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 > City/Metro Compilations

City/Metro Compilations Help report active highrise/urban developments occurring in your city to the global SSC community.



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 February 7th, 2007, 04:36 PM   #681
jonnyboy
Registered User
 
jonnyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes (Received): 85

Interesting article in today s Times newspaper regarding "one hyde park". The luxury apartments have been sold off plan for £4,200 per sq ft!!!!!!! Yolandi Barnes head of resedential research at Savilles is quoted as saying"These prices are all part of the global explosion in asset prices,but London is playing in a world market,not the uk.Traditionally, central London real estate and Manhattan went hand in hand, but over the next few years you will see London going ahead MIRRORING ITS DOMINATION AS A FINANCIAL CENTRE"!
Must be good news for future developements in the pipeline?
jonnyboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 8th, 2007, 10:35 PM   #682
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 38,334
Likes (Received): 13284

I'll be sending the petition to Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London) by the end of this week.

Anyone who hasn't signed it yet, please do so!

http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html

Many thanks for your support






__________________
FutureTimeline.net...
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2007, 11:44 PM   #683
svs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,500
Likes (Received): 12

The good news is that thing partially blocks views of the Gherkin, which I personally think is one of the ugliest buildings erected in any city in recent years. The bad news is it dwarfs St. Paul's one of the great buildings of all time and for me one of the major symbols of London, along with Westminster and the houses of Parliament. The new building is not a bad looking structure; just couldn't they build it someplace else?
svs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2007, 12:32 AM   #684
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 38,334
Likes (Received): 13284

Quote:
Originally Posted by svs View Post
The good news is that thing partially blocks views of the Gherkin, which I personally think is one of the ugliest buildings erected in any city in recent years.
You must accept that you're in the minority of people who hold this view. Look at the poll results -

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=93867

It's clearly the most popular skyscraper in Europe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by svs View Post
The bad news is it dwarfs St. Paul's one of the great buildings of all time and for me one of the major symbols of London, along with Westminster and the houses of Parliament. The new building is not a bad looking structure; just couldn't they build it someplace else?
I love St Paul's just as much as you do - in fact it's probably my favourite building in London. If anything, the Bishopsgate Tower will enhance it. By bringing more attention and drama to the skyline, it will make people sit up and appreciate London's landmarks more.

Times change and skylines evolve. You can't expect a dynamic city like London to stay the same forever.

It would be difficult to build the tower elsewhere, and besides, why should they? The Bishopsgate Tower is ideally located, being at the centre of London's main financial district and forming a pinnacle to the emerging cluster of skyscrapers. Without it, you're going to be left with a huge gap and a very "unfinished" looking skyline.
__________________
FutureTimeline.net...
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2007, 10:28 AM   #685
allan_dude
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,084
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjfox2002 View Post
I'll be sending the petition to Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London) by the end of this week.

Anyone who hasn't signed it yet, please do so!

http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html

Many thanks for your support
I’m not trying to be smart here, I’m not even a resident of London. For me, I guess the city planners could've done more in city planning. They should've committed one area of the city solely for skyscrapers away from the historical sites of London.

Last edited by allan_dude; February 9th, 2007 at 10:30 AM. Reason: Fix the quoted section
allan_dude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2007, 12:35 PM   #686
Myster E
Registered User
 
Myster E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,286
Likes (Received): 73

^ Believe me, it's more than just historical sites we've to worry about, it's the aviation rules which pretty much restrict building tall, it appears only Manchester and Leeds are the only major cities that don't have this problem.
The Gherkin is also a fine building, svs. You are entitled to your own opinion of course. I wonder what you think of the similar shaped scraper in Barcelona.
Myster E no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2007, 02:55 PM   #687
BenL
Registered User
 
BenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oxford, London
Posts: 1,638
Likes (Received): 4

I'll admit I'm repeating what has become something of a mantra from London forumers but what makes the city special is the juxtaposition of old and new. It has never been a planned city like Paris or Barcelona and so the fabric of the city is reflected in the fact we have a 300 year old cathederal less than a mile away from one of the best new skyscrapers in the world.

Canary Wharf is a planned skyscraper area away from the historic centre but as a result of being a planned business park, it has little of the atmosphere and buzz I feel in the City. It has considerably less prestige and so there is little demand for the stunning high-rise architecture which is required in the City if buildings are to be accepted.
BenL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2007, 03:22 PM   #688
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,362
Likes (Received): 11

Things shouldn't be exagerated though, BenL.

In Paris, you have the 210 meter-tall tour Montparnasse which is at less than one mile from a church which is more than 1,000 year old (Saint-Germain-des-Prés), and even not really further from Ancient Roman thermae. In Barcelona, the medieval district is built in close proximity to very modern district.

Of course, we cannot find in Paris or Barcelona the same juxtaposition of old and new as in London, but it's wrong to consider that urban planning prevent very different neighbourhoods to be located in close proximity of one another.

