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 September 3rd, 2006, 12:51 PM   #241
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3254

160m is a far more sensible height for this one... still perhaps a little too tall though
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 3rd, 2006, 01:28 PM   #242
european
Registered User
 
european's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,510
Likes (Received): 25

So is this tower approved?
european no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 01:38 PM   #243
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 38,334
Likes (Received): 13285

No, but a decision is expected very soon. I'm hoping they'll reject it... I think it looks awful. An embarrassment.
__________________
FutureTimeline.net...
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 02:50 PM   #244
Newcastle Guy
Registered User
 
Newcastle Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,096
Likes (Received): 317

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
He's not American he's Panamanian.



Anyways London is gonna have a kickass skyline in 10 years! So will Madrid, Moscow, Istanbul and maybe Frankfurt!

I'm impressed Europe.
I know, I'm just saying I think a better argument would be to compare the new European towers to new American towers to prove a point. The towers in europe are much taller than the ones in Panama, and in my opinion higher quality. And, there is alot more of them. That is why it is probably a better comparison, because so are the new American towers. If you know what I mean
Newcastle Guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 02:58 PM   #245
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3254

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjfox2002
No, but a decision is expected very soon. I'm hoping they'll reject it... I think it looks awful. An embarrassment.
You should work for EH Will

Seriously though, I think we're 100% in agreement about this one. As much as I try to appreciate the design, I end up just thinking it looks ridiculous... wackiness for the sake of it.

Many towers have made me initially recoil in horror before I slowly warm to them, but this looks a ludicrous as it did the first time I saw it.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 04:38 PM   #246
pricemazda
Titter ye not.
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 17,642
Likes (Received): 1384

I think councils should now be rejecting these 'visionary' towers and start approving ones which use different materials, like... oh remember stone? It seems we can only find glass to build skyscrapers out of.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 05:09 PM   #247
TallBox
Registered User
 
TallBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,122
Likes (Received): 421

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
I think councils should now be rejecting these 'visionary' towers and start approving ones which use different materials, like... oh remember stone? It seems we can only find glass to build skyscrapers out of.
Quite agree.
TallBox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 05:22 PM   #248
Zenith
Trainee Apprentice MOD
 
Zenith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taunton
Posts: 7,828
Likes (Received): 1537

Yeh rubbish isnt it. Oh well.
__________________
https://thezenithblog.wordpress.com/
Please visit my blog and any advice welcome.
Zenith no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 06:21 PM   #249
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3254

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
I think councils should now be rejecting these 'visionary' towers and start approving ones which use different materials, like... oh remember stone? It seems we can only find glass to build skyscrapers out of.
I'm not so sure really... Steel n' Glass is to the 2000's what concrete was to the 1960's / 1970's. Its just what's in fashion at the moment; in 10 years it will be something else... We will be left with a collection of 2000's-era steel n' glass towers which will represent the period in which they were built, just as we have the Barbican and South Bank to represent the period in which they were built. I think it would be a shame to start meddling in this evolution of architectural fashion... In fact I'm far more concerned about the loss of buildings like Draper's Gardens, Stock Exchange and King's Reach to reclads / demolition, we're actively destroying parts of our architectural heritage. Sure, at the moment we dismiss these towers as being 'ugly', but who knows how much we may be raving about the Barbican, Trellick Tower or South Bank in the coming decades, and perhaps ruing the loss of the aforementioned towers from the skyline.

If London's skyline was being overwhelmed by hundreds of steel n' glass creations then I think you'd have a point, but at the moment its not... Moreover one steel n' glass tower can look VERY dissimilar to the next one (e.g. comapre SwissRe with Willis or Broadgate with Tower42). As long as we have a bit of variety I really don't see the problem.

You can't build a skyscraper without steel or glass, after all!
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 06:58 PM   #250
pricemazda
Titter ye not.
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 17,642
Likes (Received): 1384

Its not just the towers that is the problem, its the developments at Spitalfields, Canary Wharf, and all those new groundscrapers, More London, all of them suck big time.

But I agree we shouldn't be pulling down all the 60's stuff either, it is a variety of styles that makes the urban fabric work.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 09:32 PM   #251
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3254

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
Its not just the towers that is the problem, its the developments at Spitalfields, Canary Wharf, and all those new groundscrapers, More London, all of them suck big time.

But I agree we shouldn't be pulling down all the 60's stuff either, it is a variety of styles that makes the urban fabric work.
Absolutely I have to agree that immense groundscrapers are the scourge of modern London... I think they're far more instrusive into the streetscapes than a skyscraper could ever be, and worst of all provide millions of square feet that could have been built in skyscraper form instead.

I quite like the designs of some (like More London), but buildings like Plantation Place, whilst 'high quality', look like utter shit to me. They try desperately to pack in as much office space as possible whilst trying as hard as possible not to be noticed. They scream mediocrity and give the skyline a horrible impenetrable bulkiness and clumsiness... skylines should soar, not slouch.

