SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Bankside Yards | Southwark | 166m, 108m, 94m, 85m, 59m, 58m, 39m, 25m, 22m | 50, 31, 27, 20, 17, 14, 7, 7, 6 fl | U/C + proposed

405K views 901 replies 194 participants last post by  geogregor 
#1 ·
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/04/uk-southbank-idUKTRE7A341Z20111104

Private equity giant Carlyle CYL.UL is planning a mixed-use property project worth about 2 billion pounds next to the Tate Modern art gallery on the south bank of London's River Thames, a source close to the project said.

Carlyle, which filed for an IPO in September that could raise up to $1 billion (626 million pound), will submit plans for a 1.5 million square feet project that includes more than 1,000 flats in blocks as tall as 30 storeys, the source told Reuters.

If the project goes ahead it will be one of biggest developments the area has seen.

Carlyle, which has $153 billion in assets under management, bought six properties out of administration in July 2010 for 670 million pounds. It plans to knock down two, on the south bank of the River Thames, as part of the project.

The proposals, which are being drawn up by PLP Architects, include about 300,000 square feet of offices and 200,000 square feet of shops.

It will be the latest in a series of large-scale redevelopment schemes on the south bank of the Thames.

In a joint venture with Development Securities (DSC.L), Carlyle lost out to Canary Wharf Group (CWG) and Qatari Diar in a bid to develop the nearby Shell Centre further earlier this year.

CWG is majority owned by Songbird Estates (SBDE.L).

Sellar Group is developing a 1,016-feet tall skyscraper called The Shard and a neighbouring 500 million pounds block next to London Bridge train station. It hopes to attract financial services tenants from the City financial district, just north of the River Thames.

The Carlyle story first appeared in the London Evening Standard on Friday.
 
See less See more
#140 · (Edited)
Neither Manhattan nor Chicago have clearly defined clusters, their towers are spread over a large area and not a cluster here and another there with barely anything in between. Istanbul doesnt look too bad, however it is let down by the poor quality of its towers.

Of course, here the towers wont sit in complete isolation, theres Neo Bankside and further east the Shard, however theres barely anything to the west and I think we could do with more towers south of the river. In short my whole point is that "alley" or "tunnel" of towers isnt something bad.
 
#142 ·
Neither Manhattan nor Chicago have clearly defined clusters, their towers are spread over a large area and not a cluster here and another there with barely anything in between. Istanbul doesnt look too bad, however it is let down by the poor quality of its towers.
Hmmm, I think they do. Downtown/Lower Manhattan and Midtown are clear clusters with a couple of miles of low-to-mid rise between them. Chicago has a clear single cluster with the Sears Tower as the peak.

If you're talking about random mini clusters that's different, and not what it seemed you meant at first because you clearly said you're not a fan of clusters. In that regard there is a danger of half-a-dozen mini clusters forming making London like like a smaller Tokyo. And who the **** even praises Tokyo's skyline? Random skyscrapers would look equally shit imo, the best hope is for two dominant clusters based on the City across to Southwark and another centred on CW. Vauxhall will just be it's own little thing, maybe a taller version of Brooklyn or something.

Istanbul is saved because it has probably the best 'classic' skyline of any city in Europe.

Of course, here the towers wont sit in complete isolation, theres Neo Bankside and further east the Shard, however theres barely anything to the west and I think we could do with more towers south of the river. In short my whole point is that "alley" or "tunnel" of towers isnt something bad.
It isn't really west that matters imo but east, where a single cluster can form together with the City. Vauxhall is destined to remain alone, there won't be real towers around Waterloo right opposite Westminster.
 
#143 ·
Actually Tokyo's multiple clusters are really cool. You go up a raper in one cluster, and look over the lower buildings towards the next cluster in the distance. It gives a fantastic sense of scale and perspective, and imo makes a very exciting cityscape.

Overall I'd say London's individual rapers are better than Tokyo's, so the end result will be even better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trances
#144 · (Edited)
I agree, one big cluster is vastily inferior to multiple clusters from a landscape point of view. Even Manhatten only benefits from the illusion of multiple clusters from the height variations within the single unregulated cluster. Its landscape heyday was pre War when it was more obvious to the viewer.

Multiple clusters are merely 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.

This works perfectly with Londons new vantage points and its Victorian era expansion combined with the interesting juxtaposition of areas from the snaking river.

Londons old celebrated landscape of spires and domes centered around the square mile, it is so much bigger now and the skyline really needs to realise that.

