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 > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



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 April 9th, 2007, 08:40 PM   #121
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,972
Likes (Received): 3251

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcastle Guy View Post
Well, if you aren't counting plant on LBT, you would have to also ignore the top portions of T42, Swiss re, St Helenes, and even Willis would become an under 100m building. Generali's cone is classed as a spire. I'm not saying that shouldn't be included in final height, I'm just saying IT IS a spire, not roof height (again I'm not saying it shouldn't be included in final height here, because we do exactly the same with Heron etc..) where as even though the Shard's plant floors don't have people living in them, they are still floors, and count as roof height. Thats how it is with all the current towers in the city of London, I don't see why the same wouldn't be afforded to the Shard, just because Generali is 251m to roof height.

And it's not the top third of LBT, plant is only the top fifth.
No, my entire point is that I am counting the top of LBT, Tour Generali's spire, etc... As I say its so ambiguous that its idiotic to not count them as being part of the building's height... All that should be excluded are antennae.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 9th, 2007, 09:00 PM   #122
LLoydGeorge
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,021
Likes (Received): 25

I didn't realize that this building was fairly short (i.e., 200M to the roof). Does London have height and area limits for each plot like NY does?
LLoydGeorge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 12:54 AM   #123
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,972
Likes (Received): 3251

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLoydGeorge View Post
I didn't realize that this building was fairly short (i.e., 200M to the roof). Does London have height and area limits for each plot like NY does?
To my knowledge the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) have imposed a ceiling on all of London City of just over 300m (LBT is as tall as anything can be). Nothing in Canary Wharf can exceed One Canada Square (235m) due to the proximity of London City Airport... The nimbys do all the rest!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 01:18 AM   #124
LLoydGeorge
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,021
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
To my knowledge the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) have imposed a ceiling on all of London City of just over 300m (LBT is as tall as anything can be). Nothing in Canary Wharf can exceed One Canada Square (235m) due to the proximity of London City Airport... The nimbys do all the rest!
So while there is a height limit in CW, there isn't one in the City? I was curious because the new buildings in the City -- other than the proposed Bishopsgate Tower -- are relatively short.

In NY, developers must battle both with height limits and with NIMBY's, whereas most US cities encourage buildings to be as tall as possible. In Chicago, the city and its residents cheer Calatrava's tower, but in NY, people would go ballistic and oppose it tooth and nail (even if the zoning allowed it).
LLoydGeorge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 12:41 PM   #125
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,972
Likes (Received): 3251

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLoydGeorge View Post
So while there is a height limit in CW, there isn't one in the City? I was curious because the new buildings in the City -- other than the proposed Bishopsgate Tower -- are relatively short.

In NY, developers must battle both with height limits and with NIMBY's, whereas most US cities encourage buildings to be as tall as possible. In Chicago, the city and its residents cheer Calatrava's tower, but in NY, people would go ballistic and oppose it tooth and nail (even if the zoning allowed it).
Re-read the start of my post! London City is restricted to 1000ft / 310m by the CAA, Canary Wharf to 800ft / 235m.

I don't know if they apply restrictions to areas further away from flightpaths like Elephant & Castle or Croydon.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 01:20 PM   #126
Newcastle Guy
Registered User
 
Newcastle Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,096
Likes (Received): 317

Eventually, when air flight becomes safer etc... and more accurate, I'm sure the height limits could be raised. This won't be for atleast a decade though, probably more.
Newcastle Guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 05:20 PM   #127
LLoydGeorge
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,021
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Re-read the start of my post! London City is restricted to 1000ft / 310m by the CAA, Canary Wharf to 800ft / 235m.

I don't know if they apply restrictions to areas further away from flightpaths like Elephant & Castle or Croydon.
Thanks. I only saw the part re: the CW restriction. If buildings can be constructed up to 310m in the City, why is everything, other than Bishopsgate, so short (e.g., Swiss Re, Willis, Heron, 122 Leadenhall)? Are there floor-to-area ratio restrictions and height restrictions that apply to each parcel of land as in NY? For example, in NY, an individual parcel's zoning might only permit a building that is 300 feet tall, but unused air rights from an adjacent tower could be purchased that might allow an extra 100 feet to be added.
LLoydGeorge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 06:00 PM   #128
snail456
Registered User
 
snail456's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Colchester
Posts: 509
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Re-read the start of my post! London City is restricted to 1000ft / 310m by the CAA, Canary Wharf to 800ft / 235m.

