London - Full Summary of Projects 20

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by Officer Dibble

169ft tall divided by 10 storeys is 16.9ft or over 5 metres per storey: that can't be right, can it?

or ten storeys of office space... throw in ground floors, plant floor on the roof etc...

[Officer Dibble]

Well the article doesn't say 10 storeys of office space, it says the buildings are restricted to 10 storeys. But just in case, let's add one for the ground floor, and let's also add a whole storey on top for air con and other plant.

And add an extra storey for luck in case I've missed something else.

So that's 169ft divided by 13 storeys, which is 13 feet, or nearly 4 metres. That's still much bigger than normal, isn't it? Surely a more likely explanation is that the Estates Gazette got the 169ft figure wrong.

Now I'm all in favour of high ceilings, indeed my main problem with height restrictions is that they incentivize low ceilings (though I'm usually talking about residential rather than office developments when I bang on about this). So I'd be pleased to hear the figures are right. It just seems unlikely.

[Loyalist.]

"height restrictions incentivize low ceilings"

That's very true, I never thought about it. Boris are you listening?

[PadArch]

thats a good point dibble. we should be if anything, incentivising increased ceiling heights (through sellability/resale value), not the inverse.

4m per storey is not an unreasonable guess for an office building because the floor depths (including services) are often around 1m. Beginning with 4m floor to floor height per storey you're not going to end up with particularly high ceilings.

[Officer Dibble]

That'll be it. Thanks

[DarJoLe]

Alan Sugar's Liverpool Street scheme to go ahead
15 December 2011
By David Rogers

Alan Sugar’s property company has won planning for its first new build scheme since it began trading back in the 1980s.

The firm, Amsprop, has previously concentrated on refurbishment and renovation work in London and the south-east and its portfolio includes the IBM Building on the South Bank and the Camden Head pub in Islington.

Now Amsprop has been given planning for a site opposite Liverpool Street station in the City called Aldermans House.



The 1960s building will be knocked down and replaced with a design by Blair Associates. The scheme at 117-121 Bishopsgate will feature 1,700sq m of retail at ground level with a further eight floors of office space running across an additional 4,600sq m.

Practice principal Michael Blair said: “Work could start in a year’s time. Lord Sugar is very pleased because planning has been very complicated.” The site is a complex island block comprising historic rights of way.

[The Champ]

Good to see the current building go, although I'd say its from the 80's not the 60's

[Core Rising]

So it isn't red anymore?

[Cat man do]

Wonder when we'll get the first Amstower?

[aphw]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

What's the building to the left of Heron Tower supposed to be?

[Skrapadude]

four seasons tower 135m

[aphw]

Hmm, I thought that had a coloured facade, must be the poor render...

[ill tonkso]

Just a massing model.

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by PadArch

thats a good point dibble. we should be if anything, incentivising increased ceiling heights (through sellability/resale value), not the inverse.

4m per storey is not an unreasonable guess for an office building because the floor depths (including services) are often around 1m. Beginning with 4m floor to floor height per storey you're not going to end up with particularly high ceilings.

actually that's about average for a grade A... between 4 and 4.1 metres per floor.

[potto]

the worlds first "pop-up" shopping mall on a piece of the bishopsgate goodsyard site

[wjfox]

Lloyd’s Building Gets Grade I Listed Status

http://londonist.com/2011/12/lloyds-...ted-status.php

[Stairz]

i wonder what the implications will be on future proposed skyscrapers around a grade 1 listed building...

[DarJoLe]

Lots.

[ill tonkso]

Doubtful that it will effect it that much to be honest, Leadenhall is going up literally across the Street, and with 20 Fenchurch on the Rise you a lot of the views of Lloyds will be lost anyway. It would be quite antithetical to block Hi-Rise construction to protect views of Lloyds anyway.

Also I expect to see 30 St Mary Axe get at least Grade II listing at one point in the next 10 years.

[ismail]

Originally Posted by Stairz

i wonder what the implications will be on future proposed skyscrapers around a grade 1 listed building...

None probably, it's more about protecting it's looks and features, it's already surrounded by towers ( Willis, 122, 20FCS, Aviva) so you can't really see it in any protected views anyway.