Number 1 Blackfriars | Southwark | 163m | 52 fl | U/C

***wjfox*** · October 15th, 2006, 01:59 PM

1 Blackfriars Road, Southwark SE1

Height: 163m
Floors: 52
Architect: Ian Simpson Architects
Developer: Beetham Organization

Links:
http://www.thebeethamorganization.com

Notes:
Originally proposed at 69-storeys/220m, this has now been reduced in height, and the footprint has been shrunk.
The building will taper in at the bottom to provide uninterrupted views from Waterloo of London Bridge Tower,
which should fit right between it and Kings Reach Tower. It will stand in a very prominent location, and a public
viewing gallery will be located on the top 2 floors, offering stunning views across the capital. The building will
feature a 6-star hotel and luxury apartments, each with their own internal conservatory space as with 1 Deansgate
in Manchester.

Monkey · October 15th, 2006, 02:20 PM

I like this project and I think the revised height of 175m is appropriate for the location.

DarJoLe · October 15th, 2006, 02:25 PM

It's a butt-ugly design, and made even worse with the height decrease.

The hump on the back is still too high, this needs to be lower, and the tower needs to be made 'thinner' from the east and western facades.

Given the examples we have of Beetham towers already built in the UK, I am confident in saying this will be seen by the average Londoner as the worst addition to the skyline in the last twenty five years, and will cause a massive backlash against tall buildings in Central London for years to come.

El_Greco · October 15th, 2006, 02:30 PM

I like it.Cladding is nice too.

Newcastle Guy · October 15th, 2006, 02:30 PM

To be honest, I prefered the height of the older design. A 'redesign' should not just be lopping meters off the top. I personally had no problem with the height before, now it has lost it's soar. My beef was just with the bump. They should have just made it smaller and lowered it. It was pretty amazing looking at the thin side, very slim. Now, not so much... I don't hate the design though, it could still be pretty good.

Jamandell (d69) · October 15th, 2006, 02:54 PM

I agree with Newcastle Guy, I didn't have many issues with it before it lost it's height, yet now it looks awkward being shorter. They should have left it as it is/gone for a much better redesign.

Bob · October 15th, 2006, 03:11 PM

I really liked the original design, but the location is awful. The height decrease makes no difference to how inappropriate a tower is at this location. The tower now looks stumpy. I pray this doesn't go ahead.

embe · October 15th, 2006, 03:25 PM

I had no problems with the tower itself, but the location is just wrong, and it sticks out like a sore thumb all on its own there.

jef · October 15th, 2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Greco

I like it.Cladding is nice too.

champagne. Previous design:

I do not really like the revised scheme either. I agree with Darjole.

LDN_EUROPE · October 15th, 2006, 04:37 PM

I'm not a big fan. I still want it built though and think it'll look better when the new cluster emerges.

mulattokid · October 15th, 2006, 05:57 PM

Do I like it?

I am happy to accept the odd 'too much makeup - but I can see why' to be able to announce my city has more than 7 buildings over 50 floors

***Tubeman*** · October 15th, 2006, 06:11 PM

I plump for 'like it'... I think the quality of the cladding will be vital to whether this is a good tower or an awful one. It looks great from some angles (e.g. the aerial rendering), and yet borderline awful from others (namely the sideways view labelled '2' in the before / after views.

With the original design and even more so with the redesign I still find the 'bump' too prominent. The height's about right though.

Skid-Mark · October 15th, 2006, 06:45 PM

The height reduction has ruined the proportions of this tower, it has not been reduced in a balanced way, just look at the angle's of the rear, it just looks wrong this height and in this location now, perhaps more suited to the columbus site, although i was fine with the original design.

elfabyanos · October 15th, 2006, 06:52 PM

I quite like it now. Sat on the fence for a while. If everythings done well this tower and swiss re and difa will have a diologue together in the curvy club, which will be unique to london, albeit as seen from a distance.
In some ways I prefer the redesign, specifically the bump looks proportionately lower now coz the lowest floors will be hidden, which to me looks better.

