Bishopsgate Tower - "The Pinnacle" | City of London | 288m | 63 fl | On Hold - Page 535

hifive605 · February 3rd, 2013, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickster2k

And this is I suspect what will happen. Total redesign, which will take a few years to get back through planning permission (and in the meantime either allow the developers to offload the project or bring in another name like BL did across the road).

I think we'll still get a tower here, but it will be decidedly more square and boxy (and there more cost effective to build) and will probably be around the 230 - 250m mark.

Also don't forget the planning permission and site guidelines practically dictate that what is built here needs to be focal point of the City, so I can't see the City approving a ground scraper or anything that is shorter than the current tallest Heron, as Potto stated I can see the City being quite firm on this.

Lets not forget 100BG is still a clear piece of land down the road.

it will have to be renamed them, since it would no longer be the pinnacle - maybe we could see a true pinnacle further out? expanding the skyline

gegloma01 · February 3rd, 2013, 12:07 PM

Well, we are not there yet.

RobertWalpole · February 3rd, 2013, 01:50 PM

The City is committed to great architecture. Every recent tower built there is fantastic. I doubt that any new design would stray from that gold standard.

ismail · February 3rd, 2013, 02:40 PM

It scares me to say this but, just one word comes to mind....

MINERVA

Please god Noooooooo

Zin5ki · February 3rd, 2013, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickster2k

Also don't forget the planning permission and site guidelines practically dictate that what is built here needs to be focal point of the City, so I can't see the City approving a ground scraper or anything that is shorter than the current tallest Heron, as Potto stated I can see the City being quite firm on this.

If you don't mind me asking, did the City issue these conditions explicitly?

aphw · February 3rd, 2013, 03:03 PM

Just why has this failed to get tenants where others have succeeded? Is it just poor marketing?

DarJoLe · February 3rd, 2013, 04:17 PM

Inefficient floorplate shape.

***SE9*** · February 3rd, 2013, 10:08 PM

My enthusiasm for this project was lessened by the redesign.

If this were happening to the original design, I would be near-horrified. As it's happening to the 288m version, my dismay isn't so great.

CornockES · February 3rd, 2013, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertWalpole

The City is committed to great architecture. Every recent tower built there is fantastic. I doubt that any new design would stray from that gold standard.

I agree. They've earnt my trust, for what it's worth, by approving some consistently first class skyscrapers in recent years. My hopes are still high.

Ebeneezer_Goode · February 4th, 2013, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Inefficient floorplate shape.

I don't buy it. It's not like offices use huge pieces of furniture or equipment, nor did it ever hurt the Gherkin.

Zin5ki · February 4th, 2013, 12:26 AM

A relevant article has appeared within the FT. Little is new, but some quotes have been provided for good measure.

DarJoLe · February 4th, 2013, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ebeneezer_Goode

I don't buy it. It's not like offices use huge pieces of furniture or equipment, nor did it ever hurt the Gherkin.

I explained why this is several pages back.

AXISPAW · February 4th, 2013, 12:12 PM

What's the chances of something taller being built? If a more simplistic design is considered ie much cheaper design with more floor space then couldn't they go taller? As memory serves the only reason the pinnacle had a height reduction was to cut down on costs.

gegloma01 · February 4th, 2013, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AXISPAW

What's the chances of something taller being built?

Nil.

AXISPAW · February 4th, 2013, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gegloma01

Nil.

What's your proof?

lumberjack · February 4th, 2013, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AXISPAW

What's the chances of something taller being built? If a more simplistic design is considered ie much cheaper design with more floor space then couldn't they go taller? As memory serves the only reason the pinnacle had a height reduction was to cut down on costs.

The previous height reduction were partly due to the flight paths coming into city airport. I still never got this as the Shard is not that far away. I think we can't rule out anything on this project such as height reductions/increase, floor layout, glazing and change of contractor.

gegloma01 · February 4th, 2013, 03:19 PM

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86c8c61c-6...4feab49a.html#

... Even before the credit crunch hit, the Pinnacle was ambitious. Planned in 2007, the corkscrew-like Pinnacle is estimated to cost about £1bn – more than double the £450m Shard, which recently opened near London Bridge ...

Arab Investments has launched a review into the scheme, which will consider “all options”, it said. This could include a scaled-back, austerity tower. The review is expected to take three months. It will make a further statement following the completion of this review.

The decision to reconsider the Pinnacle’s future comes amid a sharp slowdown in the London office construction market .... uncertainty over the UK economy are weighing on international investors who funded projects such as the Shard and the Pinnacle...The Pinnacle is an extremely expensive project, so the likely returns on the investment are much less certain than on a project like the Shard.

