tower (although the architect denied this) is based upon the logo for the bank. Something which is probably a fairly unique thing (I cant think of many skyscrapers which are designed looking like the company logo).

The entrance on Old Broad St (dont forget that in the City of London the streets are spider-web like and very cramped - cause they wern't made for the car!) is very impressive and amazingly quiet as you work your way up from the Bank of England + Mansion House towards Liverpol Street Station. Possibly one of the nicest entrances for such a tall building.


Another thing: NatWest tower fire - '96

http://www.gyford.com/archive/1996/www.paranoia.com/~fabius/images/fire2.gif

Not very nice
6/10

9.5/10

My favourite skyscraper in London.

SwissRe has more of an immediate visual impact, but Tower 42 has a certain history and character behind it which I prefer. This was the UK's first real 'skyscraper' and remains an iconic landmark 25 years on.

The slim shape and the narrow windows (similar to the WTC Twin Towers) makes it look taller than it really is.


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42_99bishopsgate_montage.jpg

I think its cool. Has a very diferrent shape, but the colors are a bit too grey and boring. 7/10 ...

I don´t like it. For me it is grey and boring.
4/10

Its grey, boring and an ugly piece of crap, i fooking love it 9/10

A couple more pics, thanks to mrout:


http://www.mrouth.com/images/photos/london/10/105_0557.JPG


http://www.mrouth.com/images/photos/london/05/103_0364.JPG

A remarkable skyscraper for me, nicer when seen in person.
8/10

Posted by gothicform in the UK and Ireland forum:


http://skyscrapernews.com/gallery/tower42_night1-01.jpg

6.5 iT'S so black and too simple

600ft / 42 storeys ...


http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/T42_best_ever_pic.jpg

http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/city/11t422.jpg

From left to right:

Tower 42 (183m),
99 Bishopsgate (104m),
6-8 Bishopsgate (88m).



http://www.skyscrapernews.com/bishopsgate1-01.jpg

6.5/10 I don't like the design, but it's tall

6/10

8/10. Nice shape.

http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/swissre/swissre8.jpg

http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/swissre/swissre57.jpg

http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/swissre/swissre7.jpg

Looking down on the neighbouring tower, from the 42nd floor:

http://www.jswebsite.co.uk/img-html/tower-42/04-nearby-bulding.htm

Tower 42 looks cool, I don't know why but I just like it.

6.5 iT'S so black and too simple

simple?! Errr not quite! Anyway I used to despise this building, but I understand the design now. It is very subtle and elegant. It is not a 'look at me building' and was never intended to be... obviously being so tall compared to its surroundings in a very historically sensitive area it had to have a certain charm but not be garish and loud.

I love the way it changes colour to reflect the sky... The City of London is a very austere and subtley coloured area with variety in hues and shades that looks its strongest on very bleak moody days and in sunshine (obviously)...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Tower42.jpg

This building is just plain amazing !! Its easy to take one or two looks and not like it, but the more you look the more it grows on you, and very quickly. To really appreciate it you have to see it in the flesh and in context. A wonderful ,slick & majestic building that stands resolute despite whats been thrown at it. A wonderful metaphor for London dont you think ?

:) god im clever hahahaah

http://www.orarium.com/images/london/04.jpg

http://www.orarium.com/images/london/14.jpg

Nice tower, but a bit dated.

looks dated ???? eh.....how does it? its so much more stylish and unique than all those glass boxes all over the world...

I don't think it's dated at all. I would say it has a timeless look about it.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=175288&page=1



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42_99bishopsgate_frame.jpg

it's not bad,but i just don't like the dark top!it looks kind of dirty!

8/10 A London landmark so slightly biased! Hopefully will have a few decent scraper neighbours in the future to soften slightly its looks somehow.

I always hated this one, sorrey Londoners
5.5/10

http://www.thefilebin.com/userfiles/dublin2004/dec26/DSCN4571.jpg

the oldest, and still the one of the best!

@HKSkyline

That's a great pic!!

6.5/10

6.5/10

7,5/10

http://tinypic.com/2jxwyb




http://tinypic.com/2jxxg7

Iconic with plenty of character and it looks great when the sun shines on it. T42 has really grown on me.

8/10

V E R Y I M P R E S S I V E ! ! - - - - 9 / 1 0

:okay:

DEL

love this one it`s nice slim.

9/10

It's not the kind of building you fall in love at first glance,but if you look again and again you will see nice features such as the silver facade and the irregular shape that makes the building look different from everywhere you look at it.

8/10

Excellent, 9.5/10

Not my favorite building in London. I just don't like black skyscrapes ;) 7,5/10

Construction pics from the 1970's. This was the first true 'skyscraper' built in London.



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/uc/5.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/uc/4.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/uc/1.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/uc/3.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/uc/7.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/uc/6.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/uc/2.jpg



http://www.willfox.com/images/skyscrapers/t42/uc/8.jpg

8/10 from me!

