Can't seem to find a thread on Heron Plaza .
After rumours of an increase in the height of Heron Plaza & change in use to a hotel during the last 6 months. Heres the confirmation.


Ronson to develop Four Seasons in City
propertyweek
10.07.09

By Laura Chesters, Deirdre Hipwell

Heron Plaza signs its first-ever agreement with luxury hotel operator

Gerald Ronson’s Heron International has agreed terms with luxury hotel chain Four Seasons to develop a hotel as part of its Heron Plaza in the City of London.

In Heron’s first-ever deal with the luxury hotel and residence operator it has agreed heads of terms to create the City’s first Four Seasons hotel at the site on 110 Bishopsgate.

The agreement is subject to a strict non-disclosure agreement. Exact details of the size of the hotel are unclear at this point.

Any agreement will be subject to a revised planning consent for Heron Plaza. The original consent, which was granted in 2004, only covers the 46-storey office skyscraper, Heron Tower – which is already under construction – and retail and public space.

It is thought that Heron will submit a revised application by the end of the year with plans for the Four Seasons and extended public spaces.

Four Seasons was founded in 1960 and has a range of hotels and residences in city centres and tourist resorts. Its has 82 properties in 34 countries, and has more than 40 projects under development.

It only has two hotels in London – on Park Lane, which is undergoing a renovation that is due to be completed next year – and at Canary Wharf. It also has a hotel in Hampshire.

Jonathan Goldstein, joint managing director of Heron International, said: ‘The addition of a Four Seasons hotel as part of the Heron Plaza would provide a tremendous new facility in the heart of London, as well as significantly enhancing the whole Heron Plaza complex.’

If Heron and Four Seasons receive planning consent and complete the agreement it will be an improvement for the City, which has few high-quality and luxury hotels.

Heron Tower, which was designed by architect Kohn Pedersen Fox, will continue to form the centrepiece of the plaza.

Next Thursday Ronson will host a ‘Heron Tower time capsule’ ceremony at the site. He will Bury a ‘time capsule’ in the tower’s foundations ‘at the last opportunity prior to the foundations being sealed and, in line with feng shui traditions, to place a tortoise Shell in the foundations of the building’.

The new sightlines mean this won't receive planning permission.

The new sightlines mean this won't receive planning permission.

We don't know what the new height will be until the planning applications is submitted but if they have announced a hotel operator then you would presume Heron know what they are doing. It is actually just outside the proposed new sightlines. The one EH & the Tower of London are banging on is not one of the main ones.

It is actually just outside the proposed new sightlines. The one EH & the Tower of London are banging on is not one of the main ones.

Well it is an interesting one this. Until the planning application goes in no-one public knows what affect it will have. There's already been mutterings though as you said that EH aren't happy because it appears to 'pollute' the outline of the one of the Tower of London towers from the protected sightline from Tower Bridge. But as you say these 'framework' views aren't the strictly defined ones that Boris and Milton have set in stone, so there's a possibility he could override EH, especially if the Corporation lean on him slightly.

I expect it will go in for planning, EH will shout and scream, Boris won't say anything public but in private be wary, the developers will roll over, we'll get a height reduction and less public space, it will go in again, EH will still complain, Boris will say he's happy and give permission, the ES will big up Boris saying he's stopped another tower block destroying historical views, nothing will happen on site for years and then work will slowly begin when everyone is bored of the project and architecture has moved on. That's pretty much de facto for every new proposal in London isn't it?

I dunno with this one. With each new planning permission for tall buildings & with each winning PI you would think the rules are pretty clear. But as ever in London nothing is certain.

Bare in mind it already has consent for a 100m tower on this site so you would have thought whatever view it supposedly ruins the 100m view would still be seen in it.
Mr Ronson pretty much blew out the water the old misguided rules with the first Heron tower PI so I would think he is a tough cookie and will not roll over as easily as over developers.

I favour the developer on this one.
-They have the existing planning permission
-They have a tennant showing they are serious. I really believe it is harder to turn down definite investment rather than concepts.
-They will have the support of the City
-Standing so close to another, much taller tower, makes the EH argument absurd. (Yeah, I know!)

Interesting. i have been waiting to hear any news on this.

I think it will go through. The COL is keen on getting proper hotels in the area and show everyone that the city is alive and kicking in spite of the global recession. And their words carry a lot of weight with the mayor.

Hopefully we get the height increase to 150m plus too and then we have the 5th proper skyscraper in the city.

A Four Seasons hotel? It's good news that they have such a good client lined up before the design is even revealed, I doubt The City itself will refuse pp, this will be great for them. It's EH and their ilk we need to worry about.

I'm looking forward to seeing this.

Given that the site is adjacent to the new much higher tower, it would be very difficult to challenge this one on hight - and will demonstrate that the view corridor approach cannot simply be employed without looking at the existing context and the intent of the view corridors. if the visual primacy of St Paul's is not clearly impacted, and the new tower fits into its urban context reasonably, a significantly newly revised and extended planning framework will be questioned if it is considered overly restrictive. This is a good test.

Fact is, sightlines or otherwise.. the city needs towers of this height to create a harmony between the streetscapes and the new/proposed towers.. to accentuate the grace and height of the main towers whilst them being a part of the narrow streets..

Further more, it's needed! I hope he gets his wish in having Heron, Heron Plaza and the Milton Court..

Great to hear this is still going strong, it went worryingly silent for too long!

Would i be right in thinking that this below, right of the Heron Tower was the old estimation/height plan for Heron Plaza?

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/toml-1991/48yyi6v.jpg

This is the page from the London View Management Framework which Boris is amending. This managed view existed before, but as was said Ken took them as guideline and not a final say. It is to be seen if Boris feels the same.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2576/3707389708_9ed6ec1b54_b.jpg

The Heron Tower, as far as I'm aware, appears from this view to be behind the Gherkin, with a slight visible amount of it appearing out to the right. Heron Plaza will fall to the right of Heron Tower, with its leading right edge overlapping behind the left hand castellation of the Tower of London. This is where the problem of the height increase lies, because before the tower never appeared in this view and simply was below the tree line. Now the tower is proposed taller it will break up the silhouette of the Tower.

Note the line: "Development should not breach the skyline of the four towers of the White Tower or its castellations." That's quite strict in its wording and something EH would look towards as reason to deny planning permission and possibly take this tower to a PI if it feels strongly enough (and I think they will).

We'll see when the renders appear. Maybe with EH already being vocal they've rejigged the design to be thinner so it doesn't touch the castellation and none of this will be a problem.

Great to hear this is still going strong, it went worryingly silent for too long!

Would i be right in thinking that this below, right of the Heron Tower was the old estimation/height plan for Heron Plaza?

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff280/toml-1991/48yyi6v.jpg

yes that's not it. you can see it's not even as tall as the willis building, which you can see in this also.

I got quite excited by some movement on a significant tower in the city when I read it on SSN.

Would it get extra points because it is being developed as a hotel, rather than just being office - I don't know does it carry extra value in some way?

people are assuming that the tower is going to be in the exact same place

the mind still boggles that the City of London were so against having hotels within its boundaries until quite recently. 4 Seasons is a great pouch (excuse the cricketing vernacular), although I question its location on busy Bishopsgate, and unlike the Canary Wharf FS, it will be fairly short and right behind the Heron Tower, thus blocking most of the view. Anyhoo, good news if this goes ahead.

This whole viewing corridor thing is total nonsense, how many towers will be visible in that panaorama in a couple of years.
How can you turn do a building which will create hundreds of jobs and generate a huge amount of revenue in a recession, just because you can see a building behind the tower of London, something which most people couldn't give a fuck about:bash:

Those viewing corridors are only proposed, they have not been formalised yet.

If Boris turns this down then he really is a prize cunt who doesn't give a toss about London's prosperity

It's not the one facing Bishopsgate that is being demolished for Heron Plaza but the one to the east. You can see it here, it's the building behind the red crane in the middle.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2767797094_eec2250025_b.jpg

people are assuming that the tower is going to be in the exact same place

so you're saying this might not be where it's going? Doesn't seem like a huge site that we're talking about and much flexiblity in where to place Heron plaza on it if it's the one pointed out here. And if it is this will definitly end up right above the western turret of the White Tower on that Tower Bridge viewpoint from above as I just rechecked with some accuracy on a map. And the extra 50m will more or less exactly be what will show up above the turret. Couldn't be worse in terms of ammunition for EH..

just because you can see a building behind the tower of London, something which most people couldn't give a fuck about

Actually a lot of people do. The number of times I have overheard tourists around City Hall and Tower Bridge bemoaning the modern buildings around the Tower. I have to say I think we are in the minority in understanding the aesthetic idea of having modern and old next to each other.

Those viewing corridors are only proposed, they have not been formalised yet.

The framework view I posted above has existed since the original View Management Framework was published during Ken's terms as Mayor, it was just he saw them as a guide and not a defacto rule and overrode a lot of EH's views that the City cluster and South Bank development was damaging the setting of a world heritage site- a point that made EH bring in UNESCO because they felt their views were being ignored.

If Boris turns this down then he really is a prize cunt who doesn't give a toss about London's prosperity

London can still prosper without tall buildings. It sends the wrong message to developers and completely destroys Ken's notion of 'controlled densification' whereby he knew tall buildings were inevitable and tried to make the best design possible. But Boris was elected by a lot of people simply because they believed he would ban tall buildings, and now he has, and for them that means he is doing a good job. These people don't tend to believe in the notion that developers are good for London and just see them as destroying history in the pursuit of profit, unable to grasp that London takes the best of its history and refreshes the rest to offer up-to-date requirements for the modern world, making London the first world city it is today.

This whole viewing corridor thing is total nonsense, how many towers will be visible in that panaorama in a couple of years.
How can you turn do a building which will create hundreds of jobs and generate a huge amount of revenue in a recession, just because you can see a building behind the tower of London, something which most people couldn't give a fuck about:bash:

Those viewing corridors are only proposed, they have not been formalised yet.