RugBurn · February 4th, 2013, 05:38 PM

^ wow that's a lot of money. I love the pinnacle but there might be a better design out there that's more economical.....something like the old design for the Minerva tower here would look great here and would suit the site foot print.... the city cluster definately needs a very tall here

***SE9*** · February 4th, 2013, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AXISPAW

What's the chances of something taller being built? If a more simplistic design is considered ie much cheaper design with more floor space then couldn't they go taller? As memory serves the only reason the pinnacle had a height reduction was to cut down on costs.

CAA guidelines prohibited the original version, as the cranes would have exceeded the height limit for that area.

The Shard is built on slightly lower ground, so the structure itself could afford to be taller without violating the restrictions.

chchdesign · February 5th, 2013, 05:03 AM

Hi everyone, I just thought I'd pop in and let you all know about a thread in SSC's The Barracks re the Falkland Islands issue with Argentina. If any of you would like to join the discussion and possibly vote in the poll which is asking if you agree that the Falklands should have the right of self determination or should they be handed to Argentina, then that would be great.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...56817&page=285

February 3rd, 2013, 02:40 PM	#10684
ismail Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: london Posts: 1,966 Likes (Received): 2	It scares me to say this but, just one word comes to mind.... MINERVA Please god Noooooooo __________________ I am the Law

February 3rd, 2013, 04:17 PM	#10687
DarJoLe Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 15,662 Likes (Received): 393	Inefficient floorplate shape. __________________ "I can quite confidently and with pride say that if everything goes to plan London 2012 will be the best Olympic Games and will surpass Barcelona and Sydney in terms of atmosphere, style and achievement. And not just about the sport. The whole city and its people will come alive and want to be a part of this. It just feels right." DarJoLe, May 19th 2006.

February 3rd, 2013, 10:08 PM	#10688
*SE9* South East Nine Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: South London Posts: 16,834 Likes (Received): 872	My enthusiasm for this project was lessened by the redesign. If this were happening to the original design, I would be near-horrified. As it's happening to the 288m version, my dismay isn't so great. __________________ SE9's photos on flickr

February 5th, 2013, 05:03 AM	#10700
chchdesign Keep it real Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Christchurch Posts: 320 Likes (Received): 25	Hi everyone, I just thought I'd pop in and let you all know about a thread in SSC's The Barracks re the Falkland Islands issue with Argentina. If any of you would like to join the discussion and possibly vote in the poll which is asking if you agree that the Falklands should have the right of self determination or should they be handed to Argentina, then that would be great. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...56817&page=285 __________________ "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those that mind dont matter and those who matter dont mind" - Dr Seuss

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:

February 3rd, 2013, 12:07 PM	#10682
gegloma01 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bruxelles Posts: 1,153 Likes (Received): 102	Well, we are not there yet.

February 3rd, 2013, 03:03 PM	#10686
aphw Registered User Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 115 Likes (Received): 1	Just why has this failed to get tenants where others have succeeded? Is it just poor marketing?

February 4th, 2013, 12:26 AM	#10691
Zin5ki Unimposing goose Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: London Posts: 77 Likes (Received): 12	A relevant article has appeared within the FT. Little is new, but some quotes have been provided for good measure.

February 4th, 2013, 12:12 PM	#10693
AXISPAW Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Aberdeen Posts: 835 Likes (Received): 5	What's the chances of something taller being built? If a more simplistic design is considered ie much cheaper design with more floor space then couldn't they go taller? As memory serves the only reason the pinnacle had a height reduction was to cut down on costs.

February 4th, 2013, 03:19 PM	#10697
gegloma01 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bruxelles Posts: 1,153 Likes (Received): 102	http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86c8c61c-6...4feab49a.html# ... Even before the credit crunch hit, the Pinnacle was ambitious. Planned in 2007, the corkscrew-like Pinnacle is estimated to cost about £1bn – more than double the £450m Shard, which recently opened near London Bridge ... Arab Investments has launched a review into the scheme, which will consider “all options”, it said. This could include a scaled-back, austerity tower. The review is expected to take three months. It will make a further statement following the completion of this review. The decision to reconsider the Pinnacle’s future comes amid a sharp slowdown in the London office construction market .... uncertainty over the UK economy are weighing on international investors who funded projects such as the Shard and the Pinnacle...The Pinnacle is an extremely expensive project, so the likely returns on the investment are much less certain than on a project like the Shard.

February 4th, 2013, 05:38 PM	#10698
RugBurn Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: NEW YORK Posts: 158 Likes (Received): 0	^ wow that's a lot of money. I love the pinnacle but there might be a better design out there that's more economical.....something like the old design for the Minerva tower here would look great here and would suit the site foot print.... the city cluster definately needs a very tall here