SkyscraperCity Forum banner

What do you think of the new Beetham London tower?

  • Love It

    Votes: 40 32.3%
  • Its OK

    Votes: 48 38.7%
  • Hate It

    Votes: 32 25.8%
  • Dont Care

    Votes: 4 3.2%
Status
Not open for further replies.

Jumeirah Tower (175m)

54K views 587 replies 98 participants last post by  wjfox 
#1 ·
The Evening Standard is reporting that Beetham are planning to build a 60 plus storey residential tower at Blackfriars.
(Its a tiny article tucked away at the side of a page)

'Europes tallest residential skyscraper is being planned for London. Family owned property firm the Beetham organisation which is building towers in Manchester and Liverpool wan to erect a 60-plus storey tower south of Blackfrairs bridge. If built the tower would be one of Britains tallest, and Beetham already owns a site near the bridge. The tower will need planning permission from Lambeth council.
 
#558 ·
Richard Rogers, in his function of running the Architecture and Urbanism Unit for the Greater London Authority.

Sustainable growth in a world city

The Mayor’s vision for London is radical and challenging. He has stated that London’s population and economic growth should be accommodated within the city’s current boundaries, without erosion of open land. When one takes into account the other needs that these will create (from schools to health centres, and from parks to recycling facilities), it is clear that we need to make better use of available land and buildings, and to link the most intensive developments to new and existing public transport.

An urban renaissance should be founded on principles of design excellence, economic strength, environmental responsibility, good governance and social well-being. Design is the tool we use to give order, scale and beauty to our buildings and our public spaces. Design makes the difference between density and cramming, increases the quality of space and brings vitality to communities and neighbourhoods.

Design-led urban renaissance is about improving the quality of life in a city to make it a place where people want to live, rather than from where they want to escape. A successful and sustainable city needs to be both beautiful and environmentally responsible, both compact and polycentric, both coherent and as diverse as its citizens and communities. London needs to accommodate a mix of uses both locally and citywide, with good public transport, walking and cycling connections for the movement of its citizens. We must use previously developed land before green space, and should recycle buildings or adapt existing buildings to new uses. London’s development should build on its transport hubs and town centres, and should be based on sensitive planning, not unplanned sprawl or restrictive zoning.

We should use the opportunity of increased demand to build a new generation of spacious, well-lit and sustainable homes that meet the changing demographics of the city. We should worry more about low ceilings and less about high buildings (which can improve London’s unremarkable skyline, especially if grouped in clusters). We should look at new ways of using space, with roof gardens for citizens.

London has many fine residential buildings and public spaces – like the Georgian squares of Chelsea and Notting Hill – but precious few have been created in recent years. London should lead Europe in the quality of its buildings and spaces, not look with envy across the Channel or even at other UK cities. We can and must make London a sustainable and beautiful example to the world.

------

I really do not see where this Beetham tower fits in, if the above represents the policy. Southbank is becoming a real planning distaster. MoreLondon, the new 60s style office block park behind the Tate Modern, the new hotel next to Waterloo and the other one planned for the Island site, an incoherent redevelopment of the South Bank Centre.... I guess it will remain what it has always been: cheap and nasty.
 
#559 ·
^^^^^^^

Why is the Southbabnk becoming a plannig disaster. For those that remember the Southbank pre 2000 it was a backwater with nothing to interest tourists or even locals.

I would suggest the Southbank is a pretty good example of urban development. The whole stretch from London Bridge to Westminster has seen the Tate Modern, the London Eye, the flourishing Borough market & an improved riverwalk that puts the city's Northbank riverwalk to shame.

The continuing improvement in the steertscape aroudn the Southbank centre & actually recognising the area South of the river shouldn't be neglected with better paving, lighting, the improvements to Pottersfield park & the garden next ot the London Eye. New bars & restaurants along the riverwalk.

Yes More London & Bankside 123 might not be to everyones taste but its providing grade A office space & making the area desirable for major international companies.

The Southabnk will improve with LBT, the Doon St developement (which is much much more than just a resi tower scheme),Land Secs WE tower, the Architectural foundations Zahid HQ, also a new home for design museum, the Tate extension & a Rogers Resi scheme on what is now 80's style warehouses. The Beetham scheme is proof that the are is regenerating - if you suggested five years ago that a 6 star hotel would be developed on blackfriars road many would not have believed you.

The regenerated Southbank will have a mix of new office, housing & cultural venues all linked by the river & not reliant on cars- If thats your idea of cheap & nasty I would love to know what you think is an excellent example of urban regeneration.
 
