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

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Zaki

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.

London doesn't have a 'final goal' with its skyline. If you think it's building skyscrapers to satisfy a few Internet skyscraper forumers height 'n' density wank fantasy than I think you've misjudged London's proposals completely.

Originally Posted by Zaki

o ya? and how is that?? The current London skyline is pretty garbage

A 'skyline' is not simply 'who has the most skyscrapers' - it's about what makes up the drama, the flair, the panache and the movement of the eye across it. Skyscrapers help create pinnacles, but a constant blanket of them just creates a wall of urbanity.

New York has a fantastic skyline - as a 'whole' collective nature of the city. But taking that into acount, New York is just that - a skyline of skyscrapers. Hong Kong's is the same, the only dynamic addition being the mountainous region in the background. Don't even get me started on Dubai's.

London does not have a dense 'glass and steel' skyscraper skyline, that's obvious. But it still has a fantastic skyline made up of endless church spires, a 900 year old castle, a stonking great cathedral, various twentieth century buildings and a fabulous 21st century modern pinnacle of architecture. Every building built that pierces this skyline is noticed by its people and given its own sense of place and uniqueness. Not a lot of other cities have that, and that's why London's skyline is unlike any other, and will be in the future, even when it has absorbed these world class buildings into it's fabric.

If you think that skyline is garbage, well, you can't see the wood for the trees quite frankly.

[wjfox]

-- deleted --

[Tom_Green]

Originally Posted by weird

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.

I think it`s better to count the smaller buildings, too.
You don`t need to call them skyscrapers. You just count them to get a better understanding of the city and the amount of highrises there.


To the London skyline subtopic: I hope you know that London is one of the 4 most important cities in the world. If you really would realise this fact you wouldn`t be so easylie offended by the skyline comments. I am not a big fan of Londons skyline , too but this doesn`t make London a inferior city for me. Building skylines isn`t a strength of Europeans. I live near Frankfurt. I really like the city and i think we have many nice skyscrapers here but i wouldn`t call Frankfurts skyline one of the best in the world even if they would double the amount of skyscrapers. Same goes for London.

My defenition of the word skyline: The shape of a city on the horizont made by skyscraper.

[Newcastle Guy]

London is actually one of the 3 most important cities in the world. New york, London and Tokyo. The fact is that what will make Londons skyline great is the amazing quality of architecture and uniqueness of the buildings. When you look at new york today there are so many that it his hard to pick out a great building unless it stands really tall. Londons will be much more blatent on the skyline. Plus the way the towers are designed means they work brilliantly with the old architecture in the city. Plus London will have more then one, the many proposals are spread out over 5-7 clusters.

London doesnt NEED skyscrapers, but the fact that it is getting them of such high quality and in such a great quantity means that London will have europes best skyline in 2012.

On a side note I do like Frankfurt but it isnt unique- It looks to much like todays typical Asian or American city.

[london-b]

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.

Yeah, but that's if you masturbate over skyscrapers, there's far more that contributes to Londons Skyline making it great such as St. Pauls or example, a farmore impessive structure than so many skyscrapers I see proposed.

[carfentanyl]

Originally Posted by newcastle kid

On a side note I do like Frankfurt but it isnt unique- It looks to much like todays typical Asian or American city.

Have you ever been to the United States and Frankfurt? If yes, are you blind or just talking shit? I do not think Frankfurt is unique, but it's nothing like an American city.

And like a typical American or Asian city? Where are you talking about, how can you say that without trying to be funny? There's one HUGE difference between say like Atlanta, Houston or Denver on one side and Yokohama, Kobe or Guangzhou on the other side. Namely density!

[carfentanyl]

Originally Posted by newcastle kid

This is great news, London City, If it keeps going on like this for a while, will have one of the top 5 skylines in the world by the time i'm 30!

And how old are you? -85?

[Mosaic]

such a lovely building, really modern and glassy.

[london-b]

Originally Posted by Mosaic

such a lovely building, really modern and glassy.

Hang on, we haven't seen it yet!

[Mosaic]

Originally Posted by london-b

Hang on, we haven't seen it yet!

oh! hehe, I meant those pics posted on the first page, those were really great.

[Andrew]

My defenition of the word skyline: The shape of a city on the horizont made by skyscraper.

Erm ... your difinition of a skyline is not correct though. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'skyline' as:

1. a. The line where earth and sky meet; the horizon. Also, the representation of this in painting or another art.

b. The outline or silhouette of a building or number of buildings or other objects seen against the sky.

