daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > London Metro Area

London Metro Area London Calling...



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old September 20th, 2012, 10:56 PM   #41
Langur
Londinium langur
 
Langur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 9,089
Likes (Received): 832

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
Unlike in those cities London inner city does not consist of large, tall and dense mansion/apartment blocks. Weve been over this a thousand times, and then a thousand times again, I even posted pictures which clearly showed how tall, urban housing goes on for miles on the Continent and how it does not in London.
They don't. Look again. Munich's area of urban density buildings is far smaller than London's. Vienna's is smaller too, albeit larger than Munich's. I suggest you actually measure it using a tool like this...
http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-go...calculator.htm
__________________
"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper
Langur no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
 
Old September 20th, 2012, 11:03 PM   #42
El_Greco
Flâneur Extraordinaire
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 17,696
Likes (Received): 1865

London is far larger city! Nevertheless unlike in those cities London inner city does not consist of large, tall and dense mansion/apartment blocks.
__________________
My Photos : Bergen|Brussels|Fes|Lisbon|London|Madrid|Naples|Paris|Rome|Rotterdam
El_Greco no está en línea  
Old September 20th, 2012, 11:11 PM   #43
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,765
Likes (Received): 486

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
But they arent even playing in their leafy streets are they?
Seriously you should maybe consider the vast majority of people are not single urban males with time on their hands and the vast majority given the choice value a bit of greenery and space. Outside of Zone 1 there are plenty of people frolicking in their gardens and local leafy parks.

London, being a city that has evolved into something like 650sq miles has a vast variety of different housing types and areas with plenty of urban and metropolitan town centres intermixed with suburbs and housing stock of many varieties.

It is not expanding into the countryside and it is increasing in density all over this vast city, as it has for the best part of the last 15-20 years and 8million people including the extra million that seem to think its good enough to take up root here in the last decade or so seem to agree so it must be doing something right.

Constantly comparing it to totally different cities that have evolved in other ways is a slightly pointless exercise really and I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve in doing so.
london lad no está en línea  
Old September 20th, 2012, 11:18 PM   #44
El_Greco
Flâneur Extraordinaire
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 17,696
Likes (Received): 1865

Quote:
Originally Posted by london lad View Post
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve in doing so.
Merely stating that density and high-rise living is nothing to be afraid of since many people around the World are doing just that. This leads people to suggest how horrible density is and how it makes cities impossible to live in.
__________________
My Photos : Bergen|Brussels|Fes|Lisbon|London|Madrid|Naples|Paris|Rome|Rotterdam
El_Greco no está en línea  
Old September 20th, 2012, 11:29 PM   #45
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,765
Likes (Received): 486

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
Merely stating that density and high-rise living is nothing to be afraid of since many people around the World are doing just that. This leads people to suggest how horrible density is and how it makes cities impossible to live in.
Yes but using London as an example in how not to do it is slightly ridiculous. Surely on your numerous travels around London you can't have failed to notice almost every new development in London has more density that what it is replacing.

Just looking at the example of that estate in Southwark posted on the last page and compared to what has been built in that small part of London in the last 10-15 years and what is planned for the next ten dispels the myth that all new developments are two up two down with a small garden.
london lad no está en línea  
Old September 20th, 2012, 11:57 PM   #46
Langur
Londinium langur
 
Langur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 9,089
Likes (Received): 832

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
London is far larger city! Nevertheless unlike in those cities London inner city does not consist of large, tall and dense mansion/apartment blocks.
Yes it does. It's either mansion blocks, terraces of comparable scale, or commercial buildings of comparable scale. They spread across a far larger area than Munich, and somewhat larger than Vienna. There's perhaps less consistency in London because of the greater number of modern buildings, but they only increase density further. You can fit 6x Eixamples in zone 1 alone.
__________________
"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper
Langur no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 12:43 AM   #47
El_Greco
Flâneur Extraordinaire
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 17,696
Likes (Received): 1865

Quote:
Originally Posted by london lad View Post
Yes but using London as an example in how not to do it is slightly ridiculous. Surely on your numerous travels around London you can't have failed to notice almost every new development in London has more density that what it is replacing.
True and I did not say otherwise. Although Isle of Dogs as well as Rotherhithe are examples of how not to do it. This debacle started when PadArch said I want to turn London into Barcelona then Monkey came in with his claims that infact I want to turn it into Athens and how awful density is yet now he claims London is even denser still. I summarised my points thus -

-London is what it is, noones proposing going all Haussmann
-City centre and inner city densification
-More family sized apartments
-More emphasis on pedestrians and aesthetics
-Discourage private car use

Nothing unreasonable and I think this would make for a better, cleaner city for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langur View Post
Yes it does.
Streets like these (ie consisting of tall, big and dense urban housing) are extremelly common on the Continent, you will find them in most cities from the Iberian Peninsula to the Nordics, often making up huge networks stretching for miles. They are not common in London, you can only find these in the West (with some exceptions) and even then mostly contained within Zone 1. What you do find in London is terraces.