If Boris turns this down then he really is a prize cunt who doesn't give a toss about London's prosperity

I totally agree, yes tourists probably do comment on the new buildings in the back ground of ToL but that life and I dont think it ruins peoples visit (this is more likely to be effected by the cost of drinks etc). A bit of education goes a long way, and information could be provided in the area explaining that the area is in a working capital city and needs to keep generating wealth and providing buildings which allow businesses to do this. We all know the importance of people being employed, so alot of tourists would understand this and accept it. This could be celebrated and put in a positive light. We cant afford to put sight lines over everything else.

Can you imagine the backlash against Boris and his plans if a tower with presitgious tennants lined up and in amongst the tallest buildings in the country during a recession is rejected? Not a good move.

Can you imagine the backlash against Boris and his plans if a tower with presitgious tennants lined up and in amongst the tallest buildings in the country during a recession is rejected? Not a good move.

Backlash? I imagine most people in London would be congratulating him for stopping another 'tower block' destroying our 'heritage'.

He's your mayor so why dont you ask him about it and the impact these sightlines will have on Londons economy

Backlash? I imagine most people in London would be congratulating him for stopping another 'tower block' destroying our 'heritage'.

:lol: funny because it's true. :gaah:

I am certain this will get pp. Reception has been favourable. The architecture is superb and it complements Heron Tower perfectly. It makes the City of London more competitive and will significantly enhance Bishopsgate with a high quality lit plaza and large conference centre facilities. It will get the go ahead and will get built. Boris will not reject a development like this slap bang in the middle of recession which will create around 1000-1500 construction jobs, steel and glass orders, and create around 600 permanent hotel jobs when it is completed.

'Sightlines' or the City of London's economy.... I would be amazed if Boris and the Corporation of London didn't wave this through with gusto.... this development by Heron is a class act.

The last thing London wants to do at the moment is look non-developer friendly. Its like shooting yourself in the foot.

A few more details:

Heron Plan 149m Tall Luxury Hotel (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=2194)
Published on 10-07-2009 by Skyscrapernews.com

Heron has signed a deal with the luxury Four Seasons Hotel that involves a complete redesign of the approved Heron Plaza that will see a new 149 metre tall 43 floor building built instead of a 98 metre tall one.

The architects, as with Heron Tower, are KPF and they've designed it to of tessellate architecturally with Heron Plaza creating a strong relationship between the two.

The scheme will include some top conference facilities and a new public square near Bishopsgate that will create a welcome space in the City of London that gets very few new plazas built - most developers prefer to build out as much as they can.

Details are also coming out about Heron Tower will be lit with the use of purple, green and blue low-energy LEDs at night intended to illuminate the side of the tower that's viewed from Bishopsgate and give it a striking look when approached from Bank station.

The further revision is hardly a surprising move as Heron Plaza always felt like an after-thought tacked on to the scheme to provide justification of a tall building on the site of Stone House whilst they figured out what precisely to do with it.

The hotel will be welcomed in the City of London by many as despite being London's main central business district there are few decent places offering such accommodation within its boundaries, something that forces people to travel to and from the West End every day. It will also create approximately 600 new jobs in the hotel diversifying the City's workforce.

It also shows that once again Heron are leading the way when it comes to looking beyond developing plots in the City of London into things other than offices. They already have planning permission for the first residential tower to be built in the city for decades at Milton Court and now the hotel shows a further diversification away from simply providing office space.

Any normal city would be delighted to have such a project, especially in the midst of a recession with unemployment rising by the day.

But unfortunately London is not a normal city due to the conservative, "don't change anything, but whinge continually" lobby.

finally someone spotted it. found it funny, all the speculation on this thread! lol. little birds tell me the various planning authorities in london, including the mayor's office, are actually supportive of this scheme. i think people are still trying to work out the reality of the conservative administration rather than their electoral posturing and it's a bit more pragmatic than the doom-mongers on this forum predict.

But, this tower will be visible from Liverpool Street station, it will destroy London!

All buildings should be invisible!

but, you're guilty of hyperbole. boris is not a reactionary idiot, he is merely an idiot.

Can you imagine the backlash against Boris and his plans if a tower with presitgious tennants lined up and in amongst the tallest buildings in the country during a recession is rejected? Not a good move.
.......... Common sense I would say ;)

:lol: funny because it's true. :gaah:

i must agree hehe

Bit more news on this from an article in Estates Gazette.

Application is due in September. Height as already speculated is 148m with the tower being a slightly wider than the previous plan.
Will include a new public square on the site of Stone House, restoration of 150 Bishopsgate, relocation of Grade II listed 1-5 Bishopsgate to form rear of 150 Bishopsgate.

Current plannign permission for Heron Plaza expires on 4th December.

EH still moaning about the view from ToL.

What are the odds of this getting a height reduction? :|

What are the odds of this getting a height reduction? :|

I would say quite low actually- Heron have been working on these plans for a while now & EH have made their position clear from the beginning and Ronson still hasn't shifted.

The question is would Boris like to be seen as meddling by insisting on a height reduction against a £100 million plus investment which includes improvements to the public space & a 5 star hotel that would provide hundreds of jobs.

^^

I hope you are correct but you do seem to be relying on Boris and his team actually having some common sense - which is something I dont think they have demonstrated so far.

Actually the planning department at the LDA is very rational and a lot of the people that were there under Ken are still there now.

I'm sure the ES & EH will come out with there usual rant come September & they will probably wheel out Simon J to do a lovely piece on it but a nil rate of public inquiry wins for the heritage lobby & up against the original instigator Mr Ronson just as his 240m+ Heron tower is rising from pretty much the same view will make this an interesting one.

Doesn't sound as successful for the Sellar three house towers at LB scheme though as news on that has been very quiet for months and they were supposed to be launched way back in February.

So this will be the other side of Heron Tower from 100 Bish, all three sitting in a line? That's gonna produce quite a wall!

it strikes me that sometimes height reductions are done without motive

finally someone spotted it. found it funny, all the speculation on this thread! lol. little birds tell me the various planning authorities in london, including the mayor's office, are actually supportive of this scheme. i think people are still trying to work out the reality of the conservative administration rather than their electoral posturing and it's a bit more pragmatic than the doom-mongers on this forum predict.

I get the impression that the City is in on the big joke as much as Westminster is, wouldn’t surprise me as its one big gentleman’s club. EH is probably the big puppet with some ideology that it tries to instil into the big game. Westminster and their Royal fellows don’t seem to be that concerned about the City appearing from parks and being added to messy skylines. Then we had the influential crafter of the City cluster trying to torpedo other boroughs efforts by declaring them destructive, that old Westminster & EH line... looking after their own rather than some brave pioneers for London. I only see the Shard as the true pioneer and hope for the future.

Actually a lot of people do. The number of times I have overheard tourists around City Hall and Tower Bridge bemoaning the modern buildings around the Tower. I have to say I think we are in the minority in understanding the aesthetic idea of having modern and old next to each other.



Ive heard an American declaring in bemusement and slight disgust that London was trying to follow New York when viewing the tower of london. but then ive seen many far too many people enthusiastically take photos of the cluster of the City from Tower Bridge to trouble me over the juxtaposition, it really is an incredibly distinct urban formation if you think about it, especially how it suddenly bulks up in a variety of forms; lots of areas for improvement though, some suspect buidlings but overall just as unique as a European inspired cathedral or castle.

Also the juxtaposition of Swiss Re behind the entrance portion of the castle walls is very popular for observing and taking photos. Just go down and watch. This is why the whole sightline planning framework is flawed and where EH is wrong. People actually like successful juxtapositions, I mean actual observers rather than remote newspaper readers. Where is the ground research to support the strong influential ideology that actually controls us and ends up diluting the aesthetic of our era? It basically doesnt exist and which is why the fight over this corrupted ideology is so important and why we have to salute the developers that push things through even if they have ulterior motives.

There is no excuse to moan about this when there is 2 of the tallest buildings in the UK being constructed a few meters away. Especially with one of them being almost 100m taller which is right nextdoor.

There is no excuse to moan about this when there is 2 of the tallest buildings in the UK being constructed a few meters away.

Neither of them 'touch' the silhouette of the sacred Tower of London in the protected view from Tower Bridge though.

Looks like this may be the Heron Plaza v.2

Comparing it to the plans you can see the original was only as high as 7 of the 3fl vertical villages whereas the new render rises to around 10 3fl vertical villages. It also now involves demolishing 150 Bishopsgate which is a shame. Would've looked good if they could have kept the façade and have the tower rise out of it.

http://i32.tinypic.com/2hwh10h.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/351y991.jpg

Hard to tell really, it doesn't appear to be either the original height or 150m ish.. Either way by God, how incredible they'll both be :D

An excellent example of old and new forming a successful juxtaposition is St.Patrick's Cathedral in Midtown Manhattan. While this picture doesn't exactly do it justice, I always find this marvellous piece of architecture to look absolutely brilliant surrounded by skyscrapers on every side. The sight of those spires poking out between the skyscrapers the first time I saw it in the flesh was simply breathtaking and I think it serves as a prime example (outside of London) of how such a partnership can work.

Ooops almost forgot the picture link!!!
http://www.visitingdc.com/images/st-patrick%27s-cathedral-nyc.jpg

An excellent example of old and new forming a successful juxtaposition is St.Patrick's Cathedral in Midtown Manhattan. While this picture doesn't exactly do it justice, I always find this marvellous piece of architecture to look absolutely brilliant surrounded by skyscrapers on every side. The sight of those spires poking out between the skyscrapers the first time I saw it in the flesh was simply breathtaking and I think it serves as a prime example (outside of London) of how such a partnership can work.

I completely agree with you there. It really gives that area on 5th Avenue a real boost. The contrast is perfect.

I completely disagree! It's a great example of a bad site to put a cathedral on! The spires have no soar - the skyscrapers boss their way into that view.

I want to pick the cathedral up and put it on top of the GE building in the bottom of that photo. Architecture that beautiful shouldn't be hidden away behind a wall of glass and steel.