I tend to agree with Allan Dude, I don't believe it would harm London to concentrate its skyscrapers in a specific area. Now this being said, it's true that it's a matter of taste. I personally like better skyscraper clusters than sparse skyscrapers, and I of course fully understand that one can think otherwise.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 01:19 AM   #689
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 10,334
Likes (Received): 2259

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan View Post


I tend to agree with Allan Dude, I don't believe it would harm London to concentrate its skyscrapers in a specific area. Now this being said, it's true that it's a matter of taste. I personally like better skyscraper clusters than sparse skyscrapers, and I of course fully understand that one can think otherwise.
But generally that's what's happening. Most of the tall development is being clustered in the city of London & Canary wharf & a few towers dotted around the major rail terminals. Its worth considering London is a massive city of nearly 1000 sq miles so to just allow skyscrapers in 1 or 2 areas doesn't make sense IMO.

Alan Dude- The whole of central London is full of historical buildings and with the exception of Canary wharf there's no central business areas' which do not have historical/old buildings. CW was the one area where there was a blank slate so to speak & even here it cant expand much further than what's already got planning permission (North Quay, Riverside South etc) as it is surrounded by established residential areas that have been there a long time so its not as simple as saving build all your skyscrapers here.
london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 01:38 AM   #690
Zenith
Trainee Apprentice MOD
 
Zenith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taunton
Posts: 7,828
Likes (Received): 1537

Pls do your homework...London is concentrating in clusters
__________________
https://thezenithblog.wordpress.com/
Please visit my blog and any advice welcome.
Zenith no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 11:21 AM   #691
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,972
Likes (Received): 3251

Quote:
Originally Posted by allan_dude View Post
I’m not trying to be smart here, I’m not even a resident of London. For me, I guess the city planners could've done more in city planning. They should've committed one area of the city solely for skyscrapers away from the historical sites of London.
To an extent we have with the Canary Wharf Estate, but what you have to bear in mind is that 'The City' (the square mile that represents the original London) is one big historical site: there are ancient churches, sections of Roman wall, archaeological sites etc every few metres... It also happens to be the powerhouse of the UK economy too. It already was long before there was such a thing as city planning. The two facets (ancient city + modern skyscrapers) can and do live cheek by jowl simply because that's the way London has developed: its not planned. All that planning will do now is contain the high-rise area through protected sightlines.

Don't get the impression Wren churches are being bulldozed to make way for skyscrapers: much of The City was razed to the ground during WW2 and these skyscrapers are all replacing inferior postwar office blocks. In short, if you block skyscraper development in The City you aren't preserving anything of any historical significance, you're preserving a bunch of grotty low-rise postwar office blocks.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 06:58 PM   #692
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,362
Likes (Received): 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Don't get the impression Wren churches are being bulldozed to make way for skyscrapers: much of The City was razed to the ground during WW2 and these skyscrapers are all replacing inferior postwar office blocks. In short, if you block skyscraper development in The City you aren't preserving anything of any historical significance, you're preserving a bunch of grotty low-rise postwar office blocks.
If there is an opposition to skyscrapers construction in the City, it's not because they are supposed to replace historical buildings, but because their proximity to historical buildings dwarf those. Grotty low-rise postwar office blocks are maybe uglier than modern skyscrapers, but they don't dwarf historical buildings. By the way, nothing prevents grotty low-rise postwar office blocks to be replaced by beautiful modern low-rise office buildings. They don't have necessarily to be replaced by skyscrapers.

Sorry to remind this because it's rather obvious, but we won't go anywhere if we distort the debate. I am certainly not a member of English Heritage or any other opponents of skyscrapers in the City. Actually, I'm a great supporter of DIFA and Heron and I do believe that both buildings could bring a lot to the City. I simply wants to restore a bit of objectivity to the debate.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 07:02 PM   #693
pricemazda
Titter ye not.
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 17,642
Likes (Received): 1384

But those grotty post-war building and modern groundscrapers add nothing to the public realm.

Developers still want to maximise their returns on developments. This means if they can't build upwards they fill their space with the maximum amount of office space, this means no plazas, public space, or improvements to the fabric of the city.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 08:06 PM   #694
Zenith
Trainee Apprentice MOD
 
Zenith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taunton
Posts: 7,828
Likes (Received): 1537

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan View Post
If there is an opposition to skyscrapers construction in the City, it's not because they are supposed to replace historical buildings, but because their proximity to historical buildings dwarf those. Grotty low-rise postwar office blocks are maybe uglier than modern skyscrapers, but they don't dwarf historical buildings. By the way, nothing prevents grotty low-rise postwar office blocks to be replaced by beautiful modern low-rise office buildings. They don't have necessarily to be replaced by skyscrapers.

