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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Skyscrapers

Skyscrapers Discussions of projects under construction between 200-299m/650-999ft tall.
» Proposed Skyscrapers



Global Announcement

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 21st, 2010, 04:24 PM   #1081
ArrHo
Registered User
 
ArrHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bristol
Posts: 728
Likes (Received): 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by PortoNuts View Post
There probably won't be many other skyscrapers in the City but London has plenty of other areas to grow tall. Canary Wharf itself is not completely packed yet.
Yeah but due to London city airport there is a lower restriction on height in Canary wharf isn't there?
__________________
London is my Head, while Bristol is my Heart.
ArrHo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 21st, 2010, 04:28 PM   #1082
PortoNuts
Registered User
 
PortoNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Porto
Posts: 23,920
Likes (Received): 7150

Yes, they cannot build supertalls but I think there can be height ranges between 150 m and 250 m, which is still good.

But they can plan other clusters in other places, as long as there are good transportation connections.
__________________
Got one head for money and one head for sin..
PortoNuts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 22nd, 2010, 06:37 PM   #1083
RichW1
In Pursuit Of The Future
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 176
Likes (Received): 0

Problem there is, you'd either have to plan far down the Thames (which isn't really going to happen) OR you'd have to move City airport/Heathrow. Why we can't just go with plans for an airport in the estuary like other cities have done I don't know! It would deal with more traffic with less restrictions and in turn no restrictions on upward growth in places like Canary Wharf which should've been unrestricted in a perfect world anyway like La defense!
RichW1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 02:12 AM   #1084
haikiller11
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: No idea where. Just lots of Saxons.
Posts: 12,348
Likes (Received): 2263

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichW1 View Post
Problem there is, you'd either have to plan far down the Thames (which isn't really going to happen) OR you'd have to move City airport/Heathrow. Why we can't just go with plans for an airport in the estuary like other cities have done I don't know! It would deal with more traffic with less restrictions and in turn no restrictions on upward growth in places like Canary Wharf which should've been unrestricted in a perfect world anyway like La defense!
moving the City airport away from the Canary Wharf ......... well possible cos City airport is not as important as Heathrow or Gatwick

Movin' the Heathrow
haikiller11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 04:27 AM   #1085
PortoNuts
Registered User
 
PortoNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Porto
Posts: 23,920
Likes (Received): 7150

I might understand height restrictions in CW because of London City Airport but, even though I'm no expert on the matter, I never quite accepted the argument of height restrictions in the City because of the planes.

Everyone who has landed at London Heathrow knows that when the jetliners make the aproach over central London, they are hundreds of metres higher than the buildings, even if they are skyscrapers.

Anyway, 288 metres is still an impressive height.
__________________
Got one head for money and one head for sin..
PortoNuts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 04:49 PM   #1086
RichW1
In Pursuit Of The Future
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 176
Likes (Received): 0

I totally, agree, I don't want anyone here in any way to think I'm criticising the current Bishopsgate or LBT or anything; it's a huge advance and will look amazing given the relatively bloated lower rise buildings of the past (remember, Bishopsgate is just an average height building in global terms) and should be welcomed. I can't wait!!

I can just see a little envy on the horizon though at La Defense's freedom of construction height and Frankfurt's plans for much higher buildings.
RichW1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 04:58 PM   #1087
Newcastle Guy
Registered User
 
Newcastle Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,096
Likes (Received): 317

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichW1 View Post
I totally, agree, I don't want anyone here in any way to think I'm criticising the current Bishopsgate or LBT or anything; it's a huge advance and will look amazing given the relatively bloated lower rise buildings of the past (remember, Bishopsgate is just an average height building in global terms) and should be welcomed. I can't wait!!

I can just see a little envy on the horizon though at La Defense's freedom of construction height and Frankfurt's plans for much higher buildings.
If the likes of the towers going taller are millenium tower, mercury city etc... I think London will be fine with the Shard and Pinnacle I'd say the biggest 'threat' in terms of having the best skyscraper is Hermitage Plaza, and the main reason I like it is the fact that it is a twin proposal.

To be honest though I see this all as a bit of fun now, and I've come to the opinion that we should all be happy that multiple European cities are getting supertalls and adding futuristic elements to their landscapes.
Newcastle Guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 05:21 PM   #1088
REAPER666 94
Reaper
 
REAPER666 94's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Manchester
Posts: 364
Likes (Received): 6

The point is though what difference is it going to make to a plane if bishopsgate or any other tower in that area is 50 meters higher like if the pinnacle was a supertall would it realistically make any difference to a pilot who is going to heathrow. I know London city is a very different story as it really would be affected by a 1000ft tower in canary wharf, but would a supertall as opposed to a building thats is 12 meters less really make a difference they are not clearing the top of the building by 50 meters they are clearing it by far more, i think ( and hope ) that for the city at least these restrictions may be relaxed.
REAPER666 94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2010, 05:37 PM   #1089
Newcastle Guy
Registered User
 