^^^^
Yes, but like I said, that photo doesn't do it justice.
In my opinion the best place to view it from is in one of the nearby skyscrapers, about mid-way up, just below or just above the tip of the cathedral's spires. From this point you get to see the real powerful effect that the cathedral has on the area, not in anyway hindered by the surrounding skyscrapers. I don't know of course if you have or haven't already seen it for yourself but if you ever are visiting NYC, make sure you go see it (and from that perfect vantage point if possible!) Anyway it's all just opinion :)

According to me, it is the new version.

Hard to tell really, it doesn't appear to be either the original height or 150m ish.. Either way by God, how incredible they'll both be :D

its quite a bit taller than the 104m 99 bish, so it may be the right height

According to me, it is the new version.

Why doesnt it look 150m then?

According to me, it is the new version.

According to you doesnt mean squat! but according to its comparison buildings here:
http://i32.tinypic.com/2hwh10h.jpg

It could be 30m shorter than the Gherkin, which means according to fact ;)

Ooops almost forgot the picture link!!!
http://www.visitingdc.com/images/st-patrick%27s-cathedral-nyc.jpg

Yep. Works nicely next to Saks Fifith Avenue as well.

I completely disagree! It's a great example of a bad site to put a cathedral on! The spires have no soar - the skyscrapers boss their way into that view.

I want to pick the cathedral up and put it on top of the GE building in the bottom of that photo. Architecture that beautiful shouldn't be hidden away behind a wall of glass and steel.

Why put that stupid video in ... it has absolutely noyhing to do with the site

I was amazed to find out that a friend of mine's Great Great Grandfather (James Renwick) was the architect of St. Patrick's Cathedral.

It's a stunner and from ground level works brilliantly amongst the skyscrapers of Manhattan - an aerial view doesn't really do it justice.

Not sure why the constant mention of St. Patrick's Cathedral NYC as its not really relevant here.

If you want to discuss St Patricks Cathedral please start a thread in the foreign projects sub forum.

Why doesnt it look 150m then?

Well as ferge says, it looks to be the same height at the 10th 3-storey village of Big Heron, which is approx 124m.

Why put that stupid video in ... it has absolutely noyhing to do with the site

well, you are quite new around here, so I'm gonna explain it to you: Everything below that separating line below the main part of some posts is the poster's signature - see many other poster's ones with statements, quotes or links as well. You are free to check it out or ignore it.

PS: Really impressive guitar work there, Gherkin! Don't see anything stupid about that..

well, you are quite new around here, so I'm gonna explain it to you: Everything below that separating line below the main part of some posts is the poster's signature - see many other poster's ones with statements, quotes or links as well. You are free to check it out or ignore it.

PS: Really impressive guitar work there, Gherkin! Don't see anything stupid about that..

First i've heard of using a video for a signature. So we are only supposed to post relavant things on the site except your signature which you can put anything you want in

Fresh twist takes Heron tower rivalry to new heights
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3150521&channel=426&c=1
9 October, 2009

By Tom de Castella

KPF and PLP each declare victory as client Gerald Ronson says he will retain both practices

The simmering feud between Kohn Pederson Fox Associates and its former partners at new practice PLP Architecture reached boiling point this week as both practices fought for control of the Heron Tower.

The struggle for what will soon be the City’s tallest tower ended with each side declaring victory after client Heron International made the surprise announcement that it would employ both firms.
Gene Kohn, KPF
“We’ve been retained as architects and we are getting the fee”

Gene Kohn, KPF

KPF has remained the architect on the tower but will have to endure a supervising role for former KPF partners Lee Polisano and Fred Pilbrow who, as BD revealed last month, dramatically jumped ship to establish PLP Architecture with three colleagues.

Veteran property mogul and Heron International chief executive Gerald Ronson is known to be close to both Polisano and KPF chairman Gene Kohn and a Heron source said he was not willing to “get involved in an increasingly bitter squabble” between the two sets of architects over clients.

The structural frame of the 202m-high office tower at 110 Bishopsgate — designed by Pilbrow with input from Polisano — is three-quarters finished, with 34 of 46 storeys built.

Kohn told BD: “We’ve been retained as architects and we are getting the fee. Fred will be allowed to visit the site from time to time to see how it’s progressing and I’m fine with that.”

But Pilbrow offered a different take, saying: “KPF remain responsible for the day-to-day administration of the contract while on site. Gerald has asked Lee and me to monitor the project for him and make sure it is delivered in line with our design.”

Pilbrow claimed Ronson had transferred the next phase of the Heron Tower project — thought to be a hotel — from KPF to PLP. “We’re very excited that Gerald has transferred this to become our project — he’s shown great faith in us. It’s a new commission and a sizeable project.”

Fred Pilbrow, PLP
“(Heron chief Gerald Ronson) has asked Lee and me to monitor the project”

Fred Pilbrow, PLP

He added that PLP had also picked up other former KPF clients, including a major scheme in Abu Dhabi.

KPF sources claim that egos are already clashing at PLP and the partners will be “lucky to still be together in two years’ time”.

But Pilbrow insisted the venture had made a solid start and would have 80 to 100 architects working at its Camden office by the end of this month, most of whom he claimed would come from KPF.

He added: “We’d like to open a New York office and compete with our former partners — it’d be fun.”

But Kohn said he was “not worried” and strongly denied the notion of an exodus of staff.

“Fred may talk about having 80 to 100 architects but there’s no way that’s going to happen,” he said

Gene Kohn is implying there is one job price fee to be paid - surely that cannot be if PLP are also involved.

This building is confusing. I would have imagined it would have been built at the same time as big Heron. Also, with a building currently on site and this scheme in a 'pre planning' stage, correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this mean it will be a serious time until this thing starts to rise?

This building is confusing. I would have imagined it would have been built at the same time as big Heron. Also, with a building currently on site and this scheme in a 'pre planning' stage, correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this mean it will be a serious time until this thing starts to rise?

It doesnt have PP yet, so yes, but its a good economic proposition for London and as many members have said before, it would be foolish of him not to seriously consider this.

In all fairness Ronson is building the biggest tower in the city in a downturn, has planning permission for a 2nd tower (the Heron) which he (last time I heard) was determined to have built and has a 3rd (H Plaza) in the pipeline - give the man a break! :|

In all fairness Ronson is building the biggest tower in the city in a downturn, has planning permission for a 2nd tower (the Heron) which he (last time I heard) was determined to have built and has a 3rd (H Plaza) in the pipeline - give the man a break! :|

Yes Ronson is quite a fighter- the heron tower's height increased despite oppositions and i think 'the heron' at milton court is already underway

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/aj-interview-how-the-kpf-breakaway-five-became-65/5210779.article

However PLP has succeeded in bagging the second phase of the development, the Heron Plaza, which will include a smaller mixed-use tower and public squares. The team is working on a planning application, to be submitted early 2010.

well spotted London Lad, cheers

and i think 'the heron' at milton court is already underway

Not last time I walked past (at the weekend).

Richer Sounds has closed down and moved as has the sandwich shop next door. Demolition imminent? This will be the site of Heron Plaza I think.

I'm looking forward to seeing the design for this one. The tower won't be much that shorter than Heron is at the minute!

im also looking forward to the design of this, will be good to see how it will relate to heron tower. Anyone know when the renders will be released?

Adjoining Borough Observations has been logged with Lambeth so looks like application could be imminent.

redevelopment of the land with a hotel and residential development of approximately 45,000sqm (gross internal area). The development would comprise 3 buildings with the tallest rising to 41 storeys, approximately 150m AOD at site bounded by Devonshire Row, Cavendish Court, Houndsditch and Bishopsgate (Stone and Staple Hall), City of London.

Adjoining Borough Observations has been logged with Lambeth so looks like application could be imminent.

redevelopment of the land with a hotel and residential development of approximately 45,000sqm (gross internal area). The development would comprise 3 buildings with the tallest rising to 41 storeys, approximately 150m AOD at site bounded by Devonshire Row, Cavendish Court, Houndsditch and Bishopsgate (Stone and Staple Hall), City of London.

So this confirms it is directly behind Heron then.. hmm..

I must say i'm quite worried on the wall affect this might have when 100 Bishopsgate goes up too. One can only wonder where the 150m building of the trio will be situated, hopefully slightly diagonnal to Heron Tower which would break up the uniform feel to it.

3 buildings? I thought there would just be 1.

^^ Yes it's quite a small site anyway, so no idea how it could be 3 buildings could fit -unless other neigbouring buildings can be demolished

Edit: Actually, looking at Google Maps, this site:

at site bounded by Devonshire Row, Cavendish Court, Houndsditch and Bishopsgate (Stone and Staple Hall), City of London.

.. is actually pretty big - bigger than Heron. I thought it was just the Richer Sounds building but maybe it's he whole block?!

Does that mean these buildings (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=Cavendish+Ct,+City+of+London,+London+EC3A,+United+Kingdom&ie=UTF8&cd=3&geocode=FQMUEgMdgcf-_w&split=0&sll=51.425929,-0.424491&sspn=0.006295,0.006295&hq=&hnear=Cavendish+Ct,+London+EC3A,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.516481,-0.079474&spn=0,359.993058&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.516534,-0.079602&panoid=oLXgOg8jtdythChb4OhxHQ&cbp=12,296.01,,0,-20.69) too, or will they narrowly escape?

Never realised that little square was there before, looks quite pleasent, perhaps with exception of the RBS building and the PoMo substation(?).

Does that mean these buildings too, or will they narrowly escape?

Never realised that little square was there before, looks quite pleasent, perhaps with exception of the RBS building and the PoMo substation(?).

Not meaning to spam this render (which I just posted on the Heron Tower thread) but it gives a good angle on the site.

http://*************************/london/jpgs/heron_tower_kpf150609_cityscape_2.jpg

Presumably only one building looks to be able to be destroyed (if that's correct then these buildings are going to be pretty thin) as the others look well and truly listed.