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=48.1525...5,,0,6.37&z=16

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=41.3838...5.07,,0,0&z=16

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=59.3368...2,,0,4.59&z=16

Im not sure why you keep bringing up all those cities and trying to construct out of them something which I never said. What I said and always have been saying is that city needs to be tall and dense like the Continental cities and all the Athens and Barcelonas and Munichs and Viennas and Budapests were used to illustrate this point - that they are tall and dense (ie city centres and inner cities consisting of large, tall and dense housing) and thats the model London should follow, I never ever said London should be like them with their particular pros and cons, styles of architecture or what they have or dont have. What London could or couldnt swallow up is completely irrelevant as well nor does it change the fact the streets pictured above are uncommon in London.
__________________
My Photos : Bergen|Brussels|Fes|Lisbon|London|Madrid|Naples|Paris|Rome|Rotterdam

Last edited by El_Greco; September 21st, 2012 at 04:44 PM.
El_Greco no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 11:04 AM   #48
nathan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 25
Likes (Received): 0

We are having this debate in Cardiff at the moment. The Council has proposed a Local Development Plan that envisages building around 20000 new homes on agricultural land fringing the city. The LDP also plans for around 20000 homes on brownfield sites. This is to take place over the next 25 years. Cardiff and it's valleys have an extensive rail network (120 stations serving about 1.3 million people) that will be electrified in the next decade.
Opponents of the LDP want Cardiff (which is already dense by UK standards) to be densified further and any further housing development beyond building on the brownfield sites to occur in the towns in the valleys,linked to Cardiff by an electrified Metro and for all of the relevant local authorities to adopt a city region approach centred on Cardiff. Supporters of the LDP want these three large new suburbs to be built on the city's fringe (each with around 15000 people) to provide family homes. This is an enormous issue in Wales.
Personally I think that we should densify within Cardiff,adopt a city region approach and have the family homes in the valleys communities (which are at most a 45 minute Metro commute into Cardiff).
nathan no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 11:29 AM   #49
Langur
Londinium langur
 
Langur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 9,089
Likes (Received): 832

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
Monkey came in with his claims that infact I want to turn it into Athens and how awful density is yet now he claims London is even denser still.
I said Athens is awful, not density. I criticised your use of Athens as some kind of model because it's far less attractive than London. I also didn't say London was denser than Athens. I said it was denser over a wider area than Munich and Vienna, and so it is.
__________________
"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper
Langur no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 01:36 PM   #50
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 5,688
Likes (Received): 331

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langur View Post
Nordic cities aren't tall or dense. I know because I've visited them, but anyone can see for themselves on Bing maps bird's eye view. Building density and floor space per km 2 is very low compared to London.
Once again you miss the point and compare apples to oranges. How on earth could you possibly compare London to say Stockholm or Helsinki?? Let's compare them with British cities of similar size shall we?

Helsinki:

Everything inside the red circle is high density urban apartment buildings of 4-8 storeys. Outside the circle the density drops very quickly to almost nothing. The construction of the Helsinki suburbs in the post-war era was heavily influenced by the garden city movement. This means that the suburbs are small communities of mixed forms of housing separated from each other by nature and parks.



Manchester:

As far as I can see the encircled area is the urban core of Manchester. Outside the city is suburban (the contrast is quite stark). It's much smaller thanks to post-war British city planning. The inner cities of most British cities were swept away during this era, an error which should now be corrected. Manchester's metropolitan area is bigger and denser (endless rows of terraced housing) than Helsinki's, however, Helsinki has a larger and denser urban core. Few British cities would do any better in this comparison except maybe Edinburgh and Glasgow.




And if you seriously think it's nice to have an innercity that looks like this:



instead of this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Greco View Post
..then why don't you live in a village?


Furthermore, don't ever compare London to Munich but to cities of similar size e.g. Paris. Look at Paris. The tall, dense and urban inner city goes on and on for miles until it reaches suburbia (where you can live with your children if you like). In London you have low density suburbia a few blocks east of Brick Lane and south of Tooley Street.

