Wood Wharf: major expansion of Canary Wharf | 200m/187m/182m/154m | Approved - Page 4

***wjfox*** · October 25th, 2006, 11:43 PM

Some old renderings from a couple of years back -

AXISPAW · October 26th, 2006, 12:44 AM

id hardly say an arch is quirky and different. i do agree that wood could benefit from something different, but something thats not a blatent copy of paris. id rather see more of these slabs, so they have came to be called. i think the look of wood wharf looks different as it is with the smaller round residential towers, and the long slender towers that bend around them. just think if that arch was built we would never hear the end of it from the frenchy's

dronkula · October 26th, 2006, 08:46 AM

The French hardly invented arches.

The Wood Wharf one was completely different from the Paris one. It like the old argument about London Bridge Tower and that being a copy of the Transamerica Tower in San Francisco. Just because they're using the same geometric shape doesn't make it a copy.

Xander · October 26th, 2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AXISPAW

id hardly say an arch is quirky and different. i do agree that wood could benefit from something different, but something thats not a blatent copy of paris. id rather see more of these slabs, so they have came to be called. i think the look of wood wharf looks different as it is with the smaller round residential towers, and the long slender towers that bend around them. just think if that arch was built we would never hear the end of it from the frenchy's

I completly agree with you, thats what I always thought. Yeah sure the French didnt invent arches, but their La Defense development is dominated by that grand arch or whatever it is called. Lets not just try to do the same in CW.

Gherkin · October 26th, 2006, 12:49 PM

What exactly was wrong with the old Wood Wharf masterplan?

dronkula · October 26th, 2006, 01:58 PM

Here's the Arc de la Defense

The Wood Wharf Arch building was so completely different to that! Arc de la Defense is much more scuputural and taller. It's a very nice building and ok, out of the two, it is a much better building that the Wood Wharf Arch was going to be.

But, the arch was something *different* for Canary Wharf. It would've added a bit of character to it and made it interesting again. Now, we're just gonna get Heron Quays (Phase 2). Yawn.

Checking with the original masterplan as well, it also looks like they're cutting back on the amount of open water on the site. There were meant to be moorings and stuff under the arch. Now, the latest plan doesn't have anything there.

I suspect it's been changed because big businesses don't really want that sort of building though. They don't want to have to go up, across and back down again to get from an office on the 3rd floor, north leg to an office on the 3rd floor, south leg.

Shame. Once again it shows the difference between Canary Wharf and The City though.

Bob · October 26th, 2006, 02:15 PM

I much prefer the new masterplan. I hated the Dublo-esk half hearted copy of the La Defence arch (which is sublime). It would have been embarassing every day it stood, vindication for any Frenchman who thought our restaurants were all MacDonalds and our architecture designed to match. I also hated the way the water was laid out and the awkward continuation of the open space from CW through a swivel to end nowhere in particular. Utter shite. If there is to be a grand corridor it can't have a kink at the end!

To me this is the far more intelligent design. This is once again something to look forward to.

london lad · October 26th, 2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jef

It sounds the signature element - the arch - will be replaced by a tower. The redevelopment may be closer to this with an additional tower also opposite to 20 CP (green roof in the background):

Jef - where did you find this image??

It looks a bit messy to be a Richard Rogers masterplan. The quality of the image/massing doesn't look like Rogers either. Is this an early rough cut???

scraper · October 26th, 2006, 02:28 PM

I agree, the loss of the arch is not too dmamging to the proposal, and at least there are two extra towers to make up fot it, which bulks up the density by quite a bit.

Mr Bricks · October 26th, 2006, 04:03 PM

Wasn´t there suppose to be some kind of yacht too?

AXISPAW · October 26th, 2006, 07:20 PM

no the yacht is a hotel called the sunborn. it changes position every so often.

jef · October 26th, 2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by london lad

where did you find this image??

WSP. Summer 2006.

Quote:

Originally Posted by london lad

Is this an early rough cut???

Absolutely.

JDRS · October 29th, 2006, 12:28 AM

Shame. I rather liked the arch. I think it's a bit ridiculous to claim that we shouldn't have an arch anywhere in London because there's one in Paris. Density still looks good though.

delores · October 29th, 2006, 12:58 AM

I think the new masterplan is much better, but still the relationship with the dock seems to be missed again.
The Dock should pehaps be slightly remodelled/ landscaped and integrated with the buildings so as to relate more to the water and not just another unapproachable zone with railings as much of Canary Wharf has done.
The arch to me was a bit of a strange design and really more suited to somewhere like Dubai, but i do think there is an opportunity here to do something different to the Wharf's rather conservative approach to urban planning.

rickster2k · October 29th, 2006, 01:01 PM

I don't know what the height limit is at CW (I'm presuming around 230m / the height of 1CS), but I think the Wood Wharf site has great potential for another height limit tower to the edge of the site near the the water (dome side). Perhaps the airport would object, but a quality tower with a good design (something like Rogers tower proposed for the World Trade Centre site) would look great and give something different to the CW site, that and a few mid-rises, or perhaps on 150 - 200m tower would be good.