Which is? (seeing as you teased us all here! ;) )

The more I look at that picture the more I hope that Heron Plaza has planning permission rejected and the Richer Sounds building retained and spruced up. It really is a very pleasant building imo and it would be very sad to see it go.

redevelopment of the land with a hotel and residential development of approximately 45,000sqm (gross internal area). .

45,000 m2? isnt that about the same as T42 and the Gherkin?

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

An interesting picture from the Heron thread. It looks like it will entail the demolition of most of the very pleasant buildings there. Quite honestly I rather not see if built if that is the case.

Thats the old scheme which involved demolition of Stone house but the retention of the other building ( or was it the other way round).

Judging from the recent render posted on the previous pages on this thread it would appear the other building is also now due for demolition. I don't think were going to know for sure until the new application goes in for planning.

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

An interesting picture from the Heron thread. It looks like it will entail the demolition of most of the very pleasant buildings there. Quite honestly I rather not see if built if that is the case.

Good, I'll be glad to see the back of those poxy smallrise buildings. Got to make way for progress. Just think how much better the shinny skyscrapers will be to those old decrepid small buildings.

Good, I'll be glad to see the back of those poxy smallrise buildings. Got to make way for progress. Just think how much better the shinny skyscrapers will be to those old decrepid small buildings.

Beg your pardon? These particular low rise buildings are very high quality. Keeping in mind that London has plenty of poor quality low rises that can be sacrificed in the name of 'progress'. Why on earth would you want to do away with the best quality low rises? Are you stupid? And in what way are they decrepid?

Good, I'll be glad to see the back of those poxy smallrise buildings. Got to make way for progress. Just think how much better the shinny skyscrapers will be to those old decrepid small buildings.

:ohno: muppet

Beg your pardon? These particular low rise buildings are very high quality. Keeping in mind that London has plenty of poor quality low rises that can be sacrificed in the name of 'progress'. Why on earth would you want to do away with the best quality low rises? Are you stupid? And in what way are they decrepid?

Because new skyscrapers will look better in the cluster. No I'm not stupid - those small buildings next to heron look out of place now. This is a forum for skyscrapers is it not.

:ohno: muppet

:lol: What a stupid insult that is.... dickhead

Because new skyscrapers will look better in the cluster. No I'm not stupid - those small buildings next to heron look out of place now. This is a forum for skyscrapers is it not.

Do you even know what the buildings look like? They are not out of place at all and continue the street line up Bishopsgate of older Victorian buildings.

This is a forum for skyscrapers is it not.

It is indeed and it has room for considered evaluation as well as the reckless enthusiasm of youth, but it will never be 'Simm City skyscrapers.com' Do you think any serious poster wants skyscrapers for the sake of skyscrapers on this forum? Have you seen the buildings that are to be demolished?

Maybe someone can post them and give us a reminder?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/2819427114_30564f15d8.jpg

Do you even know what the buildings look like? They are not out of place at all and continue the street line up Bishopsgate of older Victorian buildings.

From that picture these small buildings look quite nice but I don't see anything special about them. I still say they look odd in the middle of the cluster - at least from far away or from the air. Would you really rather they scrap plans to build Heron Plaza so these run of the mill buildings can stay?

From that picture these small buildings look quite nice but I don't see anything special about them. I still say they look odd in the middle of the cluster - at least from far away or from the air. Would you really rather they scrap plans to build Heron Plaza so these run of the mill buildings can stay?

No I would rather Heron Plaza replaced something else, shit nearby. Theres bound to be something.

Here's another angle of these 'run of the mill' buildings.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3772496589_d717901564_b.jpg

Shame they can't do a Hearst Tower with one of them.

Here's another angle of these 'run of the mill' buildings.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3772496589_d717901564_b.jpg

Shame they can't do a Hearst Tower with one of them.

There is nothing really stopping them, its the one at the back away from Bishopsgate if I understand correctly that will be going isn't it? I can't imagine the interior being to exciting here (unless anyone wants to prove me wrong? :) ) so Deathmasking would be perfect here. The top two floors arent that great (imho) and the tower would essentially rise from a podium. The top of the old building being a sort of Terrace with a Skyscraper rising from it.

Here's another angle of these 'run of the mill' buildings.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3772496589_d717901564_b.jpg

Shame they can't do a Hearst Tower with one of them.

I still don't get it:lol: There must be thousands of buildings in London almost the same as this. Do these buildings have some kind of history - what puts them apart from all the others which nobody had a problem with demolition.

I still don't get it:lol: There must be thousands of buildings in London almost the same as this. Do these buildings have some kind of history - what puts them apart from all the others which nobody had a problem with demolition.

I would suggest you actually come down to London and walk around the area to see for yourself.

I still don't get it:lol: There must be thousands of buildings in London almost the same as this. Do these buildings have some kind of history - what puts them apart from all the others which nobody had a problem with demolition.

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

This is what Heron replaced, see if you can work out what puts them apart.

I would be sad to see those buildings go. They add character at street level and I think add to the skyscrapers not detract. Its important that we have an interesting and vibrant street scene and not just a great skyling viewed from a distance.

Maybe we can wait to see official renderings since those posted above are no longer relevant?

The building Heron Plaza will replace has nothing special in my opinion.

Absolutley, We all appreciate Skyscrapers its why we are here, but for people who know and understand London, it's these 'nothing special' buildings that make London what it is. Why are we destorying these buildings when this area has a number of concrete & pomo buildings that are ripe for demolition.

I hope the plans are revised, however it would be fabulous to have something along the lines of hearst tower in Manhattan.

the trouble with most edwardian buildings is that they are often blatant one sided facades with backs and even sides that are complete embarrassment.

I hope the plans are revised, however it would be fabulous to have something along the lines of hearst tower in Manhattan.

hmmm to many shapes and sizes in one cluster i would think

the trouble with most edwardian buildings is that they are often blatant one sided facades with backs and even sides that are complete embarrassment.

Yes, but that means that they have a least 1 more attractive side than a lot of modern efforts.

the trouble with most edwardian buildings is that they are often blatant one sided facades with backs and even sides that are complete embarrassment.... then a great opportunity to back them onto new buildings

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/2819427114_30564f15d8.jpg

Are these buildings going to be razed? That would be a shame.

I think so? It's a pity really, as they add some decent low rise architecture to this area and yet another perfectly ok building biting the dust in the city.

grrrr why are we demolishing the ones that need to be saved and saving the ones that need to be demolished?

London was famous for portland stone buildings - soon there wont be any left in the city! :ohno:

The city doesn't care really about heritage, otherwise alot more building's would of been kept or saved.Heron plaza should atleast retain the facades? and pehaps build the tower above, akin to what foster did in New York?

I still don't get it:lol: There must be thousands of buildings in London almost the same as this. Do these buildings have some kind of history - what puts them apart from all the others which nobody had a problem with demolition.

Windermere ... which part of the city is that in exactly?

It's funny, but I've noticed that those who come on this site with the most extreme pro scraper views, "build baby, build", usually live in some bolt hole in the country. It's like they take out their cabin fever on the city by wanting to destroy everything that offends the purity of their repressed city dreams. All those dark winter nights in rural exile w****** over pictures of enormous erections in far away cities ...

better stop now before I get carried away, literally. :ohno:

Are these buildings going to be razed? That would be a shame.

These buildings may not be outstanding architecturally, but externally they appear to be above average exemplars of their type and period, and ought not to be demolished for a bland new redevelopment. I'm open to one or both of them being redeveloped for a first class new skyscraper type building, but not for a new building of a similar or slightly larger scale, even if high quality, unless it was really outstanding.

Yes, but that means that they have a least 1 more attractive side than a lot of modern efforts.

Im talking really really poor quality round the backs and sides, places you wouldnt want to go or see, completely wasting quite a bit of urban space through poor design.

This becomes more of a problem as higher-up living makes these build short cuts more apparant (Look down at the inside of county hall from the London Eye and it looks like something from some Asian megacity hell hole, no Victorian poverty charm here).

It is a high failing on their part and makes them very susceptible to redevelopment, especially the one side wonders. Considering the sorts of buildings that they replaced makes the sacrilige arguement here quite ironic.

Death-masking is a close to win-win situation I guess and this has proved popular in a lot of the City core and the West End. However in this case when we weigh up what we could be getting with potentially losing a facade Im not quite so convinced about the scale of loss.

(Look down at the inside of county hall from the London Eye and it looks like something from some Asian megacity hell hole, no Victorian poverty charm here).


http://piccies.flybywire.org.uk/General/20040105/20040503/0594_CountyHall.jpg

:lol: What a stupid insult that is.... dickhead

Don't let your mam and dad hear you use that kind of language or you'll be grounded kiddo :D

Are these buildings going to be razed? That would be a shame.

Stone House Court (between the two blocks) has this rather endearing corner. I must admit that it's little nooks like this hidden in its peculiar street patterns that make the City interesting.

http://www.cybertects.co.uk/gallery2/d/86001-4/200911_3491.jpg

I think that's staying though. It appears in this render, although being very old and superseded by the new design.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/6821HeronPlaza_pic2.jpg

Windermere ... which part of the city is that in exactly?

It's funny, but I've noticed that those who come on this site with the most extreme pro scraper views, "build baby, build", usually live in some bolt hole in the country. It's like they take out their cabin fever on the city by wanting to destroy everything that offends the purity of their repressed city dreams. All those dark winter nights in rural exile w****** over pictures of enormous erections in far away cities ...

better stop now before I get carried away, literally. :ohno:

have you quite finished your small town mentality psycho analysis. I have only lived in Windermere for a few years and before that I lived in Joburg in South Africa and I've lived in New York for 5 years and out of all the places Windermere is by far the best place i've lived. Rural exile - more like rural utopia, much better than living in london.

Are you being serious about Windermere, i was a planning officer for the area; and yeah some parts are nice but its a total tourist hell with no real life and some god awful council estates up on the hills.

Shame about the loss of another low-rise portalnd stone building.

