LONDON | 20 Fenchurch Street | 160m | 36 fl | U/C

[Tom_Green]

Originally Posted by newcastle kid

Hmm, and why exactly is that?

Because we are all skyscraper fans.
We love them. We don`t call the plans for a new skyscrapers a ridiculous act.

[Nightsky]

It is very good with a new skyscraper, but it is bad that they need to demolish another highrise.
I don't think the existing building is bad, since it has reflecting glass.
I prefer to add new skyscrapers instead of replacing them.

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by Tom_Green

Because we are all skyscraper fans.
We love them. We don`t call the plans for a new skyscrapers a ridiculous act.

WJ was just refering to how crazy it is getting with having SO many proposals in London. He certainly isnt anti-skyscraper

[Lance]

I think possibly a refurb of the current tower..... a more user friendly vase and crown would make it quite a nice building. If all the midrises go it will look like a wall of building... much like Canary Wharf is looking. We have a few new midrises though. Was walking past the hole that will be broadgate tower yesterday.... and of course lime street.

[Tom_Green]

Originally Posted by Lance

I think possibly a refurb of the current tower..... a more user friendly vase and crown would make it quite a nice building. If all the midrises go it will look like a wall of building... much like Canary Wharf is looking. We have a few new midrises though. Was walking past the hole that will be broadgate tower yesterday.... and of course lime street.

London has already over 1100 skyscrapers. This is a good starting base to build taller skyscraper.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by Tom_Green

Because we are all skyscraper fans.
We love them. We don`t call the plans for a new skyscrapers a ridiculous act.

Like many people on here, you're taking me far too seriously...

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by Jack Rabbit Slim

Can I ask what you do for a living wjfox...its always interested me what people on these forums do for work, and the responses are often varied and as different as each guy....I always get an image of you as an unidentifiable guy sitting behind a desk in an office block, ordering more coffee from your assistant while drawing architectural plans on a computer

I work for a medical journal near London Bridge, as a typesetter/artworker which involves designing and laying out pages in Quark, editing images in Photoshop, etc. then sending them off to print. I've done this kind of work for around 3 years but I've been using Photoshop for much longer - more like 8 or 9 years, since college really.

[Jack Rabbit Slim]

kool! How do you like it? And...what's the pay like?

[Tom_Green]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

Like many people on here, you're taking me far too seriously...

Aren`t you too long in this forum to make such weird thread title?

[Jack Rabbit Slim]

Originally Posted by Tom_Green

Aren`t you too long in this forum to make such weird thread title?

Dude...what is your problem? I think you seriously misunderstood the meaning of 'ridiculous' in the thread title! In this sense, as everyone else who came on this thread knew, the word is used as something of an ironic joke, and I would go into explaing this better but it would be lost on you no doubt. WjFox is one of the most skyscraper crazy blokes I've come across on these forums, and in no way does he mean that he thinks skyscrapers in London are a bad thing! You've just misinterpreted the thread title. Stress less my friend!

[wjfox]

It's great, I love it - the work is creative, varied and challenging.

Took me AGES to break into this career though. I was doing loads of boring admin jobs for years before I got into artworking. It was that old Catch 22 situation of "can't get a job without experience; can't get experience without a job" but somehow I managed to get into it eventually.

And the pay is fairly decent. Plus, I get to walk around the City of London at lunchtimes and see all the amazing architecture, old monuments, medieval churches, modern offices, skyscrapers, etc...

But anyway, ... back on topic.

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by Tom_Green

London has already over 1100 skyscrapers. This is a good starting base to build taller skyscraper.

No, It has 9 skyscrapers with two under construction and 36 proposed. If it had 1100, London would have the best skyline in the world. By a couple dozen miles. You are thinking of smaller buildings.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by Jack Rabbit Slim

You've just misinterpreted the thread title. Stress less my friend!

Yeah, totally!

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by Tom_Green

Aren`t you too long in this forum to make such weird thread title?

[Tom_Green]

Originally Posted by newcastle kid

No, It has 9 skyscrapers with two under construction and 36 proposed. If it had 1100, London would have the best skyline in the world. By a couple dozen miles. You are thinking of smaller buildings.

For Emporis is every building over 35m or with more than 12floors a skyscraper.

[samsonyuen]

Do you have one for Mac OS?

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by Tom_Green

For Emporis is every building over 35m or with more than 12floors a skyscraper.

Yes but the people that actually KNOW anything about skyscrapers would tell you the height starts at aroun 150m (500ft)

[Zaki]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Ridiculous comment.

o ya? and how is that?? The current London skyline is pretty garbage. Many cities have better skylines in their suburbs, travel around a bit and you will see. And yes there are some nice proposals on the line like LBT and they will really add wonderfully to the London skyline, but that doesn't make it one of the world's best. London will need a lot more towers before it can start competing with cities like NY, HK, Chicago or even Toronto for that matter. London's on the path of building a great skyline, but if the final goal is on the level of the top skylines in the world than this is just the start and it does have a long way to go.

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by Zaki

o ya? and how is that?? The current London skyline is pretty garbage. Many cities have better skylines in their suburbs, travel around a bit and you will see. And yes there are some nice proposals on the line like LBT and they will really add wonderfully to the London skyline, but that doesn't make it one of the world's best. London will need a lot more towers before it can start competing with cities like NY, HK, Chicago or even Toronto for that matter. London's on the path of building a great skyline, but if the final goal is on the level of the top skylines in the world than this is just the start and it does have a long way to go.

Obviously you are one of those people who believes a skyline is nothing but 150m+ glass buildings. My friend, London is SO much more than that.

[weird]

Originally Posted by newcastle kid

Yes but the people that actually KNOW anything about skyscrapers would tell you the height starts at aroun 150m (500ft)

I agree with newcastle kid
Skyscraper is not a building over 35m or 12+ floors. Be serious!
More than 12 floors? Emporis it's ridiculous in this classification.
If this is true, all the cities around the world will have any skyscraper!
But where's the limit? I guess 100+ its enough for call a building SS.

Originally Posted by Zaki

London will need a lot more towers before it can start competing with cities like NY, HK, Chicago or even Toronto for that matter.

Nowadays toronto's skyline arent one of the best of the world
I dont say that the skyline is bad. Its so pretty, especially cn tower. Also the sea do a great job. But not one of the best. I hope shanghai its over toronto, for example.

All the people around europe knows that london skyline won't be one of the best of the world at 2012, but london is making a great work with skyscrapers in a continent where skyscrapers arent too common.