Obviously the danger is that with an individual building there is a greater chance to stamp an aesthetic quality. With clustering as we have seen in London with 100 Bishopsgate, the height reduction at Blackfriars and spoiled height ambition at Vauxhall and Canary Wharf there is the danger of the cluster aesthetic being subdued and left unremarkable and unmemorable.
 
#156 · (Edited)
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.
 
#145 ·
This is obviously a matter of personal taste, but imo the skylines of NYC, Chicago, HK and even LA are vastly superior to Tokyo's or any number of cities with random individual buildings poking out (although Tokyo's sheer size makes it essentially unique and alone in the developed world to really be a comparison).

One or two dominant, large clusters gives a coherence that many small ones do not. That would include clusters with multiple peaks. Clearly building quality and diversity is key, so in many respects it's a moot point if crappy and dull looking buildings are default.
 
#149 ·
Have to agree with you about cycling. I lived in Tokyo for 4 years but some 30-odd years ago (!) Cycling was a pleasure as one had to cycle on the sidewalks (not in the streets). The sidewalks were designed for cyclists and pedestrians. My weekly workout was to circumnavigate the Imperial Palace grounds. In those days, the only high rise districts of note were Shinjuku (it had then and now has an impressive ’cluster’) and Marounuchi. Apart from these, only the building named Sunshine 60 in Ikebukuro (Toshima District) stood out.

The problem with Tokyo is that it is so spread out and now interspersed with high rises throughout, that the sense of impact and drama is somewhat lost. But NYC and Chicago (and London) win hands down when it comes to walking. Less hazardous thoroughfare junctions to navigate!
 
#148 ·
@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?

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).

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

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.

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.
 
#150 ·
@Kerouac
And in terms of overall architectural variety and interest, I reckon London's better than any of New York, Chicago, Hong Kong or Tokyo.
Not sure by this remark if you are referring to the last 400 years of London’s architectural and social development, thus including the Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian, neo-classical and even the Queen Anne years (Wren’s times) in your analysis. If so, I concur. NYC, Chicago and HKG were not around and Tokyo was in its feudal infancy in respect of a 'cityscape'. But if you are talking about more recent history, since the start of the 20th century, then London does not compare with the skylines you have cited.
 
#151 ·
I don't think the whole of London should turn into a New York. I do think we need a few more skyscrapers here and there. Although I would especially like to see the Canary Wharf area expand significantly and become a mini New York.

Clusters definitely work in London, I really don't like seeing single towers standing alone. Although the shard does work very well on it's own but, smaller, less outstanding towers just don't work for me.
 
#153 ·
^ 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.
 
#154 ·
^ 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=40.6...571,-74.045191&spn=0.008103,0.013797&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=40.6...291,-74.039783&spn=0.008102,0.013797&t=h&z=16
 
#164 ·
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.
 
#168 ·
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.
 
#174 ·
Boris calls for new open space on Blackfriars rail bridge pillars

-- Link to London SE1 article --

Mayor of London Boris Johnson has urged the developers of the Ludgate House and Sampson House sites to incorporate a new use for the redundant pillars of Blackfriars Railway Bridge in their scheme.

Last autumn Carlyle Group submitted a planning application for the demolition and redevelopment of Ludgate House on Blackfriars Road and Sampson House on Hopton Street. The scheme includes a 48-storey tower on the southern approach to Blackfriars Bridge. The scheme was presented to Mayor of London Boris Johnson at City Hall last week for his initial comments before Southwark's planning committee makes a decision on the application.

In a letter to Southwark Council summarising Mr Johnson's comments, Greater London Authority planning decisions manager Colin Wilson wrote that "...the Mayor expressed a strong view that further consideration must be given to the provision of additional public benefit in the form of an open space or other use on the redundant pillars on the Thames".

The piers were built in 1864 for the London, Chatham and Dover Railway. The bridge they carried was dismantled in 1984. One row of the pillars has been incorporated into the widened railway bridge for the expansion of Blackfriars Station in connection with Network Rail's Thameslink Programme.

A proposal for a combined green bridge and cycle route at Blackfriars was submitted to the 'High Line for London' ideas competition held last year and backed by Mr Johnson. The idea of linking the redevelopment of Ludgate House and Sampson House with the reuse of the bridge pillars has also been raised by Southwark's conservation areas advisory group.

According to the minutes of the group's January meeting, "One day, as has been proposed before, these piers could be formed into a linear public space uniting both banks of the river, akin to the celebrated High Line in New York City." The CAAG minutes continue: "This could be a new 'inhabited bridge' for London one day, helping further connect Southwark with the City of London."
This was in the 1 Blackfriars Road thread. I am glad to hear that the Mayor is aware. This was issue that concerned me with the development. This was more that extra terminating tracks for the station.
 
Top