daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > London Metro Area > The Construction Forum

The Construction Forum For everything tall going up in London right now.



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: What's your opinion of this building?
Love it! Superb design, perfect height and location. 210 28.49%
Like it. Good design, and the height seems reasonable for this location. 261 35.41%
Good design, but it needs to be taller. 137 18.59%
Good design, but it needs to be shorter. 24 3.26%
Hate it! Awful design, unsuitable height and location. 105 14.25%
Voters: 737. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 37 votes, 5.00 average.
Old October 16th, 2006, 02:52 AM   #21
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,764
Likes (Received): 485

I still like the design but I feel it has lost its soar from the previous 220m scheme. I dont see much point in cutting the height from 220 to 175 as it will still be quite dominant in the majority of views & looks like it was done such to appease Westminster which is a typical London & UK thing - Cut a buildings height & compromise the design to appease a few people who hate all things tall.

Although it has been cut in height it wont be stumpy as this, being a residential tower does not have large office floor plates. This will be taller than 201 BG but nowhere near as bulky. I dont think the cladding will be an issue either. This will be double skinned & bearing in mind this will be a 6* hotel & will have some very expensive residential flats I would seriously doubt this will be done on the cheap & look tacky. There seems to be a ceratin amount of snobbery with regard to Beetham buildings. Having seen the Manchester tower in person I did not find the cladding cheap at all & if you went on the Liverpool or Manc subforum you wont find many saying the claddings cheap.The Birmingham tower looks ok from the front, a little strange at the back but still decent overall. Apart from Ballymore there arn't many developers in the UK building tall residential buildings that have groundbreaking high quality designs. Beethams might not be as good as Ballymores SOM designed towers but they are still pretty good IMO.

The site for Blackfriars is perfect for a tall residential tower & if the Land Secs tower next door finally sees the light of day & goes in for planning they both compliment each other rather well.
london lad está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old October 16th, 2006, 10:48 AM   #22
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,937
Likes (Received): 1940

Positives

Looks elegent from most angles
Immensely Improves the vast lacklustre bulk already there
Reinvigorates the potential for South of the river
Keeps the idea of a fluid London alive
joining the ranks of a type of architecture that could symbolise London in the coming century rather than rehashing N.America or turning to Asian kitsh

Lots of Residential in the heart of London
Boost to Londons Hotel Market


Negatives

Not heard of a wider vision yet for this area

lost its soar from side angle after pruning by the planning depts
I think I would have gone with idea of aadding a new feature on the Horse Guards skyline rather than the height decrease, but oh well!

Height Decrease means that if the other proposals get built this area could end up just gaining bulk height rather than the much needed elegence... this is a valid counter arguement to Westminsters insistence of buildings not encroaching on the horse guard view... we could end up with another stumpy cluster to go along with that of Canary Wharf and by the looks of the way things are going, The City too!
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2006, 03:52 PM   #23
liveforever
Registered User
 
liveforever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 150
Likes (Received): 0

I agree with Skid Mark. The height reduction makes it look somewhat stumpy and doesn't work. Much prefered the original. I'm not convinced on the location either. The overall design is slowly growing on me, much better than any of the other Beethams currently going up around the country. This building would look great in any city around the UK with the intention of increasing it's height profile. I know on the Sheffield forum the consensus for tall proposals is usually 'It's not ideal but it'll do', but London is a completely different kettle of fish and can obviously pick and choose. I'd like to see a change in the design.
liveforever no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2006, 04:45 PM   #24
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 37,489
Likes (Received): 6145

Well, I for one am happy with the revised design. My main concern before was the height, which was out-of-scale and frankly rather over the top. This new version is far more sensible.

How can anyone call a 175m building in the middle of London a "stumpy" building? Um... hello?? That's only 8m shorter than Tower 42, the tallest skyscraper in the City!

Even the Kings Reach Tower looks like a proper skyscraper from some angles - when you're approaching it from Blackfriars Bridge, for example. This Beetham Tower will be over 50m taller, with a floor count higher than 1 Canada Square, and a very striking and noticeable shape. It won't be lacking in soar factor; it will still have a major impact on the skyline and will be visible from miles away. Let's get things in perspective here.
wjfox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2006, 09:07 PM   #25
Ntn_Rawlings
Registered User
 
Ntn_Rawlings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cornwall and London (term time)
Posts: 254
Likes (Received): 0

it may well be only 8m shorter than tower 42, but when its actually finished, it will be an average sized skyscraper, and there will be buildings upcountry that are bigger- this is london, lets have some vision!
__________________
Hewwo!
Ntn_Rawlings no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2006, 12:20 AM   #26
AXISPAW
Registered User
 
AXISPAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 834
Likes (Received): 5

perhaps we need to look at the bigger picture here. i think the hight reduction is very appropriate indeed, because if you are looking east for example, if it stayed at the hight it was it would take far too much attention away from the shard and the city cluster. we cant just expect london to construct massive skyscrapers randomly around the city(refering to the whole of london and not the square mile) . the shard achieves this because of its iconic status. plus once the area around beetham becomes its own little cluster it will mentaly build up the size of the towers
AXISPAW no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2006, 08:10 AM   #27
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,937
Likes (Received): 1940

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjfox2002 View Post
...How can anyone call a 175m building in the middle of London a "stumpy" building? Um... hello?? That's only 8m shorter than Tower 42, the tallest skyscraper in the City!....
Yeah Im just concerned that the emerging cluster could end up looking stumpy as the planners wont be able to ask for more height decreases with the other proposals to allow beethem to be an obvious peak. The models showing it with the other proposals dont seem to show the clarity of peaks that looks naturally attractive. Allowing this proposal at its original height gives a greater margin for developers to create buildigns around it that are economical but also provide the skyline clarity. Canary Wharf has completely missed this and has ended up with something rather forgettable, verging on the ugly.
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2006, 07:24 PM   #28
AXISPAW
Registered User
 
AXISPAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 834
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by potto View Post
Canary Wharf has completely missed this and has ended up with something rather forgettable, verging on the ugly.
i cant believe you think canary wharf is forgettable and ugly. to me its beautiful, and very memorable, but i suppose each to their own
AXISPAW no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2006, 08:19 PM   #29
jef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brussels/London
Posts: 3,349
Likes (Received): 5

That's Potto.

That's why we like him.
jef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2006, 11:33 PM   #30
bileduct
malu cachu
 
bileduct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 396
Likes (Received): 0

I voted "Hate It" because it came closest to what I think, but actually I quite like the design in some ways and if it was in Vauxhall or the Isle of Dogs or the back of Paddington somewhere I'd probably be quite enthusiastic.

But building something this bulky, this close to the Thames, on the inside of the bend of the river, so that it muscles into centre stage to dominate one of the few views where you can really make sense of London as a balanced, scattered whole, is just wrong.

The shortening has just replaced a soaring tower in the wrong place with a stumpy tower in the wrong place, though - barely an improvement, perhaps even a regression. This proposal doesn't need tweaked, it needs binned IMO. Like DarJoLe, I fear it will be damaging the pro-skyscraper agenda in London for decades to come.
bileduct no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2006, 01:35 AM   #31
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,764
Likes (Received): 485

Quote:
Originally Posted by bileduct View Post
I voted "Hate It" because it came closest to what I think, but actually I quite like the design in some ways and if it was in Vauxhall or the Isle of Dogs or the back of Paddington somewhere I'd probably be quite enthusiastic.

But building something this bulky, this close to the Thames, on the inside of the bend of the river, so that it muscles into centre stage to dominate one of the few views where you can really make sense of London as a balanced, scattered whole, is just wrong.

The shortening has just replaced a soaring tower in the wrong place with a stumpy tower in the wrong place, though - barely an improvement, perhaps even a regression. This proposal doesn't need tweaked, it needs binned IMO. Like DarJoLe, I fear it will be damaging the pro-skyscraper agenda in London for decades to come.
So your saying its an awful design that needs to be binned yet you would be quite happy to see it in Vauxhall, Paddington or the docklands where it would be just as prominent. 175m is hardly stumpy & its not bulky, wide from one angle mayber but hardly bulky. When viewing it from the north & south it is very slender.

IMO one of the best views of London is when viewing from Waterloo bridge & I would say the least viewed area from there is the south bank. Apart from the oxo tower theres nothing to draw your eye. This tower & others planned in the Southbank area, including LBT will draw your eye to the south & in fact balance the view with the north bank rather than destroy any views.
london lad está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2006, 02:43 AM   #32
JGG
LONDON - Westminster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,841
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by london lad View Post
So your saying its an awful design that needs to be binned yet you would be quite happy to see it in Vauxhall, Paddington or the docklands where it would be just as prominent. 175m is hardly stumpy & its not bulky, wide from one angle mayber but hardly bulky. When viewing it from the north & south it is very slender.