Great construction pics Will......8/10

9/10

The fire of 1996, back when it was known as the NatWest Tower:



http://tinypic.com/6p3wbl.jpg

10/10

I've updated the pics and info at the top of the first page. :)

The fire of 1996, back when it was known as the NatWest Tower:



http://tinypic.com/6p3wbl.jpg

gosh i remember seeing this on the news and going down the end of my road, where we could see it.

I cant believe it was almost 10 years ago.

it has something...
9/10

http://tinypic.com/dw5t3m.jpg

Thats one thick core, wjfox - this building must be absolutely nails', yeah?

Great construction pics and comprehensive notes, btw - nice work :okay:


9/10 for the tower - its a modern day classic, and deserves its place on the London skyline just as much as any of the other famous landmarks do.

6/10 don't really like it.

7/10

Not that nice. 7/10

This tower kicks ass, and has a lot of character. I love its dark and menacing appearance, its soaring height and the way it seems to guard over London's financial district, like a sentinel.


http://tinypic.com/iyldp2.jpg

I love this Skyscraper to bits. At first I hated it and said it would look much better with a glossy blue glass reclad. But now, its grown on me and it actually looks fantastic! I don't know wich one I like better though, Tower 42 or Swiss Re!

Anyways, 9/10!

I do think you have to be British to get this building. I love it!

the top is very strange 6,5/10

6/10

I liked it very much when I visited London in the earlu eighties, and I still like it: 8,5/10

6,5/10

7.5/10.

landmark building - 8.5

http://static.flickr.com/77/191171173_78232facf0_b.jpg

9/10

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

8/10

6.5/10

7.5/10

I gave it 8. I disliked it when I first saw it back in 2003, but I have grown to really like and appreciate it.

I'd give it a 7. It is dark and menacing, as one member said, but is not ugly. No offence, but that last golden photo a few entries above is a bit misleading. Even in a sunset it would be difficult to imagine it looking that golden.

^ It really does change colour, and appears golden like that when the sun shines on it.

8/10

i really like it 8/10

8.5/10

Wow! 9 years... Why did it took so long to build it?

Wow! 9 years... Why did it took so long to build it?

This part of London has a layer of relatively soft clay below the surface. The core and foundations had to be super-strong to support the tower's weight and prevent it from sinking into the ground or falling over. Construction techniques have improved since then, however. Any future towers with concrete cores will be much quicker to build.

I'd give it a 7. It is dark and menacing, as one member said, but is not ugly. No offence, but that last golden photo a few entries above is a bit misleading. Even in a sunset it would be difficult to imagine it looking that golden.

The steel ribs do make it appear golden during sunset, and at times the building glows red to reflect the sun also.

^ Yeah, the photo isn't misleading at all. It really does appear that golden at Sunset :cool:

Not bad for me 8/10

Very nice. 7/10

8/10

Posted by Luke -


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/luke82/BuildingPics160207015.jpg

Good looking 8.0

7/10

10/10 i love it !

It's okay, a 6,5 out of 10.

9/10 one of those London buildings i LOVE!!!

8/10

9.5

A fantastic building; only let down by its base and the messy additions that have been made over the years. Standing under its terrifyingly huge cantilevers is probably the best architectural experience in London, a much underrated tower.

7/10

8/10

7/10
;)

7/10 ...:cheers:

8/10

6/10

6.5/10

7/10

NatWest Tower opening, 1981:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5_iRs-qPfw

:cool:

interesting, the queen was also there :)

Very nice 8,5/10

8/10 -Adds something speical to London's skyline :)

9/10 it's tall! wow

9,5

9/10
I love it! Very good architecture.

8.5 for me, Its classy, it looks tall, and it's different without trying too hard.

9/10 beautifully proportioned and sits so nicely next to Swiss RE, a true London icon

7/10

6/10

8/10 :)

London's first skyscraper was a good one! Still great! 8/10

8,5/10

7/10

6.5/10

10. A true symbol for London, the first true skyscraper for the capital, and it still retains its ancient beauty amongst all the modern architecture. Absolutely love it.

8. Good building. Regards.

Very smart. 7.5/10

Not very spectacular nor nice, but it's a classical skyscraper in London City.

8/10

second best scraper in the whole of london

Very nice shape, nice heigth, but the facade seems like it has aged or gone out of style to me, 7.5

8.5/10

9.5/10

mmm 8.5
looks exceptional at night with its green hat

8/10

6.5/10

9/10

8/10

Architecture with a capitol A!

10/10!

8/10

8/10

7.5/10

7/10 good building, but I don't like the top . :)

Height - 183 m / 600 ft
Built - 1980
No. of floors - look at its name

it actually has more floors than it's name suggests, top floor of office space is level 41, vertigo restaurant is on level 42, and the floors between there and the top level 47 are all plant rooms, as is levels 13, 22 and 33

Great

8/10

nice tower tho 8/10

9/10

8.5/10

It's funny because that tower is uglier than Montparnasse... but the construction of Swiss Re nearby suddenly made it beautiful.