I don't know if they apply restrictions to areas further away from flightpaths like Elephant & Castle or Croydon.
Wasn't colombus tower 237m and that got planning approval and wasn't contested by the CAA.
snail456 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 06:02 PM   #129
LLoydGeorge
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,021
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by snail456 View Post
Wasn't colombus tower 237m and that got planning approval and wasn't contested by the CAA.
Is Columbus Tower under construction? I think it will be the best tower in CW by far. Unlike the City, CW's skyline is quite boring. It's just a bunch of utilitarian glass boxes.
LLoydGeorge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 06:07 PM   #130
snail456
Registered User
 
snail456's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Colchester
Posts: 509
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLoydGeorge View Post
Is Columbus Tower under construction? I think it will be the best tower in CW by far. Unlike the City, CW's skyline is quite boring. It's just a bunch of utilitarian glass boxes.
No its been cancelled because someone in the family of the developer died and the site was sold on...but someone could still develope it with the original tower if they bought the plans.
snail456 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 06:50 PM   #131
LLoydGeorge
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,021
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by snail456 View Post
No its been cancelled because someone in the family of the developer died and the site was sold on...but someone could still develope it with the original tower if they bought the plans.
Thanks. I hope it's built.
LLoydGeorge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 11:05 PM   #132
Newcastle Guy
Registered User
 
Newcastle Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,096
Likes (Received): 317

A model I did a few days ago for Heron Tower:

Sketchup Model

I know it isn't exactly accurate, but it gives a good impression of the tower

Newcastle Guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 01:15 AM   #133
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,972
Likes (Received): 3251

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLoydGeorge View Post
Thanks. I only saw the part re: the CW restriction. If buildings can be constructed up to 310m in the City, why is everything, other than Bishopsgate, so short (e.g., Swiss Re, Willis, Heron, 122 Leadenhall)? Are there floor-to-area ratio restrictions and height restrictions that apply to each parcel of land as in NY? For example, in NY, an individual parcel's zoning might only permit a building that is 300 feet tall, but unused air rights from an adjacent tower could be purchased that might allow an extra 100 feet to be added.
Well to be frank I get a little confused about it as well, because Bishopsgate was proposed above 300m but was then scaled back after objections from the CAA... And yet London Bridge Tower will exceed 300m a few hundred yards further south... Its nonsense really.

SwissRe was unprecedented being the first 100m+ building to go up in The City for 20 years, and it won through due to an exceptional design. The real test case, and floodgate-opener, is Heron. It could be argued that its original height was tentative and kept modest to improve its chances of approval, but it was then only scaled up by a bit, and even then without great impact on the skyline. Willis was in development while Heron was called in by the ODPM, so that might explain why its of very modest height... but market forces have also played a part.

We certainly don't have the strict zoning of New York, here it seems to be pretty haphazard.

Maybe someone more 'in the know' can explain, but a lot of it does seem pretty illogical.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2007, 01:30 AM   #134
LLoydGeorge
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,021
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman View Post
Well to be frank I get a little confused about it as well, because Bishopsgate was proposed above 300m but was then scaled back after objections from the CAA... And yet London Bridge Tower will exceed 300m a few hundred yards further south... Its nonsense really....
Thanks for the info.
LLoydGeorge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2007, 02:10 PM   #135
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 38,334
Likes (Received): 13284

Latest news is that demolition will be starting in July, with completion in December.
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2007, 07:56 PM   #136
Newcastle Guy
Registered User
 
Newcastle Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,096
Likes (Received): 317



And then 1 year of archeological excavation before construction starts, so it should begin proper construction Q1 2009.
Newcastle Guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2007, 04:00 PM   #137
Ralphkke
Carpe Diem
 
Ralphkke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: EINDHOVEN!
Posts: 1,183
Likes (Received): 2

Another great building!

Can't wait to visit London again after all the finished new buildings!
Ralphkke no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2007, 01:01 PM   #138
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 38,334
Likes (Received): 13284

From Construction News -

The chief of Skanska UK expects construction work to begin on the Heron Tower by the end of 2007. Demoltion is scheduled to begin in July on the scheme. At its peak, Skanska expects to have around 1,000 people working on the project which is worth £200m to the firm. As a result, Skanska will not be bidding for any of the major Olympic Contracts.
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2007, 01:34 PM   #139
Eastender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 311
Likes (Received): 4

meaning the actual construction won't start before 2009 ....
Eastender no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2007, 04:26 PM   #140
Newcastle Guy
Registered User
 
Newcastle Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,096
Likes (Received): 317

Yawn.

All of London City's projects are starting, yet you still seem to feel the need to come out with highly tiring and unnecesary remarks.
Newcastle Guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
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 05:42 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