And let's face it, the most urban and dense areas of London are the best ones.
Mr Bricks no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 01:45 PM   #51
Loathing
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,141
Likes (Received): 369

London does have dense, nineteenth-century, balconied mansion blocks at its centre, especially in the boroughs of Westminster and K&C. Take for example Queen's Gate.

However, I do prefer, for example Budapest's street-scape, where there are much larger networks of such streets. El_Greco is right in that London doesn't have many of those sweeping boulevards which the great European cities do. It is also true that, historically, even the wealthiest European families lived in those apartments (normally on the piano nobile) in these dense streets, with children and all. I would certainly agree with Greco that terraced mansion blocks, boulevards, and elegant parks, are far superior to what we mostly get in London today: gated apartment blocks with a shitty water-feature at their centre. On the other hand, I really don't agree with Greco's love of 'functionalism': the sprawling streets of Tokyo, mostly 6-12 floor apartment blocks sandwiched together, are really very ugly, and the density they imply does not make manifest any increase in the quality of the urban environment.
Loathing no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 01:59 PM   #52
Loathing
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,141
Likes (Received): 369

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
Once again you miss the point and compare apples to oranges. How on earth could you possibly compare London to say Stockholm or Helsinki?? Let's compare them with British cities of similar size shall we?
How on earth could you compare Helsinki to Manchester?
Loathing no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 02:33 PM   #53
El_Greco
Flâneur Extraordinaire
 
El_Greco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 17,696
Likes (Received): 1865

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post
'functionalism'
It can be ugly of course, but for me Athens' buildings is the kind of functionalism I like - almost reminiscent of Art-Deco.
__________________
My Photos : Bergen|Brussels|Fes|Lisbon|London|Madrid|Naples|Paris|Rome|Rotterdam
El_Greco no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 03:08 PM   #54
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,765
Likes (Received): 486

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post
How on earth could you compare Helsinki to Manchester?
The magic of google earth- You never have to visit just spend your day at a PC whizzing through satellite imagery makes you an expert on such matters ( just ask our resident London expert Mr Bricks who I recall once spent a week in London a couple of years ago )
london lad no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 03:26 PM   #55
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 5,688
Likes (Received): 331

Instead of acting like smartasses please point out where I went wrong?

Helsinki has 600 000 inhabitants compared to Manchester's 500 000, and although Manchester has roughly 1 million people more in its metropolitan area I think the two cities compare very well. If there is something contructive you'd like to add feel free to do so.

Regarding London, I never said I knew the city personally in any way. However, in this dicussion it really doesn't matter as I've read extensively about both the history of Britain and the history of London.
Mr Bricks no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 03:36 PM   #56
Octoman
Just Relax
 
Octoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,506
Likes (Received): 2826

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
And if you seriously think it's nice to have an innercity that looks like this:

This sort of stuff is gradually getting redeveloped. It takes time though because these are people's homes and communities. We can't just kick them out and knock their houses down because we think they are ugly or make inefficient use of space. It's taken years to get into a position where Elephant and Castle can be comprehensively redeveloped.

I would say that this type of development is not typical of inner london. it is most prominant south of the river where a lot of infill was built rapidly postwar.
__________________
You don't pull a person up by pulling another person down.
Octoman no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 03:41 PM   #57
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,765
Likes (Received): 486

But all you ever do is grab some stats from the web, have a whizz round Google Earth and make pronouncements about somewhere you have never been , its most peculiar behaviour.

Just because Manchester and Helsinki may have similar populations or size it doesn’t follow they are going to evolve or be exactly the same but that is all you ever do. One is a city largely born out of the industrial revolution and the other a centuries old capital of a city with a totally different culture, topography, evolution etc. You can never seem to grasp context, history, evolution, cultural, economic or social factors as to why a certain City is what it is, yet you make pronouncements that makes you think you are an expert on matters.

Seriously have you nothing better to do??
london lad no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 03:50 PM   #58
BobHackett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 42
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by PadArch View Post
Not really they aren't. Nordic cities are extremely low density. Netherlands and Belgium are dense overall but highly suburbanised and bear absolutely no resemblance to Barcelona. The German climate is not similar to London.