Stone House Court (between the two blocks) has this rather endearing corner. I must admit that it's little nooks like this hidden in its peculiar street patterns that make the City interesting.

http://www.cybertects.co.uk/gallery2/d/86001-4/200911_3491.jpg

I walked down there on my way to Devonshire Square every lunch time when I was doing work experience in Broadgate Circle. Always thought it a nice little hidden treasure.

Unfortunately I was cameraless back then, a lot of wasted photo opportunities.

Plans have been submitted.

Render of the base:

http://media.ft.com/cms/2894ac54-27bc-11df-863d-00144feabdc0.jpg

City AM Article (http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/ronson-plans-city-hotel) (Originally found by Mole)

FT.com Article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/398a8b0c-27f6-11df-9598-00144feabdc0.html)

Loving it! I'm so glad this is stepped back from the roadside of Bishopsgate. If it gets approval for I reckon it'll start prompty afterwards. It has significant backing, and its Gerald Ronson afterall so they'll be no hanging around.

And it should add to the northern face of Heron (the best side IMO) by putting a plaza out in front as opposed to blocking it like I originally thought it was going to.

Agreed Mr Guy! I love the plaza. Bishopsgate's going to be a great street!

A reminder of what the site looked like before Heron Tower was built. You can see they are demolishing both of the buildings immediately north of Heron Tower, but keeping the next ones along which I think are the cute ones. Devonshire Square should be ok.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u90/sirstan74/HeronPlaza.jpg

This is very exciting as I love Heron Plaza, it'll be a great and welcome addition to the skyline and will compliment Heron Tower beautifuly!!!
Now I don't want to moan but it's a shame that they'll demolish the building next to the proposed plot and adjacent to Bishopsgate, I really think it's a nice peice of architecture. Having said that though I'd rather have the two towers and a nice plaza

Also if planning permission is granted, when coild we expect demolision to start? are the buildings occupied?

Also if planning permission is granted, when coild we expect demolision to start? are the buildings occupied?

At the moment these buildings are the site office for the Heron Tower, but as the tower nears completion, things will start to wind down, all the retail a ground level is almost gone.

Why can't the just add 2 meters to it and make it a proper skyscraper?:bash:

Why can't the just add 2 meters to it and make it a proper skyscraper?:bash:

Well yeah it is a bit silly in the eyes of a Skyscrapercity forumer but adding those extra 2 metres I think isn't a priority to them to be honest. Plus if it was to be any bigger it might take away Heron Tower's shine.

I take it that both of the big, chunky old buildings with the rounded corners will be demolished then? If so, then it's a shame to see another two old buildings biting the dust in the City, even if they are rather odd-looking buildings and not as nice as the smaller Victorian buildings to the left of them........in my opinion anyway........

As somebody who barely knows Devonshire Square at all, does the smaller of these two buildings border Dev. Square itself, or is there another old building after it? Basically, I want to know if this project will change the character of the old square.

Bit more info

Heron Plaza goes in for planning
PW
16:28 | 05.03.10

By Laura Chesters

Gerald Ronson’s Heron International has submitted a planning application for its £500m Heron Plaza scheme in the city of London.

The plans include a Four Seasons Hotel and residences, other residential, retail and new public open space.

Heron Plaza is the second, and concluding, phase of the works initiated by the construction of the adjacent Heron Tower.

Heron Plaza is 150m from Liverpool Street Station and the Four Seasons hotel is the first purpose built luxury hotel constructed in Central London for 30 years.

It will total a 43 storey tower with 190 hotel guestrooms/suites and 120 branded residences, conference and banqueting facilities, events space, a gym, spa and swimming pool.

Both phases benefit from being designed by the same architects Fred Pilbrow and Lee Polisano of PLP Architecture - previously partners of KPF’s London office

Gerald Ronson, chief executive of Heron International, said: “This genuine mixed use centre will be a model for sustainable urban development in the capital. It will create a new public open space, scarce and highly valued in a densely built part of the City. It will provide much needed, unparalleled hotel and residential facilities which reflect London’s status as the financial capital of the world and support the City’s core mission as a centre for business and excellence.”

Scott Woroch, executive vice president worldwide development of Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, added: “Four Seasons is proud to be involved in this project which will be a great addition to our existing portfolio in the UK. In addition to Four Seasons Hotel Hampshire, we have had the privilege of operating to two hotels in London, at Park Lane and Canary Wharf. We know that our guests will enjoy having the option to stay in the City within a new development that promises to revitalize and redefine the financial district.”



i

Can we upgrade to "Pro"?

I just wish it wasn't these buildings going...if they were cleaned up and looked after they would great but another set of buildings in London that are needlessly going when there are so many other crap buildings that should be replaced, makes me sad.

I just wish it wasn't these buildings going...if they were cleaned up and looked after they would great but another set of buildings in London that are needlessly going when there are so many other crap buildings that should be replaced, makes me sad.

Ask Tracy Ermin to step in......:cheers:

I can understand one going but both of them and keeping the small rather uninteresting building and adding a strange roof. Because this isnt some bar or of any interest to EH this will no doubt steam through planning.

It's a shame to see them go, but for a new square plus the restoration of that Victorian building which is currently crammed in, then for my money, it's worth it.

Aesthetically speaking, I think it's a vast improvement over the current situation, and who'd have thought it, a developer in the city giving land over to public space, rather than more offices

I agree. The more I look at that render, I think Heron Plaza is definitely the way forward. The tower itself is quite nice and compliments it's larger, sister tower, we get a new plaza which improves the public realm around the two towers and will enable people to sit back and admire them, while enjoying a coffee.....I mean what's not to love about having a new public space in the City!

Also, the more I look at the old buildings that are going, while they are quirky-looking, they are also too big and chunky and a little in-elegant, in contrast to the smaller Victorian buildings next-door. By keeping the small Victorian building, it looks like the row of Victorian buildings along Devonshire Row will remain intact, plus the building itself gets a funky new roof, which I'll look forward to seeing in the flesh, when it's lit up at night.

This is one of the arguments for skyscrapers being proved. We get more public space at ground level by shifting space upwards. I think it looks great.

Plans have been submitted.

Render of the base:

http://media.ft.com/cms/2894ac54-27bc-11df-863d-00144feabdc0.jpg

Cant be bothered to read all the post on this page, so can anyone just quickly tell me what buildings are going? Devonshire Squre is Conservation area so hopefuly its staying. However Stone House Court and at least one of those awesome 30s buildings next to Heron Tower will go. Is that correct?

Devonshire Square -

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/Unseen35.jpg

Stone House Court -

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/Unseen34.jpg

Both 30s buildings are going.

Dev. Square should remain untouched as far as I can tell.

Also, the quirky window shown in your last pic should be staying, as it's shown on old render............unless they've changed their mind anyway.

http://*************************/london/jpgs/heron_tower_kpf150609_cityscape_2.jpg

As much as I hate to see old buildings being demolished, I really don't think the two being demolished are particularly great. They are too squat and chunky and they are rather overbearing next to the neighbouring buildings, as this pic demonstrates. The larger of the two is also pretty damned ugly when viewed from this angle too.

That said, they aren't bad buildings, a hell of a lot better than a lot of the 60s / po-mo crap that still "graces" the City, as well as a fair proportion of the stuff being thrown up today. I just think that this scheme is too good, in terms of the public space that will be created and and the benefits that it will bring to the City as a whole, to let the demolition of a couple of reasonable old buildings get in the way.

I really don't think the two being demolished are particularly great.

They are great.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u90/sirstan74/HeronPlaza.jpg

They are special D'art deco buildings I think. Add to that they survived being in one of the most heavily coventrated sites in history! (hence the 1960's buildings that Heron tower replaced)

I really hope this gets through, would be another big and welcome step forward for the city :)

Cant be bothered to read all the post on this page, so can anyone just quickly tell me what buildings are going?

For fuck's sake, you had to scroll upward slightly to see a massive sodding aerial photo...

Does anyone have a reference number for this scheme?

Can't seem to find it on the City's planning pages.

Does this mean it hasn't been validated yet?

Does anyone have a reference number for this scheme?

Can't seem to find it on the City's planning pages.

Does this mean it hasn't been validated yet?

been trying to find it there as well with no success. Guess they take a bit of time after it's lodged with them before they put it online

Whilst trying to find images of the new proposal submitted, i've noticed skyscrapernews is totally down.

Has Gothicform or whatever his name is packed it in?!

no. lol. not at all! i know it's the first time we have been down for more than a few mins since 2006. we are moving to a new server... four times the processing power :) should be up and running either tonight or tomorrow once the migration is complete... they have about 16gb of data to copy as well as half a dozen websites (it's rather more complex than the single site that SSC is as SSC is running on a single account). to enable a faster migration i have turned off the web server although the rest of our services, eg email, are still working. given the amount of bloody emails i am getting on the topic i should post that info on ssc.

once we have moved i will be activating our other websites fully along with all sorts of other toys we never stuck up before. oh, and pics of this!

Unless i'm much mistaken there was a full page advert for this, complete with a render, in the Metro yesterday!

Can you tell us about how the tower looked?

EDIT: It could have been the other, shorter Heron that is going up by Ropemaker, which has just started construction.

http://i32.tinypic.com/2hwh10h.jpg

Looking at the original render we have of the new scheme, it seems like this could be a shorter but more detailed version of 4WTC in New York:

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/66546859/original.jpg

So we can imagine this shape^^ But with more New York Times Tower style detailing:

http://media.ft.com/cms/2894ac54-27bc-11df-863d-00144feabdc0.jpg

I re-sized the original image, the quality isn't great but it gives a better idea of the scheme.

http://leslie-ferris.magix.net/mpfw03/10/E1/53/AA/40/2F7511DF891DAE6852196262/E662FBD02F7511DFA70DFE8C870B313B.jpg

I re-sized the original image, the quality isn't great but it gives a better idea of the scheme.

http://leslie-ferris.magix.net/mpfw03/10/E1/53/AA/40/2F7511DF891DAE6852196262/E662FBD02F7511DFA70DFE8C870B313B.jpg

Surely that's the previous shorter design. 150m would come up to the top of the three story villages, wouldn't it?