JDRS · October 15th, 2006, 10:03 PM

The shape is just awful in my opinion. If it was surrounded by other skyscrapers I'd be more positive towards it but otherwise I hate the 'bump' and the shape, and can imagine the cladding turning out cheap and tacky.

***Medo*** · October 15th, 2006, 10:09 PM

I can tolerate it, I can even grow to like it.

Gherkin · October 15th, 2006, 10:15 PM

Does the bump still 'bump' as much in the new design? I'm on the fence with this one, but I'd like to see another design for the tower.

TallBox · October 16th, 2006, 12:05 AM

For the size of the bump, it would have been worth building it to it's soaring height of 220m.

ismail · October 16th, 2006, 12:13 AM

I think it will grow on me, but still prefered the taller version

Ntn_Rawlings · October 16th, 2006, 12:34 AM

In my opinion, if its going to be tall they might as go all the way and make it 219m or whatever it was, i dont think its worth blocking the view of the city from the eye for a measly 175m. But i am a height addict.

View Poll Results: What's your opinion of this building?
Love it! Superb design, perfect height and location.	191	29.38%
Like it. Good design, and the height seems reasonable for this location.	235	36.15%
Good design, but it needs to be taller.	108	16.62%
Good design, but it needs to be shorter.	23	3.54%
Hate it! Awful design, unsuitable height and location.	93	14.31%
Voters: 650. You may not vote on this poll

October 15th, 2006, 01:59 PM	#1
*wjfox* Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: L O N D O N Posts: 36,145 Likes (Received): 913	Number 1 Blackfriars \| Southwark \| 163m \| 52 fl \| U/C 1 Blackfriars Road, Southwark SE1 Height: 163m Floors: 52 Architect: Ian Simpson Architects Developer: Beetham Organization Links: http://www.thebeethamorganization.com Notes: Originally proposed at 69-storeys/220m, this has now been reduced in height, and the footprint has been shrunk. The building will taper in at the bottom to provide uninterrupted views from Waterloo of London Bridge Tower, which should fit right between it and Kings Reach Tower. It will stand in a very prominent location, and a public viewing gallery will be located on the top 2 floors, offering stunning views across the capital. The building will feature a 6-star hotel and luxury apartments, each with their own internal conservatory space as with 1 Deansgate in Manchester. Last edited by wjfox; February 1st, 2012 at 11:17 PM.

October 15th, 2006, 02:30 PM	#4
El_Greco I Like Palm Trees Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 16,753 Likes (Received): 262	I like it.Cladding is nice too. __________________ My Photos : Lisbon\|Madrid\|Rome\|Naples\|London\|Rotterdam\|Fes

October 15th, 2006, 05:57 PM	#11
mulattokid BLAND Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: London Posts: 8,417 Likes (Received): 97	Do I like it? I am happy to accept the odd 'too much makeup - but I can see why' to be able to announce my city has more than 7 buildings over 50 floors __________________ Quote: "Everything in life is our fault...but that's not our fault" (By a friend of Quentin Crisp) www.jclodge.com (my singer sisters site) The headlines read: 'another footballer is charged with sexual miscontuct'! Is it pure coincidence that a mans Scrotum resembles a brain - requisite with both hemispheres, and its truncated spinal cord - always in search of sensation? (Mark Joseph 2008)

October 15th, 2006, 06:52 PM	#14
elfabyanos Dracuna Macoides Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Brighton Posts: 1,826 Likes (Received): 0	I quite like it now. Sat on the fence for a while. If everythings done well this tower and swiss re and difa will have a diologue together in the curvy club, which will be unique to london, albeit as seen from a distance. In some ways I prefer the redesign, specifically the bump looks proportionately lower now coz the lowest floors will be hidden, which to me looks better. Last edited by elfabyanos; October 15th, 2006 at 06:55 PM. Reason: coz I'm not paying attention to what I'm typing

October 15th, 2006, 02:20 PM	#2
Monkey Londinium langur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Londinium Posts: 14,616 Likes (Received): 1	I like this project and I think the revised height of 175m is appropriate for the location.