I think you're a bit unfair about CW... By far the worst tower is 40 Bank Street which attempts stone cladding... ditto the worst low-rises are the stone-clad pastichey ones built in the first phase around 1CS. HSBC, Barclays, some of the new low-rises and to a lesser extent Citygroup actually do steel n' glass rather well... In fact, the huge difference in appearence between HSBC and Citygroup illustrates how diverse steel n' glass can be.
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 09:49 PM   #252
Zenith
Trainee Apprentice MOD
 
Zenith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taunton
Posts: 7,828
Likes (Received): 1537



skylines should soar, not slouch

With just a few words tubeman you have summed up exactly what is is I hate about London at the moment, namely the groundscrapers(London is my fav city in the world by the way).
__________________
https://thezenithblog.wordpress.com/
Please visit my blog and any advice welcome.
Zenith no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 10:26 PM   #253
jimbo
Registered User
 
jimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Leeds/London
Posts: 4,673
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by zenith


skylines should soar, not slouch

With just a few words tubeman you have summed up exactly what is is I hate about London at the moment, namely the groundscrapers(London is my fav city in the world by the way).


I'm sorry, that is such a naive notion with regard to groundscrapers.

Its the same old argument over and again here. London historically has spread at all points of the compass - unlike modern skyscraper cities we're not constrained by geographical boundaries such as rivers, lakes or mountain ranges, (e.g., New York, Chicago, Mexico City, Rio, Hong Kong), and hence no need for vertical growth. You can't now place skyscapers willy nilly around an established city, and groundscrapers (as you call them) are simply the result of having a veritable shedload of space, and no major recent history (meaning in the last 100 years) of building soaring towers. The skyline is byproduct of the genesis of a city - most skyscrapers are found in relatively new cities, whilst those such as London and Paris clearly give a nod to their historic buildings and build towers away from such sites so as not to impinge (La Defence, Canary Wharf etc etc).

This hostile impression towards 'groundscrapers', really pisses me off. London has a relative huge amount of space available, groundscrapers must be cheaper to build and maintain, they provide the most functional, practical commercial space be it retail or office, and fit into the city without making a huge impact on its existing character. You can't simply go against type and insist that every new build is a soaring tower when the fabric of the city is already so well defined (apart from say, Canary Wharf - where we'll have the greatest preponderance of towers!!).

There are a number of superb 'groundscrapers' around my office - 25 Gresham Street designed by Nicholas Grimshaw, 10 Gresham Street designed by Norman Foster, 10 London Wall, by the same architect, and then a host of others around there - 30 Gresham Street - now Dresdner Kleinwort, the Schroders buildings, Rogers' design at Wood Street, and then further west to JP Morgan on Newgate Street. Even Paternoster Square has its merits. I really wish people would stop fricking moaning about them!!!!

Skyscrapers are coming, and are being placed logically where space is at a premium, where demand for commercial space is high, and where they make absolute sense with regard to the city's existing character.

pardon me, rant over.

Last edited by jimbo; September 3rd, 2006 at 10:40 PM.
jimbo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 10:51 PM   #254
pricemazda
Titter ye not.
 
pricemazda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 17,642
Likes (Received): 1384

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubeman
Absolutely I have to agree that immense groundscrapers are the scourge of modern London... I think they're far more instrusive into the streetscapes than a skyscraper could ever be, and worst of all provide millions of square feet that could have been built in skyscraper form instead.

I quite like the designs of some (like More London), but buildings like Plantation Place, whilst 'high quality', look like utter shit to me. They try desperately to pack in as much office space as possible whilst trying as hard as possible not to be noticed. They scream mediocrity and give the skyline a horrible impenetrable bulkiness and clumsiness... skylines should soar, not slouch.

I think you're a bit unfair about CW... By far the worst tower is 40 Bank Street which attempts stone cladding... ditto the worst low-rises are the stone-clad pastichey ones built in the first phase around 1CS. HSBC, Barclays, some of the new low-rises and to a lesser extent Citygroup actually do steel n' glass rather well... In fact, the huge difference in appearence between HSBC and Citygroup illustrates how diverse steel n' glass can be.

I find the HSBC tower so bland and dull, considering its their global HQ, it looks like a 'rent-a-tower' that you could find anywhere. It looks like Fosters brief was to build a tower that was cheap. The Barclays tower is even worse. There is a reason they are out at Canary Wharf, the costs of building a tower are lower than in the city, and Canary Wharf isn't so exacting when it comes to style, which makes it cheaper. HSBC and Barclays should be ashamed of themselves considering they are 2 of the UKs biggest companies and produce the blandest corporate HQs the world has ever seen.

I liked the first phase of more london, but the 2nd makes me wanna puke. Modern master planning seems to suck all life out of a city district/neighbourhood.
__________________
In Brussels no one hears you scream
pricemazda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 3rd, 2006, 11:07 PM   #255
Nout
AstroNout
 
Nout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nieuwegein (NL)
Posts: 4,222
Likes (Received): 1035

Good for London.
Nout no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2006, 02:23 AM   #256
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3254

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo
I'm sorry, that is such a naive notion with regard to groundscrapers.