I'm pretty sure it's the new design. You can tell by the base. Both of the older building have been demolished, where as the original design only saw one of them being demolished. This render shows the plaza out front. Besides, the designs look distinctly different.

EDIT: Plus, the original was only 95m. That is definitely taller. You can tell by comparing it to 99 Bishopsgate (104m) nearby. I like the way this design will provide a step up to Heron Tower, I think it works better with it's big sister than the original did.

So one building was not to be demolished.....while we here why don't we get rid of both buildings no one will care!! grr.

It's giving the City a new open plaza that is right on Bishopsgate. It's a question of which is preferable, and that question is subjective.

Bishopsgate is going to be London's skyscraper alley.

I'm pretty sure it's the new design. You can tell by the base. Both of the older building have been demolished, where as the original design only saw one of them being demolished. This render shows the plaza out front. Besides, the designs look distinctly different.

EDIT: Plus, the original was only 95m. That is definitely taller. You can tell by comparing it to 99 Bishopsgate (104m) nearby. I like the way this design will provide a step up to Heron Tower, I think it works better with it's big sister than the original did.

Maybe. But it still doesn't look tall enough to be 148m. Check this link to see where 148m would come up to on Heron compared to 99 Bishopsgate:

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=46275822

It should be much taller than 99 Bishopsgate whereas in that render it looks like it's a similar size. Certainly looks no bigger than 130m.

edit: Sorted the problem with the link. Thanks eddyk!

I suck at knowing how to search for individual towers on SSP, but you can get the correct link by clicking 'diagram link' by the 'next page' button.

http://media.ft.com/cms/2894ac54-27bc-11df-863d-00144feabdc0.jpg

I was neither for or against the Heron Plaza plan to be fair, but I think the render here has much more of a plus than I thought before. The old building looks positively european boulevard-like with the awnings, and clearly we won't get that effect in reality, but the open plaza gives this bit of Bishopsgate (which is a complete rat run and fairly grimy) space to breath and mirrors the open church yard across the way at St Botolphs.

Haven't seen enough renders of Heron Plaza to make a judgement, but it seems like a simpering little sister to Heron, albeit the mix-use nature of it is a welcome break from office upon office.

Richers sounds in the building directly on the Heron Plaza site shut recently and relocated up towards Spitalfields. think the building is being used as a site office for Heron, so it may be demo won't happen until Heron is fully delivered next year maybe?

...

Cheers Gegloma.

hmmm...

Some tenants in Heron Tower will no doubt be pissed off at losing their view.....

It also blocks the best side of Heron Tower. :ohno:

Not really, in fact it creates a new public space right in front of it so we can enjoy it even more.

...

Thanks! I far prefer it to the original.

Goes to show 20FC isn't the most damaging building on the skyline; Trinity 123 is.

Don't mind this at all, like the bit of colour. Still feel we're packing in these towers far too tightly, but can't really complain about their respective designs. Good to see they've used the 122Leadenhall trick to negate the ToL sightline rule.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4061/4444875991_af685f3628_o.jpg


Wow, that is some wall! I quite like the terracotta/timber louver cladding, its soft and expresses a residential quality on what would otherwise appear to be very commercial building. Its no show-stopper, but I think it would be a great addition to the city.

The use of colour on this building is fantastic, it really breaks up the sea of glass that it could have been.
As this is a High end project could it perhaps be copper cladding?
Really impressed with this design, it may not be the tallest but it actually compliments Heron in my opinion.

...

You're a god. Thanks!

Top find! Nice to see renders with all the proposed towers inc. 100BG, 20FC and the can of ham. Trinity 123 was Beetham wasn't it? So no chance of that being built.

Goes to show 20FC isn't the most damaging building on the skyline; Trinity 123 is.

Don't mind this at all, like the bit of colour. Still feel we're packing in these towers far too tightly, but can't really complain about their respective designs. Good to see they've used the 122Leadenhall trick to negate the ToL sightline rule.

What's Trinity 123? The irregular shaped building to the right of ToL? Also, what's the 122LH trick?

This building adds so much to the density. Hell, even 100 Bish looks good from ground level.:)

What's Trinity 123? The irregular shaped building to the right of ToL?

Yes. Far more overbearing to the Tower than 20FC is.

Also, what's the 122LH trick?

The original design was rejected by EH because the crown touched the turret of the ToL from that view posted from Tower Bridge, a protected sightline. By shearing off the top few floors at an angle (akin to Leadenhall's 'lean') they've managed to avoid the touching and add an interesting element to what could have been quite a bland tower.

Corr blimey, this week has been great for SSC London!

I think it might be a good idea to put a few of those renders on the front page? so people now know the exact design going to be used without trailing through pages in the future :)

Sorry to be off-topic, but a couple of those renders just shows how ill-thought out the street scene will be if the Can of Ham (60-70 St Mary's Axe) gets built, it seriously needs some greenery!

...And on another note, It's strange how the Pinnacle looks different in every render i've seen with it included. :dunno:

Don't mind this at all, like the bit of colour. Still feel we're packing in these towers far too tightly, but can't really complain about their respective designs. .

I suppose what with the sightlines and the small area of the City of London this was kind of inevitable. On the brightside we're getting the Manhattenesque skyscraper canyons we used to only dream of in the old days of this forum. :)

Wow! That's all I can say...WOW! If all these proposals get built, London will really be...well, extraordinary! Love the terracotta cladding of Heron Plaza, makes it look great. Get all that stuff built now! :D

I love the cladding!

it's massing reminds me of the building at London Bridge, the building they demolished to build the Shard. The renders are amazing though, how dense will this look?? almost New York like. There are also alot of references to The New york times building by Renzo Piano.

I love the plaza/public space at the front - but at the same time my heart is little heavy - people talk about density, but you do lose some of the density at ground level of the adjacent buildings (terracing?) - but this is happening with all the skyscraper proposals, they clear a gigantic space.

Doesn't the City become less dense?

I don't want to be a party pooper but while I love the design and the plaza, I am just pissed that they will be demolishing these two buildings.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/2767797094_eec2250025_b.jpg

I don't want to be a party pooper but while I love the design and the plaza, I am just pissed that they will be demolishing these two buildings.



Nah, you have a very fair point there heywindup. Those are 2 very nice buildings, you can't deny it. I suppose one can only hope that their loss is not in vain, and that this tower is indeed a great improvement on the skyline and on the Bishopsgate area.

I agree about losing the buildings, moreso the one on the right (which has nice proportions and form) to the left building. On the renders, you see how the Plaza building will obscure that wondeful elevation of Heron, but well when you want more and more buildings in a cluster you have to expect some obscurities :|

I think to the non-enthusiast, you wouldn't associate Heron Plaza with Heron tower, due to the massing and more the cladding if anything. We were all expecting a miniture version (well, least I was..) so to see it has its own style is great and thank God we will have a different shade on the skyline to stop a wall of glass (which some on here seem to be favouring, but I actually hate the idea of the City becoming this colossal glass barrier).

The views of the Pinnacle on some of those renders alarms me, a LOT :(

I agree a material change is needed in the city, some small towers by Eric Parry have done so but must we have every scraper in the city glass curtain wall? no matter the facade treatments of the towers the overall appearance will be blueish glass everywhere. What about a tower thats clad in stone for a change?

Love the colour.

^ditto. Although the City cluster is fine now, I was worried it could become a bit like the Moscow IBC cluster.....amazing but a bit monotonous, too much glass. Nice to see that this proposal helps to end the chances of a glass wall before it has even started to happen. All the worlds best skylines have a variety of claddings.

I absolutely adore this, the height, it's proximity to Heron tower. Personally the denser the cluster the better, the fact that it's not another glass scraper and will add some differentiation to the cluster.

When will we know if it has been approved? I presume once Heron is completed Mr Ronson will want to crack straight on with this one.

On a side note, that can of ham proposal does not do it for me at all.

Nice night-time render ( Like the way they have airbrushed out all their rivals ;) )

http://i39.tinypic.com/2santox.jpg

I love the plaza/public space at the front - but at the same time my heart is little heavy - people talk about density, but you do lose some of the density at ground level of the adjacent buildings (terracing?) - but this is happening with all the skyscraper proposals, they clear a gigantic space.

Doesn't the City become less dense?

Isn't that the point of highrises? I like that they create space at ground level, allowing for potential green spaces and pub;ic areas.

I too really like the cladding. But I never foresaw a predominantly glass cluster, the Pinnacle is really the only skyscraper I would call glass. Gherkin, Heron and Leadenhall all have interesting facades such that they they seem to prevent that effect. Nontheless nice to have a bit of colour.

I love the plaza/public space at the front - but at the same time my heart is little heavy - people talk about density, but you do lose some of the density at ground level of the adjacent buildings (terracing?) - but this is happening with all the skyscraper proposals, they clear a gigantic space.

Doesn't the City become less dense?

Hmm the City can feel a bit claustrophobic at times. There are little bits of spaces often hidden away for relief but it all feels a tad ad hoc. More well designed space should be welcome however. Although just building tall and hoping for great use of space at the base is never good enough look at the horrible space left by St Helens! I guess that was designed more as an underground car park so future people focussed schemes should be more optimistic.

On a side note, that can of ham proposal does not do it for me at all.

I love it. What is the status with the Can of Ham anyway?

Oh and the Heron Plaza is awesome. The City Skyline will soon kick Canary Wharf's arse.

I love the two buildings. Walked past them the other day and they have nice proportions and period features. Also, I think that there are not too many of their kind (their style) in the City. Please correct my if I'm wrong, but it appears that they are a nice examples of a certain, very short period in architectural history and design.

Coming back to economic reality: I was always wondering why they want to demolisgh these two buildings from a financial perspective. From an investors point of view, they make perfect use of the site. There is no more free space whatsoever and all of the available space is occupied by both buildings. The floors seem to have high ceilings and the overall condition looks OK. It even appears that the building ^^ on the left had some of the interiors refurbished not so long ago. The decor on the ceiling in the entrance area looked freshly repainted.