Sorry to remind this because it's rather obvious, but we won't go anywhere if we distort the debate. I am certainly not a member of English Heritage or any other opponents of skyscrapers in the City. Actually, I'm a great supporter of DIFA and Heron and I do believe that both buildings could bring a lot to the City. I simply wants to restore a bit of objectivity to the debate.
But most arent replaced by skyscrapers/high rise buildings.........I can totally understand your objectivity, but is it valid?
__________________
https://thezenithblog.wordpress.com/
Please visit my blog and any advice welcome.
Zenith no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2007, 10:14 PM   #695
TampaMike
Oh Hey!
 
TampaMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,040
Likes (Received): 952

I hope the petition works out for London Will! I wrote my name and alittle comment and hope that will help somewhat. Shard and Bishopgate is 2 amazing towers for London, creating a modern and wonderful skyline for 2012. I cannot see why Nimbys would want to keep London back in the Sherlock Holmes years.
__________________
Corporations Are People Too - Mitt Romney
For the People that dress up like Corporations.
TampaMike no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2007, 11:40 PM   #696
DarJoLe
Registered User
 
DarJoLe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 19,834
Likes (Received): 6363

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan View Post
Grotty low-rise postwar office blocks are maybe uglier than modern skyscrapers, but they don't dwarf historical buildings.
Actually I'd say most of them do. You can't see any of the church spires in the City like you used to before the 1950s boom, mainly because of these butt ugly space hogging groundscraper lumps.

The same amount of office space can be contained in one slim tall tower, and probably allow the view of the spires to be maintained.
DarJoLe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2007, 10:57 AM   #697
Mr Bricks
Registered User
 
Mr Bricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 6,350
Likes (Received): 893

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjfox2002 View Post
I love this pic, Bishopsgate looks awesome. Would be nice to see the low-rise to the right demolished so that one could see Tate Modern and Axa Tower(?) properly.
Mr Bricks no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2007, 05:04 PM   #698
NothingBetterToDo
Better To Do Nothing
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 10,481
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolitan View Post
Grotty low-rise postwar office blocks are maybe uglier than modern skyscrapers, but they don't dwarf historical buildings. By the way, nothing prevents grotty low-rise postwar office blocks to be replaced by beautiful modern low-rise office buildings. They don't have necessarily to be replaced by skyscrapers.
Oh on the contrary - it is these grotty low rise, post war buildings that overshadow and cause the most damage to the historic buildings. Just look at the river front of the square mile and tell me what hides the spires of Wrens churches most - the concrete low rise crap, or the tall buildings (you will find its the low rise stuff).

And 'beautiful modern low rise office buildings' is wishful thinking on the most part developers and businesses are greedy and money hungry, they will shoe-horn buildings onto a site maximising all possible space so that you end up with overbearing boxes, usually clad in the same old glass and stainless steel.

Well designed tall buildings (and in London's case skyscrapers have to pass more stringent planning rules than groundscrapers) are able to stand back and are usually not squashed into a site, this allows space around their base and gives the appearance that they are giving way to the historic buildings at ground level.
__________________
My Pictures:
London - Amsterdam - Copenhagen - Berlin - Oslo - Bergen - Prague - Dublin
NothingBetterToDo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2007, 11:50 PM   #699
Metropolitan
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,362
Likes (Received): 11

Some points which should be clear :

1. I'm not English Heritage so loose the attitude.
2. The question I was answering wasn't about what causes damage to the historic buildings according to you, but what causes damage to the historic buildings according to English Heritage. And their complaint is about historic buildings getting dwarfed by skyscrapers.
3. If you want to debate with English Heritage, here's their e-mail : [email protected]

Tubeman implied that English Heritage considered historic buildings would be destroyed to be replaced by skyscrapers. I've been enough stupid to simply restore facts about their position as it is. And only because of this, half a dozen londoners are assaulting me as if it was my opinion ! The only thing that I know now is that I'll never again post in this thread.

Come on dudes !

EDIT: Sorry but I would like simply to repeat that it's obvious to me that Leadenhall or Bishopsgate would bring a lot to the City.

Last edited by Metropolitan; February 13th, 2007 at 12:44 AM.
Metropolitan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2007, 02:16 AM   #700
Munch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oxford/London/Houston
Posts: 673
Likes (Received): 1

Canary Wharf - Devoid of remaining historic fabric. Entirely modern, main 'all skyscraper' area of London.

The City - The historic and traditional business core of London. The most spectacular collection of ancient and stunningly modern architecture all striving to impress and fighting for attention.

The West End - Architecturally celebrated and historic area of London (relatively) devoid of of skyscrapers.

That's the general West-City-East spectrum. Although this can be expanded upon by including the mish mash of the Southbank etc.

The Southbank - Architecturally experimental part of London. Driven by different factors, more cultural and artistic, than those driving modern developments in The City and Canary Wharf.
Munch no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
development, england, london, united kingdom

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 11:08 PM.


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