AXISPAW · October 29th, 2006, 03:20 PM

its a nice thought but they wouldnt do it because ballymore want the buildings riverside to be shorter than those closer to cw, for the reason it makes the view from the east(looking from the dome side) more inviting and approachable. well thats the main reason i think.

Pagwilliams · October 29th, 2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AXISPAW

no the yacht is a hotel called the sunborn. it changes position every so often.

No - that's at the Royal Docks. There is a proposal for a yacht hotel to be moored permanently across the dock from Wood Wharf by a company called Chrome Castle. It's twice as big as Sunborn

jef · October 29th, 2006, 05:53 PM

The new LBTH local development framework will be submitted to the Secratary of State on the 8th November 2006 (consultation: 6 weeks).

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/...aap/hr/iod.pdf

Here is a copy of what we usually refer to as "Canary Wharf" where

ID 51 and ID 52 are 5, 10, and 20 Churchill Place
ID 50 is 15 Canada Square
ID 5 is Wood Wharf
ID 1 is North Quay
ID2 is Billingsgate Market: the preferred use of the eastern part will be residential whereas the preferred use of the western Part adjacent to North Quay is employment/offices.
ID 2 is Hertsmere House/Columbus Tower
ID 38 is Riverside
ID 58 is Traflgar Way (the Mc Donald's)
ID 12 is Heron Quay (offices)
ID 57 i s 1 Park Place (offices)

and policies reg. skyscrapers:

Munch · October 29th, 2006, 06:12 PM

disappointed to hear that they plan on declaring One Canada Square as the 'best' tower there is and the best tower there ever will be in Canary Wharf.

OCS's position means it will always be 'the' central figure. I dont think they have to artificially limit the height (and status/quality/design) in order not to 'offend' the position of OCS.

OCS is a (high quality) mediocre tower, but everything else will required to be of a lower standard.

I think this is a shame and unnecessary.

jef · October 29th, 2006, 06:54 PM

I do not understand it that way.

I also agree with LBTH that 1CS must remain the tallest structure in the isle of dogs.

October 26th, 2006, 02:15 PM	#67
Bob Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 2,321 Likes (Received): 3	I much prefer the new masterplan. I hated the Dublo-esk half hearted copy of the La Defence arch (which is sublime). It would have been embarassing every day it stood, vindication for any Frenchman who thought our restaurants were all MacDonalds and our architecture designed to match. I also hated the way the water was laid out and the awkward continuation of the open space from CW through a swivel to end nowhere in particular. Utter shite. If there is to be a grand corridor it can't have a kink at the end! To me this is the far more intelligent design. This is once again something to look forward to. Last edited by Bob; October 26th, 2006 at 02:24 PM.

October 26th, 2006, 04:03 PM	#70
Mr Bricks Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: Helsinki Posts: 5,248 Likes (Received): 28	Wasn´t there suppose to be some kind of yacht too? __________________ Helsinki http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...516&highlight=

October 29th, 2006, 12:58 AM	#74
delores Registered User Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 4,562 Likes (Received): 24	I think the new masterplan is much better, but still the relationship with the dock seems to be missed again. The Dock should pehaps be slightly remodelled/ landscaped and integrated with the buildings so as to relate more to the water and not just another unapproachable zone with railings as much of Canary Wharf has done. The arch to me was a bit of a strange design and really more suited to somewhere like Dubai, but i do think there is an opportunity here to do something different to the Wharf's rather conservative approach to urban planning. Last edited by delores; October 29th, 2006 at 01:05 AM.

October 29th, 2006, 05:53 PM	#78
jef Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Brussels/London Posts: 3,362 Likes (Received): 0	The new LBTH local development framework will be submitted to the Secratary of State on the 8th November 2006 (consultation: 6 weeks). http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/...aap/hr/iod.pdf Here is a copy of what we usually refer to as "Canary Wharf" where ID 51 and ID 52 are 5, 10, and 20 Churchill Place ID 50 is 15 Canada Square ID 5 is Wood Wharf ID 1 is North Quay ID2 is Billingsgate Market: the preferred use of the eastern part will be residential whereas the preferred use of the western Part adjacent to North Quay is employment/offices. ID 2 is Hertsmere House/Columbus Tower ID 38 is Riverside ID 58 is Traflgar Way (the Mc Donald's) ID 12 is Heron Quay (offices) ID 57 i s 1 Park Place (offices) and policies reg. skyscrapers: Last edited by jef; October 29th, 2006 at 06:01 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