October 15th, 2006, 02:25 PM	#3
DarJoLe Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 15,663 Likes (Received): 394	It's a butt-ugly design, and made even worse with the height decrease. The hump on the back is still too high, this needs to be lower, and the tower needs to be made 'thinner' from the east and western facades. Given the examples we have of Beetham towers already built in the UK, I am confident in saying this will be seen by the average Londoner as the worst addition to the skyline in the last twenty five years, and will cause a massive backlash against tall buildings in Central London for years to come.

October 15th, 2006, 02:30 PM	#5
Newcastle Guy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Portsmouth Posts: 8,955 Likes (Received): 18	To be honest, I prefered the height of the older design. A 'redesign' should not just be lopping meters off the top. I personally had no problem with the height before, now it has lost it's soar. My beef was just with the bump. They should have just made it smaller and lowered it. It was pretty amazing looking at the thin side, very slim. Now, not so much... I don't hate the design though, it could still be pretty good.

October 15th, 2006, 02:54 PM	#6
Jamandell (d69) Rocking at Glasgow Uni Join Date: May 2006 Location: Glasgow Posts: 2,651 Likes (Received): 7	I agree with Newcastle Guy, I didn't have many issues with it before it lost it's height, yet now it looks awkward being shorter. They should have left it as it is/gone for a much better redesign.

October 15th, 2006, 03:11 PM	#7
Bob Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 2,321 Likes (Received): 3	I really liked the original design, but the location is awful. The height decrease makes no difference to how inappropriate a tower is at this location. The tower now looks stumpy. I pray this doesn't go ahead.

October 15th, 2006, 03:25 PM	#8
embe FuturePlanningConsultant Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Oxford Posts: 182 Likes (Received): 0	I had no problems with the tower itself, but the location is just wrong, and it sticks out like a sore thumb all on its own there.

October 15th, 2006, 06:11 PM	#12
*Tubeman* Jubilation Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London SE15 Posts: 18,105 Likes (Received): 311	I plump for 'like it'... I think the quality of the cladding will be vital to whether this is a good tower or an awful one. It looks great from some angles (e.g. the aerial rendering), and yet borderline awful from others (namely the sideways view labelled '2' in the before / after views. With the original design and even more so with the redesign I still find the 'bump' too prominent. The height's about right though.

October 15th, 2006, 10:03 PM	#15
JDRS Against ID Cards Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Manchester Posts: 9,823 Likes (Received): 0	The shape is just awful in my opinion. If it was surrounded by other skyscrapers I'd be more positive towards it but otherwise I hate the 'bump' and the shape, and can imagine the cladding turning out cheap and tacky.

October 15th, 2006, 10:09 PM	#16
*Medo* Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London Posts: 18,436 Likes (Received): 107	I can tolerate it, I can even grow to like it. __________________ If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities. -Voltaire

October 15th, 2006, 10:15 PM	#17
Gherkin actual gherkin Join Date: May 2005 Location: Leeds Posts: 13,723 Likes (Received): 156	Does the bump still 'bump' as much in the new design? I'm on the fence with this one, but I'd like to see another design for the tower.

October 16th, 2006, 12:05 AM	#18
TallBox Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,604 Likes (Received): 18	For the size of the bump, it would have been worth building it to it's soaring height of 220m.

October 16th, 2006, 12:13 AM	#19
ismail Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: london Posts: 1,966 Likes (Received): 2	I think it will grow on me, but still prefered the taller version __________________ I am the Law

October 16th, 2006, 12:34 AM	#20
Ntn_Rawlings Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Cornwall and London (term time) Posts: 254 Likes (Received): 0	In my opinion, if its going to be tall they might as go all the way and make it 219m or whatever it was, i dont think its worth blocking the view of the city from the eye for a measly 175m. But i am a height addict. __________________ Hewwo!

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: