100 Bishopsgate | City of London | 172m | 40 fl | Demo

[potto]

for my 2 pence worth both 100 bishopsgate and plantation place make for a poor skyline, one we have to live with the other, well we have a choice! Both are mis-used polyfiller!

[jef]

we have some time left before it eventually starts.
After 2011 they say.
Guess 2015.

[Jack Rabbit Slim]

I think some people here are being a bit overly negative about this tower. I for one think it is just what the City needs. Potto says it is a "mis-used polyfiller", well I think the City needs a 'filling-in' kinda skyscraper.

Originally Posted by archelon

it just looks a bit..... normal compared to what were used to.

Agaian, this touches on the same point, I think it is ok, or even neccessary, for the City cluster to have some normal looking skyscrapers. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore the unique designs of Bish, Leadenhall, Willis, Heron....LBT (not in the city cluster I know, but you get what I mean).

I think 100 Bishopsgate will add a a nice extra bit of density, while at the same time providing a nice looking tower to go with the rest!

[potto]

how can you think the city needs filling in?!?! What nonsense. There is a strict height limit in place now, of about 300m, this makes it more vital that we protect the imminent soar factor and delicate skyline created by the up and coming big projects. The City isnt large enough for infill and if we proceed to infill the intricacies between the peaks it will look like a tumour. Go down to the southbank and picture the scene today, it isnt that attractive, now imagine that unattractiive landscape just doubled in height, thats what we'll end up with proposals like this. The pro infill crowd just want to turn London into another Asian city or Manhatten.

[jef]

Originally Posted by potto

the soar factor and delicate skyline created needs protecting ... The pro infill crowd just want to turn London into another Asian city or Manhatten

Oh yes, I so much agree with you.

[JGG]

Originally Posted by potto

how can you think the city needs filling in?!?! What nonsense. There is a strict height limit in place now, the soar factor and delicate skyline created needs protecting. The City isnt big enough for infill otherwise it will look like a tumour. Go down to the southbank and picture the scene today, it isnt that attractive, now imagine that unattractiive landscape just doubled in height, thats what we'll end up with proposals like this. The pro infill crowd just want to turn London into another Asian city or Manhatten

I could not agree more.

[wiki]

amazing tower

[Jack Rabbit Slim]

Originally Posted by potto

how can you think the city needs filling in?!?! What nonsense. There is a strict height limit in place now, of about 300m, this makes it more vital that we protect the imminent soar factor and delicate skyline created by the up and coming big projects. The City isnt large enough for infill and if we proceed to infill the intricacies between the peaks it will look like a tumour. Go down to the southbank and picture the scene today, it isnt that attractive, now imagine that unattractiive landscape just doubled in height, thats what we'll end up with proposals like this. The pro infill crowd just want to turn London into another Asian city or Manhatten.

Calm yourself down mate, take a chill pill, cool in the pool, stress less....you've sort of misenterpreted what I said.

I'm certainly not saying London needs to start constructing lots of filler skyscrapers just for the sake of it, that wouldn't be right. But there is nothing wrong at all with having a tower like 100 Bish in there, because it is a nice looking design, that, while deffinietly not boring or boxy, is fairly simple and normal, and I think you need to have some normality to a cluster like the City, or else you'd just have a mismatched, higledy-pigledy bunch of towers, all attempting to be iconic, while at the same time fit in with eachother.

I like 100 Bish's design, that's all I'm saying, and I think it is a nice addition to the City cluster, as it is able to be unique looking without being overly wierd and 'wanna-be' iconic like 20 Fenchurch street!

[AXISPAW]

Originally Posted by Jack Rabbit Slim

Calm yourself down mate, take a chill pill, cool in the pool, stress less....you've sort of misenterpreted what I said.

I'm certainly not saying London needs to start constructing lots of filler skyscrapers just for the sake of it, that wouldn't be right. But there is nothing wrong at all with having a tower like 100 Bish in there, because it is a nice looking design, that, while deffinietly not boring or boxy, is fairly simple and normal, and I think you need to have some normality to a cluster like the City, or else you'd just have a mismatched, higledy-pigledy bunch of towers, all attempting to be iconic, while at the same time fit in with eachother.

I like 100 Bish's design, that's all I'm saying, and I think it is a nice addition to the City cluster, as it is able to be unique looking without being overly wierd and 'wanna-be' iconic like 20 Fenchurch street!

i completely agree with you. i think this tower will benifit the city as you say. i also agree that if there are too many "iconic" towers, so to say, then the possibility arises that the cluster will look more messy than unique. although i agree with you, i must add though that perhaps the design needs a little refinemeant. which isn't a bad thing at all. just means that there is room for improvement. because no matter how simple a design is, it is still london after all and even the simple designs should be of great quality.

[Monters]

I tend to agree with potto that the "soar factor" is more important than density.

I like the way that you can see most of London's skyscrapers in full, from the first couple of floors up, on the skyline.

Surrounding them with mid rise stuff is not the way to go.

I'm all in favour of 122 Leadenhall - I'd rather it were somewhere else in the City but it's so freakin' SEXY I'd have take it anywhere - Heron, the Shard and Bishopsgate. but beyond that, things need to be thought out. I'd rather they built skyscrapers with a bit of space between them, and kept the "soar".

Just my opinion

The South Bank needs towers too btw. The opposition to the glorious Doon St is daft IMO.

[JGG]

Originally Posted by Monters

The South Bank needs towers too btw. The opposition to the glorious Doon St is daft IMO.

I very much like the Doon Street design - indeed a very high quality tower. But I think it is in the wrong place. If there is a cluster around E&C one should build scrapers from there outwards. I am a strong believer in the cluster approach. it will make the London skyline much more interesting than having a scraper here and there. I think the Doon Street tower would go very well on the site of 20 FC.

[Monters]

DOn't you wish they'd turned Paddington Basin into a cluster of 'scrapers?

I quite liked the sixties/seventies approach - a towe here, a tower there. Centrepoint, Euston Tower, the Pirelli tower thing at Victoria, King's Reach, LWT, Guy's, BT Tower, 99 Bishopsgate, Britannic House/Citypoint, NatWest...

It's nice to have a cluster but it's also nice to have no neighbourhood without a skyscraper. Even Collier's Wood has got one!

[london lad]

Originally Posted by Monters

DOn't you wish they'd turned Paddington Basin into a cluster of 'scrapers?


It's nice to have a cluster but it's also nice to have no neighbourhood without a skyscraper. Even Collier's Wood has got one!

There was originally 2 40+ towers planned- one by Rogers & the other by Grimshaw by Westminster complained that they would ruin the view & tranquility from the royal parks, conveniently forgetting you can already see the park lane & kensington barracks towers amongst others on the skyline.

With regard this tower- I still feel its a wasted oppotunity. The site is ideal for a pinnacle on the scale of Bishopsgate especially as it will be surrounded by Heron, Bishopsgate & Swiss re. Instead , with its flat roof it just merges into a large blank wall into Heron & Tower 42. They could easily have doubled the height & increased space at ground level rather than add a large groundscraper element to this scheme. In fact the sites large enough for 2 towers, 1 on the conrer of bishopsgate & one further downcamomile st. & still have room for some public space in between.

Why couldn't they have a least had it tappering up to a pinnacle or added a spire.



It would look a lot better on the skyine if it was something like this so it would relate better to Bish & 122 LH( apology for my crude paint drawing ).



Still it wont start till 2011 at the earliest so there's plenty of time to redesign it.

[jef]

Originally Posted by london lad

Still it wont start till 2011 at the earliest so there's plenty of time to redesign it.

That's my thinking too.

[wjfox]

That view you're showing is from the balcony on St Paul's, which won't be seen by that many people. Like I said - in the really important views (Waterloo Bridge and the South Bank), it will be almost completely obscured by Tower 42 and the Exchange Tower.

[london lad]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

That view you're showing is from the balcony on St Paul's, which won't be seen by that many people. Like I said - in the really important views (Waterloo Bridge and the South Bank), it will be almost completely obscured by Tower 42 and the Exchange Tower.

This is the view from Waterloo- Its almost the same as the one posted- It will still be seen -it just merges into a mass of buildings with tower 42 & Heron

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov...=&pageCount=66

The view of this from the Southbank isn't much better -looks like a bigger version of Plantation place.

http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov...=&pageCount=66

[eXSBass]

To be honest, I don't think it's a bad design. It would look perfect in Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf needs these type of scrapers, something with linear angles.
The trouble with the city is nearly everything you see there is curvy or has some type of modern 22nd century design to it. The only one that gets away with it is Tower 42, but then that's the exception because the new towers are built around that.

I think the devlopers are going the right way about it. They've got the height spot on in my opinion. And they're complementing Tower 42 and thinking of the skyline not to be too flat. However, what would add to this tower are spires, or antennea's to complement Heron and to add to London's Gothic-esque style.
In all, I think it does need a redesign, but, it's not as people think it is.

[potto]

Originally Posted by Jack Rabbit Slim

....Im certainly not saying London needs to start constructing lots of filler skyscrapers just for the sake of it...

Im concerned that after all the hard effort everyone has gone through to get the current towers through that this is a sign of a turn in strategy, filler by stealth! To me this tower is an ominous change, lets face it I doubt the developer would dare have proposed this if the other projects were not put forward, it would have been laughed out of the doors and thrown to Canary Wharf! Filler at street level works fine but not on the skyline of the historical City of London! Please, its only a square mile...

personally i would rather they try to challenge the the skyline in another area rather than start to fill in the safe zone, be challenging and creative like they were doing a couple of years ago! Thats why I had a soft spot for Funchurch street.

[archelon]

It's not an awful skyscraper, but it does seem to be a bit of a 'filler' type scheme - i don't hate it i just think its a tad bland, boxy and playing on the safe side so it will deffinitely get built. I think it's a little like a New York style scraper that just blends into the background of other scrapers but no one will really love or hate.

It's a mediocre tower and i don't think London is ready for mediocrity - it's certainly not what we're used to (apart from the bank street towers of canary wharf of course -*pukes*). It would't be a disaster if it was built but i think it needs to be snazzed up a bit - i'm not asking for glitsy Dubai but i don't want boring manhattan either.

[Fragmentor]

I think it's just the sort of tower that should be going just to the left of Heron in this pic:



Maybe with the kind of gap Bish has next to Leadenhall, but I doubt viewing corridors would allow this?