Its the same old argument over and again here. London historically has spread at all points of the compass - unlike modern skyscraper cities we're not constrained by geographical boundaries such as rivers, lakes or mountain ranges, (e.g., New York, Chicago, Mexico City, Rio, Hong Kong), and hence no need for vertical growth. You can't now place skyscapers willy nilly around an established city, and groundscrapers (as you call them) are simply the result of having a veritable shedload of space, and no major recent history (meaning in the last 100 years) of building soaring towers. The skyline is byproduct of the genesis of a city - most skyscrapers are found in relatively new cities, whilst those such as London and Paris clearly give a nod to their historic buildings and build towers away from such sites so as not to impinge (La Defence, Canary Wharf etc etc).

This hostile impression towards 'groundscrapers', really pisses me off. London has a relative huge amount of space available, groundscrapers must be cheaper to build and maintain, they provide the most functional, practical commercial space be it retail or office, and fit into the city without making a huge impact on its existing character. You can't simply go against type and insist that every new build is a soaring tower when the fabric of the city is already so well defined (apart from say, Canary Wharf - where we'll have the greatest preponderance of towers!!).

There are a number of superb 'groundscrapers' around my office - 25 Gresham Street designed by Nicholas Grimshaw, 10 Gresham Street designed by Norman Foster, 10 London Wall, by the same architect, and then a host of others around there - 30 Gresham Street - now Dresdner Kleinwort, the Schroders buildings, Rogers' design at Wood Street, and then further west to JP Morgan on Newgate Street. Even Paternoster Square has its merits. I really wish people would stop fricking moaning about them!!!!

Skyscrapers are coming, and are being placed logically where space is at a premium, where demand for commercial space is high, and where they make absolute sense with regard to the city's existing character.

pardon me, rant over.
I'm not condemning anything that isn't a skyscraper as being a groundscraper, this is ludicrous. Hundreds of excellent lower-rise modern buildings have been built in London recently, of which you gave some fine examples. What sets these buildings apart from hulking masses like Plantation Place is they interact with and enhance their environments, groundscrapers do not. As I said before, groundscraper designers seem to be given the brief of getting every last square inch of floorspace out of the site without the building being noticed, somewhere like Paternoster Square it is evident that thought has been given to creating new public spaces and building on a human scale.

This is quite simply vile:

Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2006, 02:25 AM   #257
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3254

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricemazda
I find the HSBC tower so bland and dull
Others would say simple, clean-lined and high quality... each to their own

Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2006, 03:55 AM   #258
jonnyboy
Registered User
 
jonnyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes (Received): 85

love cw cause its square n glass....love the city cause its not....just love wondering round london and admiring the mixed views....the future??? london should go big BUT only in the right places(city,cw,eac,southbank?) cause victorian and before london viewed from london eye over houses of p over st james s and buck house with kensington n chelsea n holland park ,regents park etc behind is bloody world class and we must not detract from that. other than that ...go 4 it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jonnyboy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2006, 05:52 AM   #259
jonovision
Registered User
 
jonovision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Halifax
Posts: 485
Likes (Received): 1

I just visited London for the first time this summer and fell in love. It is my favorite city in the world. I loved walking around and just taking it all in. I loved the modern styles in CW, although for the most part it seemed rather dead at street level. With the exception of the very center above the mall. I also really like all the ground scrapers, sure there's probably a few in the mix that suck, but for the most part I thought they were supperb.
jonovision no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2006, 06:01 AM   #260
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 10,336
Likes (Received): 2261

Everyone acts as if groundscrapers are new inventions- They have been around since the big bang in the mid 80's & the reason why theres so many of them is because thats what most big investment banks want. You cant force companys into skyscrapers, as much as we would like to.

Look at Minerva - they couldn't get anyone to take space in the Minerva tower & are now re-designing as a groundscraper with large floorplates. Most of the firms in the city want large floor plates for dealing rooms & the like rather than having departments spread out over numerous floors. Like most types of buildings theres good & bad ones.

Its also worth noting Skyscrapers in the city having only been encouraged in the last 5 years- what we will see is more being built- DIFA,Heron, 122 etc etc are really the first wave of viable skyscrapers (apart from Tower 42 which was built over 20 yrs ago) to emerge in the city once Swiss Re was accepted into the city.

Its also a simialr reason why most buildings are glass & steel -which is the prefered building material for modern offices- They are cheao & easy to construct. Theres plenty of stone buildings still being built & again the quality differs. A lot of the city of London has been rebuild since the late 80's- the majority of which clad in stone. Not all are masterpieces & theres quite a few that are awful.
london lad está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
20 fenchurch, fryscraper, london, the city, vinoly

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 11:44 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