Anyway: what I want to ask is: why demolishing when the Heron Plaza will be mostly open space and the "mini Heron" will probably not prvide much more floor space to let?

Whilst they are nice buildings, slightly interesting and could be retained as office buildings for many years to come, the potential income from such buildings is limited. Heron Plaza isn't being built to accommodate office space, the developers are opting for a total change of use, aiming instead at the hotel/conference market and high-end residential use, the benefits for this are relatively quick turnaround, no sweet talking prospective tenants with 1 years free rent, they'll easily sign up a hotel operator (the location is as perfect as they come), and any residential condos will sell for a large premium.

The large space in front of the building can be justified because they're building tall, and thus need less space at ground level to meet their floorspace needs, it also provides the building with a good marketing tool, having a busy public plaza (and it will be busy) located at the bottom of it will give the building a sense of activity from the word go.

They're going for a completely different use with Heron Plaza, hotel vs. office. And if keeping the old buildings made more financial sense, then they would do it. Property developers don't tend to do things for no reason. It seems a brand new 146m tall Four Seasons Hotel is going to make them more money than two considerably smaller office buildings.

Thanks for your quick answers. Makes sense now (from the developers perspective). Still, nice buildings. Sad to see them go... but hey, they could have been replaced with something much worse than Heron Plaza

Looks fantastic! Get it built!

I like the plaza as an architectural set piece itself, but I'm beginning to wonder if this is the beginning of the Canary Wharf-ization of the City, whereas before we these building being moulded within the existing buildings and medieval streets, now we have a proposal that actively redesigns the land around it.

To many times these plazas around towers end up as nothingness space; for example the Gherkin and Willis have retail at their base but somehow the public space doesn't feel anything like a normal street would next to a usual, everyday building.

I like the plaza as an architectural set piece itself, but I'm beginning to wonder if this is the beginning of the Canary Wharf-ization of the City, whereas before we these building being moulded within the existing buildings and medieval streets, now we have a proposal that actively redesigns the land around it.

To many times these plazas around towers end up as nothingness space; for example the Gherkin and Willis have retail at their base but somehow the public space doesn't feel anything like a normal street would next to a usual, everyday building.

It's only really the removal of one building, the other will be replaced. It's not a huge change to the urban fabric, I wouldn't call it the 'Canary Wharf-ization' quite yet.

Sorry to be ignorant but would I be right to say the current buildings tenants have a lease on it? And if so, when will it be until it runs out? ...Well Im pretty sure the current building is occupied...

I like the plaza as an architectural set piece itself, but I'm beginning to wonder if this is the beginning of the Canary Wharf-ization of the City, whereas before we these building being moulded within the existing buildings and medieval streets, now we have a proposal that actively redesigns the land around it.

To many times these plazas around towers end up as nothingness space; for example the Gherkin and Willis have retail at their base but somehow the public space doesn't feel anything like a normal street would next to a usual, everyday building.

I suppose they are valid concerns, but the examples you give are very different to Heron Plaza, for a start they aren't slap bang in front of a massive transport interchange. You can use Finsbury Circus as an example too, as classic a public square as you could get, and it's dead on weekends and week nights too... Everywhere in the city is, retail or not usually. The difference here is Liverpool St station and the throughfare to Spitalfields markets and Brick Lane, it is easily the busiest part of the CoL and more than that it's busy 24 hours a day 7 days a week. A public space here is perfect, the pedestrian levels are more than enough to ensure there is good use of it.

I'd be more concerned about the quality of the space, it's already quite windy around there, I can't see how another tower will help it, and if we end up with over zealous security guards and urban design that tries to discourage loitering/relaxing it could be a wasted opportunity for positive change.

I like the plaza as an architectural set piece itself, but I'm beginning to wonder if this is the beginning of the Canary Wharf-ization of the City, whereas before we these building being moulded within the existing buildings and medieval streets, now we have a proposal that actively redesigns the land around it.

To many times these plazas around towers end up as nothingness space; for example the Gherkin and Willis have retail at their base but somehow the public space doesn't feel anything like a normal street would next to a usual, everyday building.

I'm pretty certain the Gherkin doesn't have any retail at the base!

Yes it does.

I'm pretty certain the Gherkin doesn't have any retail at the base!

It has a Cafe and a... er... Corner Shop...

It has a Cafe and a... er... Corner Shop...
In a circular building? :)

Sorry, but I had to delete all the images taken from the planning application following a complaint I received from Miller Hare Limited.

They also indicated that posting Flickr images on skyscrapercity.com is a violation of Flickr T&C's (a link back to flickr must be provided).

To be honest, I did not know these images have been produced by Miller Hare. I should have had a closer look. Here is the link towards all the planning documents published by the City of London website: http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov.uk:90/WAM/findCaseFile.do?councilName=Corporation+of+London&appNumber=10/00152/FULEIA

What is their problem? Thanks anyway for doing it in the first place.

It looks from the elevations like this is only 135m AGL?

height is 135.33 unless i can't count properly.

height is 135.33 unless i can't count properly.

I thought from the renders it looked much shorter than 148m. That would come to near to top of the 3 storey villages on Heron Tower.

I don't want to be a party pooper but while I love the design and the plaza, I am just pissed that they will be demolishing these two buildings.

For once I have to agree with you. ;)

I think we need to forget about these 2 buildings and focus on the Plaza, they will be sacrificed in the name of progress. Anybody who thinks otherwise shouldn't really be a fan of skyscrapers and should rather be directed to the EH website:lol:

Anybody who thinks otherwise shouldn't really be a fan of skyscrapers

I'm not. I am a fan of architecture and I don't think that this scheme is necessarily progress tbh. Heron Tower, yes undoubtedly, it replaced an eyesore of a building but Heron Plaza destroys 2 in my opinion very aesthetically pleasing buildings.

Speaking of Herons don't even get me started on The Heron which destroyed the wonderful Milton Court leaving a hole in the ground :rant:

I like the plaza as an architectural set piece itself, but I'm beginning to wonder if this is the beginning of the Canary Wharf-ization of the City, whereas before we these building being moulded within the existing buildings and medieval streets, now we have a proposal that actively redesigns the land around it.

To many times these plazas around towers end up as nothingness space; for example the Gherkin and Willis have retail at their base but somehow the public space doesn't feel anything like a normal street would next to a usual, everyday building.

Indeed i am doing a research paper on the differing value systems of social and economic capital in relation to public spaces and domain in the city of london. In essence how these typologies of space provision serve as planning tools and cachet for the developer without clear thought (nor real desire) for a understanding of the subtleties of creating successful public spaces. I think this is especially evident in the CoL when you had adjacent to these schemes such vibrant spaces as at Liverpool St or Leadenhall market.

I think we need to forget about these 2 buildings and focus on the Plaza, they will be sacrificed in the name of progress. Anybody who thinks otherwise shouldn't really be a fan of skyscrapers and should rather be directed to the EH website:lol:

With all due respect Drew, I think that comment is a bit ignorant and possibly naive. (Not making a personal point against you, as I know many other skyscraper enthusiasts share your view, so please do not be offended)...

Fair enough being a fan of all things tall is good, but to 'sacrifice' buildings for the sake of another skyscraper is/can be quite frankly inconsiderate. Sure, they're not gonna win any awards but their architecture is still admirable, and in this instance the benefit of having Heron Plaza may outweigh the loss of two perfectly descent buildings, but in other future cases this may not be true. So although EH and other organisations may piss many people off (and many times they have a reason to be pissed off) they do serve their purpose to preserve, and this is important.

I don't know what purchase Miller Hare have, if any.

They don't know your name, Gothicform and SSC will not give it to them. They are hardly going to take SSC to court. If they wanted to, could SSC just have its content uploaded to foreign servers? If you state at the beginning of the post that the renderings are by Miller Hare then I don't see their problem.

The renderings are in the public domain, we live in a democracy and we can damn well debate about the merits and demerits of a building proposal if we like it or not and then complain or applaud the planning authorities.

Miller Hare have nothing to worry about. This is a fantastic proposal and Miller Hare create some great renderings. I fail to see what their beef is.

With all due respect Drew, I think that comment is a bit ignorant and possibly naive. (Not making a personal point against you, as I know many other skyscraper enthusiasts share your view, so please do not be offended)...

Fair enough being a fan of all things tall is good, but to 'sacrifice' buildings for the sake of another skyscraper is/can be quite frankly inconsiderate. Sure, they're not gonna win any awards but their architecture is still admirable, and in this instance the benefit of having Heron Plaza may outweigh the loss of two perfectly descent buildings, but in other future cases this may not be true. So although EH and other organisations may piss many people off (and many times they have a reason to be pissed off) they do serve their purpose to preserve, and this is important.

I see your point but I still don't see what's so special about these particular buildings. they look nice but it's not as if there arn't hundreds of similar designed buildings in London. I would understand peoples' opposition to them being demolished if they were the last of their kind but they are not. My comments earlier are based on the assumption that a member of a skyscraper enthusiast forum would prefer a lowrise building to be demolished to make way for a skyscraper. You can't stop progress, and i don't understand why a skyscraper enthusiast would want to.

I'm not. I am a fan of architecture and I don't think that this scheme is necessarily progress tbh. Heron Tower, yes undoubtedly, it replaced an eyesore of a building but Heron Plaza destroys 2 in my opinion very aesthetically pleasing buildings.

Speaking of Herons don't even get me started on The Heron which destroyed the wonderful Milton Court leaving a hole in the ground :rant:

Maybe I was a bit too direct, sorry. I didn't grow up in the UK and I don't live in London so I don't have any affinity towards Londons historic buildings. Milton Court to me was just an ugly piece of concrete. i tend to want the skyscrapers at all costs with no thought to the buildings been demolished whether it's right or wrong.