Newcastle Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,096
Likes (Received): 317

One of the problems is cranes, if the towers could be built without using them then towers could potentially go as high as the cranes are allowed to go now. I also expect improvements in aircraft safety will allow for taller buildings in the future, though it will probably take a good few decades. I personally don't expect the Shard to be the tallest in London for more than 50 years. That may seem a long time but considering the Shard is about the highest London can go at the moment, in the center anyway, it's understandable that it will hold the title for a while. Not forever, though.
Newcastle Guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2010, 11:26 PM   #1090
ArrHo
Registered User
 
ArrHo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bristol
Posts: 728
Likes (Received): 19

I still think that the height restrictions are there to protect Londons skyline from going mad with height, if you can only build up to 1000ft you'll have to build more smaller towers which would in trun bulk out the skyline allowing taller towers to fit in alot better in the future.
__________________
London is my Head, while Bristol is my Heart.
ArrHo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2010, 11:36 PM   #1091
Newcastle Guy
Registered User
 
Newcastle Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,096
Likes (Received): 317

In some cases, but IMO cutting down Bishopsgate was not required for historical protection. It would have worked better with the extra 20m. I agree that, at the moment, 400m+ wouldn't look right. But in the future it most likely will considering how much london's skyline has changed in the last 10years alone.
Newcastle Guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2010, 12:54 AM   #1092
stevensp
Registered User
 
stevensp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Antwerp
Posts: 982
Likes (Received): 64

impressive images
Im curious how the result in real will be
but I absolutly like the design!
__________________
personal web page http://stevenspapen.be *NEW*
Architecture projects Photography

+ more project updates will be posted soon!
stevensp no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2010, 02:03 PM   #1093
RichW1
In Pursuit Of The Future
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 176
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcastle Guy View Post
In some cases, but IMO cutting down Bishopsgate was not required for historical protection. It would have worked better with the extra 20m. I agree that, at the moment, 400m+ wouldn't look right. But in the future it most likely will considering how much london's skyline has changed in the last 10years alone.
I agree here most definitely. In my mind I want to see just 1 or 2 400m+ buildings but know it wouldn't look right just now as we have a city full of mostly low-rise architecture dating back a long time. Even newer architecture in the last couple of decades of the 20th century was low-rise so if we were to have something at 400m plus then some more towers of 8 - 900ft would be needed to create a 'stepping' aesthetic so it didn't look ridiculous.

But yes the 20m would've looked great on Bishopsgate and I really can't see how it would make such a difference even in the context of CAA regulations. I mean, even from City airport after 3 - 4 miles they're up high enough so that we don't have these restrictions imposed so tightly!
RichW1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2010, 04:14 PM   #1094
PortoNuts
Registered User
 
PortoNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Porto
Posts: 23,920
Likes (Received): 7150

I think the all height issue in the city is just a conspiracy by the Heritage.
__________________
Got one head for money and one head for sin..
PortoNuts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2010, 05:53 PM   #1095
ThatDarnSacramentan
The Punk With the Camera
 
ThatDarnSacramentan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: PORTLANDIA
Posts: 8,604
Likes (Received): 40

So is this masterpiece of architecture finally rising out of the ground?
__________________
Everybody's out on the run tonight, but there's no place left to hide.
ThatDarnSacramentan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 26th, 2010, 02:46 AM   #1096
RichW1
In Pursuit Of The Future
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 176
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by PortoNuts View Post
I think the all height issue in the city is just a conspiracy by the Heritage.
You should see the e-mails I've been sending and getting in reply to english Heritage regarding their 'issues' with Peel Holdings Liverpool Waters and I have come to the conclusion you could be right!!

We should at least see some steal rising upwards from ground level by xmas
RichW1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2010, 07:47 PM   #1097
PortoNuts
Registered User
 
PortoNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Porto
Posts: 23,920
Likes (Received): 7150

I suppose they are just doing their part of the job, even if I don't agree with most of their demandings. Every story has to have a bad guy.
__________________
Got one head for money and one head for sin..
PortoNuts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2010, 08:28 PM   #1098
PortoNuts
Registered User
 
PortoNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Porto
Posts: 23,920
Likes (Received): 7150

by mattomatto.

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr
__________________
Got one head for money and one head for sin..
PortoNuts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2010, 02:41 AM   #1099
PortoNuts
Registered User
 
PortoNuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Porto
Posts: 23,920
Likes (Received): 7150

by lumberjack.

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr
__________________
Got one head for money and one head for sin..
PortoNuts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2010, 11:09 AM   #1100
droneriot
Urban Hermit
 
droneriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cydonia Mensae
Posts: 4,659
Likes (Received): 2612

With Heron Tower, the Shard and now this tower, London seems to be breaking one speed record after another, easily rivaling the construction pace of Dubai and China...
droneriot no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
britain, london

Thread Tools

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

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 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