#561 · (Edited)
^^^^^^^

Why is the Southbabnk becoming a plannig disaster. For those that remember the Southbank pre 2000 it was a backwater with nothing to interest tourists or even locals.

I would suggest the Southbank is a pretty good example of urban development....

I agree with the fact that Southbank could become a planning disaster, this has nothing to do with high profile buildings like Beetham, or the 'string of pearls' along the southbank but is fired squarely and fairly at Southwark council who completely cocked up Rogers far reaching vision for this area, such as the new large Royal park in his mid eighties work and more recently his boulevard scheme linking up to Elephant and Castle... these are the sort of schemes that will represent our modern interpretation of the georgian square, creating places that are not only pleasant but actually link into a bigger picture, ad hoc planning gain from developments just creates places that can easily end up run down in 5 years cause there is no long term vision for their use.
 
#560 · (Edited)
right chaps, v. quickly as I'm off to watch the football:













before and after


v. quickly - this is pre planning exhibition. once planning is given it will take a year to work up the scheme for construction so don't expect a start before 2008;
height reduced to 175m, in general the 'bump' still remains, basically in the same proportions that it was in the first place;
Southwark council are very supportive;
there are two skins to the building that give it its mottled effect. Each flat and hotel room will have a 'winter garden', i.e. enclosed balcony / conservatory type effect;
the window cleaning equipment will emerge from the top of one of cores at the top of the viewing deck and will emerge through the circular glass panel;
foot print of scheme as whole reduced significantly, tower is the same, but piazza at the bottom is much bigger, and the affordable unit block at the bottom is larger;
Jumierah want to be open and trading in 2011 - prior to Olympics, rather obviously.
 
#562 ·
Thanks for the pics! Rather concerned that this is another lop off the elegence excercise by our esteemed planning departments! Looks like Westminster Council got its concerns through leaving a rather dumpy triangle thing in the view above. Loved the way the original responded to LBT, was this done on purpose? Dont know but it looked great! Doesnt work as well on the re-modelled version and the cluster as a whole with the increased Kings Reach looks well looks sort of not as good... sigh. Still think that the clever topography of the building saves it on the other views, from the East LBT will be the dominant object. Just wish councils would be more enlightened when they interfere with building design.
 
#564 ·
Er..what the ****?

It's even more hideous than before!

Did they take none of the comments of CABE? I expect not, seeing as Mr Beetham seems to be unable to take any criticism of his towers. The hump has now got bigger, the scale of the building is now inelegant, dumpy and arrogant.

I feel physically sick to the stomach that this will be going ahead and be on London's skyline before any of the beauties such as LBT, 122 Leadenhall and the Heron Tower.
 
#568 ·
Beetham is the name of the developer. Simpson is the architect. I expect your withering criticism is directed at the latter. The 'hump' hasn't got bigger. As said already, it has reduced in scale with the reduction in height.

I took a few choice snaps of the scheme that don't seek to represent the entire planning brief. There will be 40 renders of the tower from various sightlines submitted as part of the planning application, the majority of which will be available when the next public exhibition is run when the full planning document is submitted. Perhaps people should get their arses along to these public exhibitions themselves and speak to representatives of the architects and planning consultants. One of the frustrations of this forum is that people seem to make their minds up about schemes simply by seeing a couple of crummy photos taken by amateurs like me, or single renders captured from property websites. At the end of the day, if you don't like the shape, you don't like the shape, the reduction in height is not going to make one iota of difference.

Are people objecting lock stock to a tower in this site, or simply the design? What would people prefer? The strange Foster 'podium' carbuncle proposed in 2002? Compared to the wedges and blocks of Lumiere in Leeds and Beetham in Manchester the sail (perchance of a windsurfer) shape is not offensive in my view. The only angle I think it looks vaguely questionable from is Waterloo Bridge where its girth really does stand out. But that in itself should not be the sole adjudicant. I await the full planning document.

There is no guarantee that this scheme will get planning permission anyway. As I thought I said earlier, the full application has not yet been lodged, and will take a further six months to be processed once submitted. According to the people at the exhibition, work up to construction would take another year. 122 Leadenhall and Heron will be well underway by then, although that is a completely moot point.

Hey ho, contentious to the end. IMO the Vauxhall Tower (St Georges Wharf) still looks considerably more hidious to me than this scheme. Sort of cross between a microphone and the Tower of Barad-dur in Mordor sitting next to the grandiose yet tacky beige and green glass edifices which stink of cheapness (despite their astronomic prices).
 
#565 ·
Awful redesign. Shocking. These new images have completely changed my mind.
This is starting to look like a pattern. Everytime a building goes in for a redesign it comes out squashed. Grace and elegance are always lost when a design comes into contact the planning authorities.

Are planning departments obsessed with height at the expense of all other considerations?

There appear to be some improvements to this design. I welcome the clarification over the cladding. I think it will be of a high quality and has a good chance of pulling off the effect suggested by the renderings. I also welcome the attempt to make the top of the building appear to blend into the sky, although have my doubts as to whether the effect will work in practise. But, and its a huge but, they have done nothing to enhance to the look of the building on the london skyline, and criminally, they have actually contrived to make it much worse.

The over hang - a divisive element from the first design, remains and is in fact exagerated by the shortening of the buidling's height. I was interested by this over hang before - it was provocative, and I like the idea of building provocatively in central London - but now it is just ugly.
I find it hard to symathise with the people responsible for this redesign. I simply can't see how the planning process, with so many people apparently interested in the appearance to London and in the quality of design (in addition to the more routine considerations of planning) could contrive to screw it up so badly. I'm unsure as to where to lay the blame.

On a slightly more positive note, this second design hasn't yet been commented on by CABE or given planning permission. I hope it will be sent back to the drawing board a third time. Perhaps Richard Rogers, in his new capacity as London design Tsar, will have an opinion.
 
#579 ·
Awful redesign. Shocking. These new images have completely changed my mind.
This is starting to look like a pattern. Everytime a building goes in for a redesign it comes out squashed. Grace and elegance are always lost when a design comes into contact the planning authorities.

Are planning departments obsessed with height at the expense of all other considerations?

There appear to be some improvements to this design. I welcome the clarification over the cladding. I think it will be of a high quality and has a good chance of pulling off the effect suggested by the renderings. I also welcome the attempt to make the top of the building appear to blend into the sky, although have my doubts as to whether the effect will work in practise. But, and its a huge but, they have done nothing to enhance to the look of the building on the london skyline, and criminally, they have actually contrived to make it much worse.

The over hang - a divisive element from the first design, remains and is in fact exagerated by the shortening of the buidling's height. I was interested by this over hang before - it was provocative, and I like the idea of building provocatively in central London - but now it is just ugly.
I find it hard to symathise with the people responsible for this redesign. I simply can't see how the planning process, with so many people apparently interested in the appearance to London and in the quality of design (in addition to the more routine considerations of planning) could contrive to screw it up so badly. I'm unsure as to where to lay the blame.
Southwark Council... it appears they know as much of planning as a 5-year-old. Just look at their recent track-record: MoreLondon (every visitor from Continental Europe tells me how shocked they are at something like this being possible), Bankside 123 (rebirth of the 60s development - actually the first time I saw it was when I crossed the Milennium bridge and I saw it sticking out above the Tate Modern - I was like "great, they are pulling down this 60s eyesore" but well, they were pulling it up!) and this ugly development between the globe and vinepolis (with the bulge in the middle). And then we are just talking about the crap that went up the last five years....


On a slightly more positive note, this second design hasn't yet been commented on by CABE or given planning permission. I hope it will be sent back to the drawing board a third time. Perhaps Richard Rogers, in his new capacity as London design Tsar, will have an opinion.
I really hope Rogers is allowed to give his frank opinion about this and the Mayor follows his advice.
 
#567 ·
I think that in the future when buildings are sent back for a redesign there should be a rule saying that more should be done than just loping height off, proportions need to be taken into account.

I remember people saying the 1st one was too tall and ugly, now look at what we have got, a short ugly stump. The old one grew on me over time. This one I fear won't.
 
#569 ·
So much for the radical redesign- All they have done is kept the width & cut the height.

Why does every proposal in London go throught the same process. ie EH, Westminster et al moan about the height ruining the view from a park bench- result architects are forced to cut the height= not as elegant & more stumpy v.2 .

The first tower had LBT nestling under the bump & now it doesn't thereby ruining the effect fromthat view.

What has been achieved with cutting the height? Its still a tall tower & will be quite dominant- All it seems to have achieved is calming down Westminster by compromising the orginal scheme. I wouldn't be suprised if Doon St & Land Secs blackfriars tower are also told to trim the height. What logic is there for Southwark liking this version & not the first? Its still a very tall building- Southwark must either say yes, we will allow tall buildings at this location or confirm no, we dont want tall buildings in this part of Southwark instead of a half arsed compromise.

Is this the way its always going to be, Bishopsgate, Swiss re, Beetham, 20FC, 1 Canada Square etc etc- All forced to cut their original height so instead of soaring towers we are repeating the mistakes of the 60 & 70's when the original stumpy city towers were built.

These new towers are still tall & will be highly visible so by cutting them on average 30m is that really going to make that much of a difference. When will planners, Westminster, EH etc see sense & realise there meddling is making the skyline worse. Great you might not ruin your view from a royal park, Tower of London etc anymore but you are making a lot more other views worse.
 
#570 ·
Ouch, ugly redesign - i feel for you, previous design was far superior. You should begin writing letters to the design authorities and counsilers quickly. I would, but as I'm not a Londener, it probably wouldn't be taken seriously.
 
#571 ·
developers only have themselves to blame if their scheme gets condemned because they only released a couple of images. whats their excuse for not releasing the entire planning application on the internet in glorious high res graphics? if the project is really that wonder it should speak for itself. thousands of people will look for a single scheme over time on skyscrapernews and people always respond best to those schemes that are well covered. if its explained to them so they can understand it you will have a far more sympathetic audience. i can see no reason why an exhibition for anything should not be replicated in full online...
 
#573 ·
I totally agree. The Columbus Tower released nearly every image available for public use, there website was probably the most concise I have ever seen for a project in London. They had nothing to hide and seemed confident in their project.

I don't know how they believe the 'hump' has been refined. As shown by the diagram, it hasn't moved, the top has simply been squashed down and now the building has 'fattened' out. Any elegance or soar has been lost.

None of the comments made about the tower by CABE have been addressed, and if anything the questions regarding the cladding haven't been refined, as the tower is now shown as being even more transparent, which is simply impossible as demonstrated by Manchester's 'fin'.

Whilst I agreed with the height decrease, this just seems a smack in the face of Westminster Council - almost a 'well if you want a height decrease you'll regret it' which smacks very much of the arrogance of Beetham. The idea of a height decrease is to prevent the tower from obstructing the delicateness of London's viewing corridors and respecting its history. It's a way of refining the building and creating something better and more. This hasn't. It's lazy architecture.
 
#575 ·
I dont think them pictures do it much justice personally. If you look on skyscrapernews.com the pictures there are a lot better. It's basically more or less the same tower, they've just lopped off the top and made it look uglier...

Also didn't it get rejected because of the overhang? As far as I can see, that's still there. I can't see this getting approval either personally. Beetham have done a lot better than this and for the capital they should have tried a lot harder.
 
#581 ·
The South Bank 'cluster' isn't tight enough for me. I'd be happy for towers to be centred around Blackfriars Road to create a mini cluster of office and residential towers, but the current proposals pull the cluster apart and are too stretched out. Where 'is' this South Bank cluster anyway? Waterloo? Southwark? Bankside? Vauxhall? London Bridge?

Clusters are meant to be a collection of skyscrapers within a stone's throw from each other, not 'along a river' or dotted across the landscape.

This tower, if given permission, will set a dangerous precedent that might mean the Thames heamed in by more towers.
 
#584 ·
i think this is quite cool..

i have been to london, typical tourist, seeing everything in quite a rush and i must say i don't think the location is that bad when it comes to view or anything like that.


and apart from that, be proud to get another Jumeirah Hotel, those guys are the best in the world..
 
#586 ·
I met a guy on Jury service whos parents were renting a Housing Association flat in the OXO building. It was big and airy (the flat I mean) and was clearly and proudly stating its industrial heritage (loft like). The balcony hangs over the Thames footpath and overlooks St Pauls and the western edge of the city and to the left as far as Somerset House.

Now who would not want to live in that flat in that location? Social housing does not need to be downtrodden and smelling of wee.
 
#587 ·
London lad, I agree a lot of good happened to the Southbank until around 2000: County Hall redevelopment, London Eye, Hungerford Bridge, Tate Modern, Milennium Bridge, Oxo Tower, City Hall, the Globe, new walkways and streets.

Now what have we been getting since 2000? Bankside 123, MoreLondon, the Plaza crap, and fortunately one positive, the Royal Festival hall redevelopment. The new walkways and streets haven been poorly maintained and are already falling into disreapair.

And above all it is clear that a coherent masterplan is lacking. I understand there are a lot of complexities, but that should not stop you from having a cluster policy, from having uniform and suitable street furniture, from having a pedestrianization strategy, etc.

The biggest problem I have with this building has actually nothing to do with this project itself. It is the demonstration of the weakness of planners in London to impose proper policies. Why should we even talk about having clusters when every developer will successfully argue that "his tower" should be an exception? And those guys are very savvy, yes they give away freebees to locals (like a petty dance school) and the planners cannot stand up to that because they do not have these freebees to hand out.

It is clear most of the boroughs are too weak to stand up to the big developers and planning for any major project should be transferred to the Mayor's Office. The fundamental question on my mind is to what extent Ken Livingstone will back Rogers and provide them with the freedoms he needs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top