October 25th, 2006, 11:43 PM	#61
*wjfox* Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: L O N D O N Posts: 36,120 Likes (Received): 904	Some old renderings from a couple of years back -

October 26th, 2006, 12:44 AM	#62
AXISPAW Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Aberdeen Posts: 835 Likes (Received): 5	id hardly say an arch is quirky and different. i do agree that wood could benefit from something different, but something thats not a blatent copy of paris. id rather see more of these slabs, so they have came to be called. i think the look of wood wharf looks different as it is with the smaller round residential towers, and the long slender towers that bend around them. just think if that arch was built we would never hear the end of it from the frenchy's

October 26th, 2006, 08:46 AM	#63
dronkula Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Dublin Posts: 1,463 Likes (Received): 1	The French hardly invented arches. The Wood Wharf one was completely different from the Paris one. It like the old argument about London Bridge Tower and that being a copy of the Transamerica Tower in San Francisco. Just because they're using the same geometric shape doesn't make it a copy.

October 26th, 2006, 12:49 PM	#65
Gherkin actual gherkin Join Date: May 2005 Location: Leeds Posts: 13,713 Likes (Received): 147	What exactly was wrong with the old Wood Wharf masterplan?

October 26th, 2006, 01:58 PM	#66
dronkula Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Dublin Posts: 1,463 Likes (Received): 1	Here's the Arc de la Defense The Wood Wharf Arch building was so completely different to that! Arc de la Defense is much more scuputural and taller. It's a very nice building and ok, out of the two, it is a much better building that the Wood Wharf Arch was going to be. But, the arch was something different for Canary Wharf. It would've added a bit of character to it and made it interesting again. Now, we're just gonna get Heron Quays (Phase 2). Yawn. Checking with the original masterplan as well, it also looks like they're cutting back on the amount of open water on the site. There were meant to be moorings and stuff under the arch. Now, the latest plan doesn't have anything there. I suspect it's been changed because big businesses don't really want that sort of building though. They don't want to have to go up, across and back down again to get from an office on the 3rd floor, north leg to an office on the 3rd floor, south leg. Shame. Once again it shows the difference between Canary Wharf and The City though.

October 26th, 2006, 02:28 PM	#69
scraper Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 171 Likes (Received): 0	I agree, the loss of the arch is not too dmamging to the proposal, and at least there are two extra towers to make up fot it, which bulks up the density by quite a bit.

October 26th, 2006, 07:20 PM	#71
AXISPAW Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Aberdeen Posts: 835 Likes (Received): 5	no the yacht is a hotel called the sunborn. it changes position every so often.

October 29th, 2006, 12:28 AM	#73
JDRS Against ID Cards Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Manchester Posts: 9,823 Likes (Received): 0	Shame. I rather liked the arch. I think it's a bit ridiculous to claim that we shouldn't have an arch anywhere in London because there's one in Paris. Density still looks good though.

October 29th, 2006, 01:01 PM	#75
rickster2k Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Southampton Posts: 1,620 Likes (Received): 12	I don't know what the height limit is at CW (I'm presuming around 230m / the height of 1CS), but I think the Wood Wharf site has great potential for another height limit tower to the edge of the site near the the water (dome side). Perhaps the airport would object, but a quality tower with a good design (something like Rogers tower proposed for the World Trade Centre site) would look great and give something different to the CW site, that and a few mid-rises, or perhaps on 150 - 200m tower would be good.

October 29th, 2006, 03:20 PM	#76
AXISPAW Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Aberdeen Posts: 835 Likes (Received): 5	its a nice thought but they wouldnt do it because ballymore want the buildings riverside to be shorter than those closer to cw, for the reason it makes the view from the east(looking from the dome side) more inviting and approachable. well thats the main reason i think.

October 29th, 2006, 06:12 PM	#79
Munch Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oxford/London/Houston Posts: 678 Likes (Received): 1	disappointed to hear that they plan on declaring One Canada Square as the 'best' tower there is and the best tower there ever will be in Canary Wharf. OCS's position means it will always be 'the' central figure. I dont think they have to artificially limit the height (and status/quality/design) in order not to 'offend' the position of OCS. OCS is a (high quality) mediocre tower, but everything else will required to be of a lower standard. I think this is a shame and unnecessary.

October 29th, 2006, 06:54 PM	#80
jef Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Brussels/London Posts: 3,362 Likes (Received): 0	I do not understand it that way. I also agree with LBTH that 1CS must remain the tallest structure in the isle of dogs.