Milton Court to me was just an ugly piece of concrete. :bash:

:bash:

:)

My comments earlier are based on the assumption that a member of a skyscraper enthusiast forum would prefer a lowrise building to be demolished to make way for a skyscraper. You can't stop progress, and i don't understand why a skyscraper enthusiast would want to.

I think you'll find there's a bit more to it for most people.

In general imo they don't want skyscrapers everywhere just for the hell of it.

I think you'll find there's a bit more to it for most people.

In general imo they don't want skyscrapers everywhere just for the hell of it.

yeah, I think it's just me. I'm a freak:banana:

hey Gegloma01 how did you get hold of those pics? I didn't get to see before you were forced to take them down. Seems they got a positive reaction so don't know what the fuss is about!

What is their problem? Thanks anyway for doing it in the first place.

The problem was not that they were online, but that they were on flickr with the copyright attributed to gegloma01

I asked him to change the copyright on flickr and to credit the images to us.

The decision to remove them was entirely his own.

As I said to him on flickr, the only problems we have with people rehosting our images is (a)removing/not indicating our copyright and (b)cropping verified views to remove the graticule from the edge.

I don't want anyone to think we were being heavy handed here - we love having our images discussed on ssc - half the time I wish we could post more stuff online, but as you can probably understand, the commercial interests attached to images are huge and we have to follow our clients' lead.

Mike Trinder (IT bod at Miller Hare, www.millerhare.com )

Maybe I was a bit too direct, sorry. I didn't grow up in the UK and I don't live in London so I don't have any affinity towards Londons historic buildings. Milton Court to me was just an ugly piece of concrete. i tend to want the skyscrapers at all costs with no thought to the buildings been demolished whether it's right or wrong.I did grow up in the UK/London, I regularly passed by Milton Court, and believe me it was an ugly piece of concrete. Good riddance. :)

Lol -So its just Jeff throwing one of his hissy fits by deleting all traces .

Not seen that before ;)

Nice of MH to explain the situation- Keep up the good images boys (& girls) :)

people should *always* credit whoever produced the pics. with planning applications you can usually find out who did the viz stuff if you look in the introduction of the design statement or the section of the application that has the verified views. there it lists which company did it be it miller hare or whoever. copyright law does have fair dealing written into it (news reporting, comment, criticism), but with the provisio you credit.

I don't know what purchase Miller Hare have, if any.

They don't know your name, Gothicform and SSC will not give it to them. They are hardly going to take SSC to court. If they wanted to, could SSC just have its content uploaded to foreign servers? If you state at the beginning of the post that the renderings are by Miller Hare then I don't see their problem.

The renderings are in the public domain, we live in a democracy and we can damn well debate about the merits and demerits of a building proposal if we like it or not and then complain or applaud the planning authorities.

Miller Hare have nothing to worry about. This is a fantastic proposal and Miller Hare create some great renderings. I fail to see what their beef is.

Whoah. As I've stated in an earlier reply, we didn't ask gegloma01 to take the images down - merely to alter the copyright from him to us and to credit us for them.

Planning submission is often the first time our images hit the public domain, so we can't release them "officially" before then. So when cropped, uncredited versions with the wrong copyright attribution appear on the web, especially flickr which, like it or not, is a lot more "public" than this forum, we worry.

Mike Trinder (IT bod at Miller Hare, www.millerhare.com )

What did the Milton Court looked like? When was it built and what architectural style did it represent?

What did the Milton Court looked like? When was it built and what architectural style did it represent?


Nothing you would like ( and yes it did replace buildings destroyed in WWII and no it was not built by some philistine post war greedy developer ;) )

What did the Milton Court looked like? When was it built and what architectural style did it represent?

From The Twentieth Century Society website:

Milton Court
August 2006

Since April there have been concrete plans to knock down this first phase of the Barbican and replace it with a tower that is even bigger than Citypoint. A Certificate of Immunity is being processed by English Heritage to these ends.

Post-war listing is not very popular and so after years of patiently waiting for this inevitable turn of events and collecting evidence in the building’s defence we have now started on our counterattack. English Heritage who back in 2001 had recommended that Milton Court be listed at Grade II* together with the rest of the Barbican now have our explicit request to finally put this building under historic protection. This is after all an important link connecting the Barbican back to the Golden Lane Estate. Crescent House of the earlier residential development by Chamberlin Powell and Bon is Grade II* listed for precisely this connection. But Milton Court also stands out for its close resemblance to contemporary buildings by Corbusier and especially so for his Shodan House in Ahmedabad, India. There is that distinctive uneven spacing of the windows that is not there at all at Golden Lane or later at the Barbican.

It is a dense scheme with housing, a fire station, the coroners’ court, a morgue and the City Weights and Measures office. The maisonettes are set apart from the public services by positioning them on pilotis above. In the gap left between, a lightweight open staircase rises. The design anticipates the complex interlocking density of the various functions, private and public spaces that have been accommodated in the spectacular environment of the Barbican. But here they are packed within a tight cuboid envelope. Milton Court is linked to the rest of the Barbican Estate via a bridge at podium level. And it is precisely this insulation that makes the site so attractive to the developers that can’t wait to build more than 30 floors above the new and improved spaces for the Guildhall School of Music.

We have had much support from Barbican residents who do not like the new development either and they have even lodged their own campaign to save this building. And now Assael Architects are putting together an alternative scheme for us on a pro bono basis to accommodate the Guildhall School of Music’s expansion plans while keeping the rest of the structure.

Eva Branscome

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1163/995686113_b481756408_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/272526135_d8a676b74f_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/995686141_c265a3a6cf_o.jpg

Nothing you would like ( and yes it did replace buildings destroyed in WWII and no it was not built by some philistine post war greedy developer ;) )
You know me too well... :)

Thanks Darjole for the pictures.

The problem was not that they were online, but that they were on flickr with the copyright attributed to gegloma01

I asked him to change the copyright on flickr and to credit the images to us.

The decision to remove them was entirely his own.

As I said to him on flickr, the only problems we have with people rehosting our images is (a)removing/not indicating our copyright and (b)cropping verified views to remove the graticule from the edge.

I don't want anyone to think we were being heavy handed here - we love having our images discussed on ssc - half the time I wish we could post more stuff online, but as you can probably understand, the commercial interests attached to images are huge and we have to follow our clients' lead.

Mike Trinder (IT bod at Miller Hare, www.millerhare.com )

Well surprise surprise!!! LOL

This character is well known for needing to present other peoples work as his own whichever screename he uses as you will see looking back.

Please accept all our apologies. Is there any chance one of us can post them and credit them to the rightful owners?

I for one would love to see them. :)

^^ yes i would love to see them again too. i only viewed them once and they were fabulous

Miller Hare told me only the images with the technical data around can be posted - "without that they are no longer verified views in our eyes". They indicated today that some images will be released on their public website very soon.

.........Then it would be so kind of you to post them for us all.......not as some pretend measure of yourself (as shown above) but giving fair do's to the originators ;)

I would love to see them, not see them as blanks due to some irregularity........yet again.

I have never said these images are mine and I have placed the link to the City of London website where they are released. If you want to see them again and post them here, just follow the link.;)

Well surprise surprise!!! LOL

This character is well known for needing to present other peoples work as his own whichever screename he uses as you will see looking back.

Please accept all our apologies. Is there any chance one of us can post them and credit them to the rightful owners?

I for one would love to see them. :)

I moderate an online community in my spare time and this sounds all too familiar :)

The images are in the online planning application, which is not easy to find given the City's bonkers web interface, and they auto-split the document into hundreds of parts. Here are the relevant sections (There were 50 views for this project, about half fully rendered):

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov.uk:90/WAM/doc/Report%20-%20Environmental%20Statement-158613.pdf?extension=.pdf&wmTransparency=0&id=158613&wmLocation=0&location=livevolume1&contentType=&wmName=&pageCount=1

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov.uk:90/WAM/doc/Report%20-%20Environmental%20Statement-158614.pdf?extension=.pdf&wmTransparency=0&id=158614&wmLocation=0&location=livevolume1&contentType=&wmName=&pageCount=1

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov.uk:90/WAM/doc/Report%20-%20Environmental%20Statement-158615.pdf?extension=.pdf&wmTransparency=0&id=158615&wmLocation=0&location=livevolume1&contentType=&wmName=&pageCount=1

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov.uk:90/WAM/doc/Report%20-%20Environmental%20Statement-158616.pdf?extension=.pdf&wmTransparency=0&id=158616&wmLocation=0&location=livevolume1&contentType=&wmName=&pageCount=1

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov.uk:90/WAM/doc/Report%20-%20Environmental%20Statement-158617.pdf?extension=.pdf&wmTransparency=0&id=158617&wmLocation=0&location=livevolume1&contentType=&wmName=&pageCount=1

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov.uk:90/WAM/doc/Report%20-%20Environmental%20Statement-158618.pdf?extension=.pdf&wmTransparency=0&id=158618&wmLocation=0&location=livevolume1&contentType=&wmName=&pageCount=1

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov.uk:90/WAM/doc/Report%20-%20Environmental%20Statement-158619.pdf?extension=.pdf&wmTransparency=0&id=158619&wmLocation=0&location=livevolume1&contentType=&wmName=&pageCount=1

Links apper to be broken or is it just me

Thats great stuff! Thank you ;)

Why does skyscrapernews.com (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=682) say that Heron Plaza has been cancelled?

Why does skyscrapernews.com (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=682) say that Heron Plaza has been cancelled?

Maybe it means the old design!

I think it does - the height says 98m AGL.

Okay, thanks. Nevertheless a bit misleading.

Nice night-time render ( Like the way they have airbrushed out all their rivals ;) )

http://i39.tinypic.com/2santox.jpg

somebody please render in all the other towers?!

Why does skyscrapernews.com (http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=682) say that Heron Plaza has been cancelled?

No need to worry- that page was last edited July 09 :)

somebody please render in all the other towers?!

I cant find a proper angle of the Pinnacle to put in, but here's one with 122 Leadenhall.
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8281/londfut.jpg