Whatever your idea of what a skyline is doesn't alter the real meaning of the word, that is an objective definition that covers a multitude of different cityscapes and even landscapes. What is subjective is a person's definition of a 'good' skyline, that depends on their personal taste. Your taste is obviously for modern, tall city skylines. Other people may prefer a historic skyline full of Church spires, others a mixture. A skyline is only 'good' in so far as we find it pleasing to the eye. As members of a skyscraper board the majority of people here will love skyscrapers but that doesn't mean that they love a skyline of skyscrapers more than an old or mixed skyline. In my opinion London has an absolutely amazing skyline because of it's diversity. I'm not interested in it having the tallest buildings, I want it to have the best quality buildings that add to the city'd character not ones that make it look like it could be any city on earth.

[vigo80]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Ridiculous comment.

No its not - its the truth. If all of the proposed buildings in London go up then London may finally get into the top league of the world's skylines but right now its a long way off from being one of the world's best.

[vigo80]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

London doesn't have a 'final goal' with its skyline. If you think it's building skyscrapers to satisfy a few Internet skyscraper forumers height 'n' density wank fantasy than I think you've misjudged London's proposals completely.



A 'skyline' is not simply 'who has the most skyscrapers' - it's about what makes up the drama, the flair, the panache and the movement of the eye across it. Skyscrapers help create pinnacles, but a constant blanket of them just creates a wall of urbanity.

New York has a fantastic skyline - as a 'whole' collective nature of the city. But taking that into acount, New York is just that - a skyline of skyscrapers. Hong Kong's is the same, the only dynamic addition being the mountainous region in the background. Don't even get me started on Dubai's.

London does not have a dense 'glass and steel' skyscraper skyline, that's obvious. But it still has a fantastic skyline made up of endless church spires, a 900 year old castle, a stonking great cathedral, various twentieth century buildings and a fabulous 21st century modern pinnacle of architecture. Every building built that pierces this skyline is noticed by its people and given its own sense of place and uniqueness. Not a lot of other cities have that, and that's why London's skyline is unlike any other, and will be in the future, even when it has absorbed these world class buildings into it's fabric.

If you think that skyline is garbage, well, you can't see the wood for the trees quite frankly.

Not a lot of other cities have that, and that's why London's skyline is unlike any other, and will be in the future, even when it has absorbed these world class buildings into it's fabric

So you think London is the only city with a mix of historic buildings and skyscrapers in its skylines, unlike any other. Listen London has a nice skyline, I would not say its one of best or even that it has one of the best collections of unique towers overall. Never the less there Its still nice and getting better.
Density isn't everything but it is one of the most awe-inspiring and visually impressive aspects of a skyline, so I wouldn't dismiss in the way you have also.

[weird]

Originally Posted by Tom_Green

I think it`s better to count the smaller buildings, too.
You don`t need to call them skyscrapers. You just count them to get a better understanding of the city and the amount of highrises there.

Yes, no prob. But, anyway, a 12+building is not a big one. I see 12+ everyday and they don't surprise me. In fact, in Spain 12+ are too common.

... I'm not interested in it having the tallest buildings, I want it to have the best quality buildings that add to the city'd character not ones that make it look like it could be any city on earth.

I agree with the idea. I guess all we want the same for our cities, at least, i want it for madrid. For example, KIO towers in madrid (puerta de europa, the inclined ones) are a symbol. LBT will be the same, a new symbol, like gherkin is.

... London doesnt NEED skyscrapers, but the fact that it is getting them of such high quality and in such a great quantity means that London will have europes best skyline in 2012.

The best, categorical I disagree in this point. La defense its incredible, for me, the most impressive european skyline nowadays. I like so much le grand arche
BTW, london, moscow, madrid and frankfurt, will have great skylines at 2012. They have now great proposals or u/c skyscrapers.
I read also about diversity.. well, all the this european countries have diversity, no? or just london? I guess all.

See ya'

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by carfentanyl

Have you ever been to the United States and Frankfurt? If yes, are you blind or just talking shit? I do not think Frankfurt is unique, but it's nothing like an American city.

And like a typical American or Asian city? Where are you talking about, how can you say that without trying to be funny? There's one HUGE difference between say like Atlanta, Houston or Denver on one side and Yokohama, Kobe or Guangzhou on the other side. Namely density!

I meant its skyline is more like an american city then Londons is. No need to be a twat.

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by weird

The best, categorical I disagree in this point. La defense its incredible, for me, the most impressive european skyline nowadays. I like so much le grand arche
BTW, london, moscow, madrid and frankfurt, will have great skylines at 2012. They have now great proposals or u/c skyscrapers.
I read also about diversity.. well, all the this european countries have diversity, no? or just london? I guess all.

See ya'

Maybe, nowadays. But now most european cities are getting skyscrapers, la defense just doesnt have the height or quality to keep its current status. I agree with you the grande arch is great but apart from that, nothing REALLY stands out.

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by carfentanyl

And how old are you? -85?

hmm, you're an educated little person who doesnt even deserve my attention. Good bye.

[dom]

Newcastle kid... tone down a little please.

With the skyline front. That the City has buildings ranging from St Pauls, the Tower of London, Tower Bridge and St Brides, medieval buildings such as the Guildhall and Tudor Buildings along Chancerly lane will make its skyline unique when these clutch of skyscrapers are built. You can't build history. That is London's ace up its sleeve as far as i'm concerned and I know of precious few cities that can match the old architectural stock of the City coupled with these new towers, many of which will represent the vanguard of the global architectural movement.

With regards to inactivity, yes, London seems to be a lot of talk and no action. What forumers need to remember is that London only got its first skyscraper in 1980; the Natwest Tower at 600ft.

It then took another decade or so for 1 Canada Square to be completed and at the turn of the millenium London had a miserly total of 2 skyscrapers, which, undoubtedly, is a disproportionately small number for such a large city.

Then the floodgates, as they say, opened. John Prescott gave planning consent for the Swiss Re Tower (completed 2004) and the Heron Tower public enquiry was given the green light too, much to the chagrin of English Heritage. Here's a short timeline of completed skyscrapers in London:

1980. 1 - Natwest Tower (600ft)

1993. 2 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square (777ft)

2003. 4 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square, HSBC (655ft), Citigroup Centre (655ft)

2004. 8 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square, HSBC, Citigroup Centre, Swiss Re Tower (590ft), Lehman Brothers (500ft), Clifford Chance (500ft), 40 Bank Street (500ft)

2005. 9 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square, HSBC, Citigroup Centre, Swiss Re Tower, Lehman Brothers, Clifford Chance, 40 Bank Street, Barclays Bank (500ft)

2006. 9 (no extra towers completed)

2007. 10 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square, Lehman Brothers, Clifford Chance, 50 Bank Street, Swiss Re Tower, Barclays Bank, Willis Building (412ft)

2008. 12 - Natwest Tower, 1 Canada Square, Lehman Brothers, Clifford Chance, 50 Bank Street, Swiss Re Tower, Barclays Bank, Willis Building, Pan Peninsula (500 ft), Broadgate Tower (540 ft)
-------------------

London will definitely have 12 skyscrapers by 2008 as the Willis Building, Pan Peninsula and Broadgate Tower are all under construction right now.

Predicted. Here things get slightly more speculative. This is what I personally believe will be completed by July 2012 for the Summer Olympics:

2009. (13) St Georges Wharf (592ft)

2010. (14) Heron Tower (794ft)

2011. (16) 122 Leadenhall Street (740ft), London Bridge Tower (1016ft)

2012. (21) Bishopsgate Tower (945ft), Minerva Building (810ft), Riverside South 1 (702ft), Riverside South 2 (600ft), 20 Fenchurch Street (650-680ft).

----------------------------------------------------------------

So London should go from being a predominantly lowrise city to a highrise one in a matter of 10 years. THAT is what I call development. In London building projects generally take a long time to get from planning to fruition. That has been the case ever since the Natwest Tower and 1 Canada Square with endless planning battles and heritage lobbies to get past. It is likely that most of these towers post 2008 will get built, primarily because there will be the demand to fill them and to get planning permission for a 1m sq ft building in the City of London will transform your property company from a bit player to a huge player. Its just a matter of when these towers pierce the skyline not if.

When all of these projects are built, the view from Waterloo Bridge will be one of the world's best. I can't wait to see it but we all know that we will have to be patient.

[-Corey-]

ohh tha's cool

[Zaki]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

A 'skyline' is not simply 'who has the most skyscrapers' - it's about what makes up the drama, the flair, the panache and the movement of the eye across it. Skyscrapers help create pinnacles, but a constant blanket of them just creates a wall of urbanity.

New York has a fantastic skyline - as a 'whole' collective nature of the city. But taking that into acount, New York is just that - a skyline of skyscrapers. Hong Kong's is the same, the only dynamic addition being the mountainous region in the background. Don't even get me started on Dubai's.

London does not have a dense 'glass and steel' skyscraper skyline, that's obvious. But it still has a fantastic skyline made up of endless church spires, a 900 year old castle, a stonking great cathedral, various twentieth century buildings and a fabulous 21st century modern pinnacle of architecture. Every building built that pierces this skyline is noticed by its people and given its own sense of place and uniqueness. Not a lot of other cities have that, and that's why London's skyline is unlike any other, and will be in the future, even when it has absorbed these world class buildings into it's fabric.

If you think that skyline is garbage, well, you can't see the wood for the trees quite frankly.

Actually the commonly used definition of skyline is related to tall buildings and though some churches may be tall enough to be part of the skyline most are not. You can have a different definition of skyline, thats up to you, but the commonly used defintion does not change. And anyways, with you defintion London still does not stand out significantly. Many european cities fall into your version of a skyline. And Istanbul under your defintion would have the best skyline in the world. But when the topic of skyline comes up, it is hardly mentioned. Why? because that is not the commonly held defintion of the word, thats just your take on it.