Let's get a few things straight..
density:

Amsterdam: 3506 (1682 mean sunlight hours)
Stockholm 3597 (2021 mean sunlight hours)
Helsinki 1388 (1858 mean sunlight hours)
Oslo 912 (1650 mean sunlight hours)
Berlin 3942 (1625 mean sunlight hours)
Munich 4440 (1708 mean sunlight hours
London 5206 (1480 mean sunlight hours)
Barcelona 15991 (2524 mean sunlight hours)
Is this comparison of densities a fair one? Im assuming these are the densities of the City limits. City limits are just arbitary lines drawn on maps so alot of the difference in density is going to be because of how much rural areas, parks, offices, industrial estates (aka places where people dont live) are in the city limits. So it's not a very reliable way of looking at how densly populated a city is. I think a fairer comparison would be looking at the population densities of urban areas rather than city limits because urban areas by definition dont include rural areas.
BobHackett no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 04:30 PM   #59
Required
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,003
Likes (Received): 68

_________________

Last edited by Required; November 6th, 2012 at 01:41 PM.
Required no está en línea  
Old September 21st, 2012, 04:38 PM   #60
Langur
Londinium langur
 
Langur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 9,089
Likes (Received): 832

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
Once again you miss the point and compare apples to oranges. How on earth could you possibly compare London to say Stockholm or Helsinki?? Let's compare them with British cities of similar size shall we?
Helsinki's urban core is small and not especially dense, and neither are the other Nordic capitals. I didn't make any claims for other British cities. Their urban cores aren't extensive, I agree, though their centres are urban and dense. Central Glasgow, for instance, is architecturally grander and denser than central Helsinki. However a lack of density is an absurd criticism to make of London, which has the densest urban districts in Europe, and where the core extends for miles and miles. I repeat again, London's zone 1 can swallow up the Eixample six times over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
And if you seriously think it's nice to have an innercity that looks like this:

instead of this:

..then why don't you live in a village?
What a load of crap. Istanbul's Istiklal Cadessi is equivalent to London's Regent Street (and Regent Street is grander than Istiklal Cadessi imo). The picture you show for London is a bunch of council estates in zone 2 or 3. Manipulative and dishonest...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
Furthermore, don't ever compare London to Munich but to cities of similar size e.g. Paris. Look at Paris. The tall, dense and urban inner city goes on and on for miles until it reaches suburbia (where you can live with your children if you like). In London you have low density suburbia a few blocks east of Brick Lane and south of Tooley Street.
It wasn't me who chose to compare London to Munich. It was El Greco. I simply pointed out that Munich's dense urban core could be swallowed up by London's many times over.

Paris does have a vast sea of mid-rise apartment buildings, and, unlike Athens, one can say they're attractive. If consistency of style and medium density is your ideal (it's not mine...), then I'll concede Paris has a greater extent than London. However I wouldn't swap. Paris's inner core feels stagnated next to London. I don't think any part of Paris has London's dynamic "big city" vibe. It never gets as dense as the City. It never feels as lively and exciting as Piccadilly Circus / West End. It also doesn't have so many development zones in the wider metropolis. Brisavoine may hate me for saying it, but I think London has left Paris behind.

London's density does drop off rapidly to the east and south. However to the north and west of the centre, and also to the southwest, it continues unbroken way out into zone 2, with grand and imposing Victorian terraces or mansion blocks, and busy commercial districts such as Hammersmith.

London's density doesn't diminish evenly even out to the east or south. It falls off, but then picks up again in places like Docklands with its skyscrapers and high-rises. Vauxhall/Nine Elms is going the same way. Get out at Straford and scan the skyline around you. You'll see high-rises all around, both old and new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bricks View Post
And let's face it, the most urban and dense areas of London are the best ones.
Not always. Hampstead, Highgate, St John's Wood, Richmond, Wimbledon, Kew, etc, are really attractive city suburbs with some wonderful architecture. There are pockets of desirable suburbs all around London, especially around nice parks (Richmond Park or Hampstead Heath are prime examples but there are many more). Places like Greenwich are full of history and architecture.

I also like the feel and atmosphere of less affluent areas. I'm thinking here of colourful and lively ethnic high streets such as Green Lanes in Harringay, Southall, Tooting, etc. I love exploring areas like that, and they feel very urban imo.

Docklands has an interest and atmosphere of its own. The scale of urban transformation around Canary Wharf, North Greenwich, Royal Docks, and Stratford is fascinating to witness, and there's no equivalent anywhere else in Europe. An entire C21st metropolis is gradually taking shape.

And finally there's the outer suburbs. Few tourists ever go there as there aren't many sights, but much of the leafy interwar suburbia in zones 5/6 is really attractive: affluent without being glamourous. That's where I grew up, and where I may choose to raise my own family.

Central London may well contain the greatest concentration of attractions, but it's only half of what London has to offer.
__________________
"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper

Last edited by Langur; September 21st, 2012 at 04:46 PM.
Langur no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu