Ludgate and Sampson House | Southwark | approx 165m | Pre-planning

[kerouac1848]

Originally Posted by Langur

@Kerouac
Yes but New York, Chicago, and Hong Kong have far more skyscrapers than Tokyo. The American cities especially also have more variety of skyscraper architecture. They're probably the most celebrated skyscraper cities in the world, so perhaps you're being a little unfair?

Of course, and I did say quality of buildings is the key. Tokyo was the first example I could think of that has multiple clusters spread around. It certainly isn't shit (as I stated).

Also these cities do have different clusters. Hong Kong's tallest seven skyscrapers are spread miles apart, and there are very few vantage points where you can see all of them at once (and even then you'd need 360-degree vision).

But is there the clear dip to mid-and-low rise in HK like you get in Manhattan between skyscrapers? It appears as one cluster but with variation in height and peaks, almost like a much better and more compact Sao Paulo.

New York has two large clusters (Downtown and Midtown) and two small ones (Brooklyn and Jersey City).

I did originally say Manhattan. JC isn't part of NYC, I only refer to the 5 boroughs (in the same way I only mean the boundaries of GL as London) and Brooklyn barely has any real skyscrapers.

You say that Chicago's "centred" on Sears Tower, but actually Sears Tower is right over to one side. There are also separate clusters, eg the one that will form around the 224m One Museum Park, which is well south of the main cluster.

Toronto has separate clusters at places like Mississauga.

I said Sears Tower is the peak, not the centre, although perhaps it would be accurate to say it's a peak. I don't think a peak has to be a centre, the Shard imo is a peak for the City cluster from many views and clearly is away from the centre. I'd argued Chicago has one cluster but with a large variation in heights. I don't think you get that gap of lower rise buildings like you do in SOHO, GV, Chelsea, etc between Midtown and Lower Manhattan.

I'm not really a huge fan of Toronto's skyline tbh.

There's nothing unuusual or wrong with London's wide-spread clusters. It's a great cityscape imo. And in terms of overall architectural variety and interest, I reckon London's better than any of New York, Chicago, Hong Kong or Tokyo.

Just to note I was talking about the future. I don't consider London to have more than 2 real clusters, although Vauxhall will likely form a third. Yes London has a great cityscape. Paris has a fantastic cityscape too. But I was specifically talking about skylines and clusters of skycrapers. Currently I like how our skyline has formed although it's clearly a growing child. Remember my initial post was in reply to El Greco's opinion on clusters

I won't go into talk of city architecture because that is pretty subjective. London clearly has a huge range, perhaps unmatched by major cities. But some will have specific styles they'll prefer over others, just as some prefer the uniform and planned Paris over the more diverse and hodgepodge London street layout (although it's exaggerated)

Anyway, best not to hijack this thread further and get back to the redevelopment.

[Langur]

^ Does it really matter that Jersey City is not technically part of New York City? Jersey City is clearly a suburb of NYC, and its skyline forms part of the same panorama. The Statue of Liberty, New York's most famous landmark, is actually located on the New Jersey side of the state line.

And as for Hong Kong, yes there are wide gaps. The tallest skyscrapers are several miles apart (especially outliers such as One Island East or Nina Tower), separated by the waters of Hong Kong Harbour, mountains, hills, etc. You have to get up on a mountain or the observation deck of ICC to be able to see all seven of the tallest buildings in one view, and even then you need 360 degree vision.

Anyway we're getting bogged down in pedantry. All I'm saying is that I like London's widely separate clusters. I like the sense of space and perspective it gives. I also think standalones like the Shard, Strata, or Centrepoint can look fine so long as the individual designs are strong enough.

[jdjones]

Originally Posted by Langur

^ Does it really matter that Jersey City is not technically part of New York City? Jersey City is clearly a suburb of NYC, and its skyline forms part of the same panorama. The Statue of Liberty, New York's most famous landmark, is actually located on the New Jersey side of the state line.

I hate to be a total pedant, but Liberty Island is still part of New York State, think of it as an exclave. Liberty and Ellis Island were ceded to New York State from New Jersey after the agreement to draw the state line at the mid point of New York Harbor and realised this left the two important New York islands in New Jersey, kinda like Stilton cheese cannot be made in Stilton.

Liberty Island:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.68...13797&t=h&z=16

Funny thing about Ellis Island is when the island was ceded to New York it was before some reclamation, any reclaimed land is part of New Jersey, the original land New York (notice the state line as a ring in the eastern portion of the island):

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.68...13797&t=h&z=16

[kerouac1848]

Originally Posted by Langur

^ Does it really matter that Jersey City is not technically part of New York City? Jersey City is clearly a suburb of NYC, and its skyline forms part of the same panorama. The Statue of Liberty, New York's most famous landmark, is actually located on the New Jersey side of the state line.

And as for Hong Kong, yes there are wide gaps. The tallest skyscrapers are several miles apart (especially outliers such as One Island East or Nina Tower), separated by the waters of Hong Kong Harbour, mountains, hills, etc. You have to get up on a mountain or the observation deck of ICC to be able to see all seven of the tallest buildings in one view, and even then you need 360 degree vision.

Anyway we're getting bogged down in pedantry. All I'm saying is that I like London's widely separate clusters. I like the sense of space and perspective it gives. I also think standalones like the Shard, Strata, or Centrepoint can look fine so long as the individual designs are strong enough.

Ok, this is the final point I'm going to make on the subject.

The reason why it matters is because I was originally talking about Manhattan, not NYC or the wider NY urban zone. The reason why I specified Manhattan is because I was talking about London's skyline in its central inner core (zone 1 and parts of zone 2). I wasn't talking about London as a whole. I was arguing that, imo, one or two dominant clusters in the central core is preferable to a bunch of mini ones, and I was also talking about the future not the present. Also note that I never claimed standalone buildings should be avoided, but I was disagreeing with the idea of a skyline consisting of individual towers sprinkled around a central area instead of clusters. Having clusters doesn't mean avoiding standalone buildings completely.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by potto

the modern take on the celebrated medieval and renaissance cityscape with its focal points of spires and domes but on a larger scale because our cities are on a much larger scale.

Medieval skylines is what I had in mind when I said I prefer skyscrapers to be spread over large area. However I dont agree with your claim that random clusters are modern take on this. Medieval cities did not have clearly defined clusters (ie LA), the Church spires were spread over the whole of a city with Cathedral as its peak.

So yes it is random and isolated clusters that I dont like, I much prefer to have one or two large ones (ie New York or indeed those Medieval skylines (if you can still call that clusters)). The reson for this is quite simple. Today cities lost a lot their former drama, they are dominated by huge and often flat roofed buildings and a handful of isolated clusters of towers which do provide some kind of focal point but do not have the same visual appeal and drama as pre WWII cities had, with their Church spires, Cathedral domes, defensive towers, chimney pots and gables. I think that if towers were sprinkled all over the city instead of concentrated in tight handful of clusters it would bring back some of that drama.

[alonzo-ny]

Ellis Island in New Jersey and the Statue of Liberty is in New York.

[jdjones]

Originally Posted by alonzo-ny

Ellis Island in New Jersey and the Statue of Liberty is in New York.

Most of Ellis Island is in NJ, a small area of it is in NY: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...13797&t=m&z=16

[aphw]

Anyone fancy 'shopping a taller 1 Blackfriars into one of the renders for this?

[benchaney]

As there is only 1 render posted here, thought I would add some more
image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr

[Loathing]

This is pretty much the perfect development. Towers could be more 'exciting', but if the material qualities are high these will be just right.

[Ebeneezer_Goode]

Nice renders, though they were all posted on page three

[danm]

Looks stunning!

[Harrow + London]

Originally Posted by benchaney

image hosted on flickr

Originally Posted by Loathing

This is pretty much the perfect development. Towers could be more 'exciting', but if the material qualities are high these will be just right.

I agree, these buildings will need high quality materials to prevent them from being bland boxes, but there's a seriously low limit to how attractive the squat, fat little box above can get. Anything can look stunning in a render, but in reality this building will easily look like a 60s-esque monstrosity, and will really be no different from the shit that currently occupies Blackfriars road.

[hugh]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Medieval skylines is what I had in mind when I said I prefer skyscrapers to be spread over large area. However I dont agree with your claim that random clusters are modern take on this. Medieval cities did not have clearly defined clusters (ie LA), the Church spires were spread over the whole of a city with Cathedral as its peak.

So yes it is random and isolated clusters that I dont like, I much prefer to have one or two large ones (ie New York or indeed those Medieval skylines (if you can still call that clusters)). The reson for this is quite simple. Today cities lost a lot their former drama, they are dominated by huge and often flat roofed buildings and a handful of isolated clusters of towers which do provide some kind of focal point but do not have the same visual appeal and drama as pre WWII cities had, with their Church spires, Cathedral domes, defensive towers, chimney pots and gables. I think that if towers were sprinkled all over the city instead of concentrated in tight handful of clusters it would bring back some of that drama.

No particular axe to grind re clusters vs a wider skyline - but you make an interesting point about a varied cityscape - and drama. That's what many of the 'conservationists' don't get - since Canaletto's London is now long gone, to rabidly restrict the height of contemporary buildings only leads to blandification.

[randolph]

I love the two towers squaring up to each other to form a high rise gateway to South London! This will be a great addition to the skyline!

[Tellvis]

I hear that the 20th Century society has lodged a formal objection to the demolition of Sampson House.
How much 'clout' do these guys have?

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by Tellvis

I hear that the 20th Century society has lodged a formal objection to the demolition of Sampson House.
How much 'clout' do these guys have?

A lot less than less than English Heritage. Only architects like brutalism to any great degree. So for most politicians demolishing Brutalist structure wins praise from real people (you know voters). Otherwise we'd still be lumbered with the Trinity centre in Portsmouth, which was demolished for a new shopping centre that has failed to materialise in the recession. But everyone still prefers the surface car park that is there at the moment.

[ill tonkso]

The Tricorn. God, I almost miss it in a weird way. It was genuinely depressing to look at, growing up. It really made Portsmouth feel like a dump.

[lyreco54]

Really hope these buildings go up soon. Will add to London's skyline + when the economy picks up, the office space will be there available rather than not being and businesses choosing to locate elsewhere

[mouldss@hotmail.co.u]

what
[IMG]http://i45.************/2w68olt.jpg[/IMG]