IMO one of the best views of London is when viewing from Waterloo bridge & I would say the least viewed area from there is the south bank. Apart from the oxo tower theres nothing to draw your eye. This tower & others planned in the Southbank area, including LBT will draw your eye to the south & in fact balance the view with the north bank rather than destroy any views.
I really do not understand this forum. There seems consensus that the buildings along the Thames waterfront today are too high and shoud be lower. And then some second-rate architect comes by with a cheap tower design for just next to the river and everybody wants it. At the same time poor network rail has been trying in the same borough to get planning permission to widen a viaduct by 3 m and everybody is jumping up and down saying it destroys the historical character of the neighborhood (which has held up Thameslink for 4 years now). If this skyscraper gets planning permission I will be as anti-skyscraper as you get them. And I guess I am not the only person like that. Have you noticed how little you hear from the conservatives and their alleys such as ES about this tower? They have to provide due opposition but nothing better for them that this gets build... it will give them city hall.
JGG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2006, 04:26 AM   #33
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,764
Likes (Received): 485

Maybe the ES & The Torys know this wont be an election issue. Do you really think the basis of the next mayor will be because a certain building was allowed to be built. I think theres far more important issues in London than this to determine the next election.

Just how exactly does this proposal ruin the river setting?? Its on a plot of land set back from the river, not of on the riverpath in which 90% of hte people who walk along the river would be even aware of the site. I've said it before Seacontainers house & the express building onteh other sie of Blackfriars bridge are far more offensive & are detrimental to the river setting than this tower will ever be.

Some people seem to have this fantasy that London will/should only have 2 clusters - The city of London & CW. London is a city of 1000,sq miles to say you can only have tall development in a tiny area (& even then people moan if a tower in the city is in the wrong place as is mentioned on the 20FC thread).

Towers are just another type of building. They are in most cities of the world & they have been in London since the 60's with the building of council tower blocks. The river thames has for at least 1000 yrs had buildings built right up to the rivers edge. It has never had large promenades & parks along the edges like Paris or elsewhere so I dont know how you get this tranquil river setting from. I agree not all the architecture along the central London river front is appealing & I blame the corporation of London for most of this as the worst stretch of river is clearly the northern bank in the city of London which is predominantly low rise of 6-8 storeys.
london lad está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2006, 10:19 PM   #34
Evil Bert
Registered User
 
Evil Bert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 138
Likes (Received): 0

I'm still not happy with new clusters going away from the city and CW! if they predict an upturn in office demand i would hope they take more advantage in building taller buildings in CW and not here! remember the crap that was built all over the city in the 90's!? We are luckly that most have been torn down but are the same mistakes being made again?

LBT is a one off. as a building in singularity it's beauty can be appreciated like that of the Empire State building NY. its thunder will be overshadowed by a continual **** up of the skyline by beetham; vauxall etc they do not have the same class to deserve the same distinction!

i would prefer this building at 100 bishopgate?
Evil Bert no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2006, 10:48 PM   #35
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,732
Likes (Received): 376

I agree this might look better in that location. Why don't use forumers like bumps in towers anyway? This and the walkie talkie are the two most controversial high rise projects at the moment (excluding Potters Fields), so what is it about their bulges we simply do not like?
Gherkin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2006, 11:18 PM   #36
bileduct
malu cachu
 
bileduct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 396
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by london lad View Post
So your saying its an awful design that needs to be binned yet you would be quite happy to see it in Vauxhall, Paddington or the docklands where it would be just as prominent. 175m is hardly stumpy & its not bulky, wide from one angle mayber but hardly bulky. When viewing it from the north & south it is very slender.
No I think it's a decent design in abstract, just fundamentally inappropriate to that specific site. The problem isn't its prominence or its shape, it's its prominence and shape in that context. As you say, it's only wide from some angles - but those are the angles most people are going to see it from in views along the river.

Quote:
Originally Posted by london lad View Post
IMO one of the best views of London is when viewing from Waterloo bridge & I would say the least viewed area from there is the south bank. Apart from the oxo tower theres nothing to draw your eye. This tower & others planned in the Southbank area, including LBT will draw your eye to the south & in fact balance the view with the north bank rather than destroy any views.
I agree with your opinion about the importance of the view from Waterloo Bridge, and the fact that most of the view's attractions are on the north bank. That's precisely why I think that the bend in the river is the key consideration. Being so close to the river and on the inside of the bend, this (from this angle very bulky) tower is thrust into the middle of the view despite being on the theoretically peripheral South Bank. This isn't a problem with LBT which is further from the river and not on the inside of a bend so will, as you say, provide a southern counterbalance to the clusters and visual focusses of the north bank. But it is a problem with Beetham which will suddenly dominate this key view.

LBT is the right design in the right place, this is the wrong design in the wrong place.
bileduct no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2006, 03:00 PM   #37
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,764
Likes (Received): 485

I found these on cityscapes website - There was more images posted on one of the threads before but dont know where they have gone.

Not sure if this is the older taller scheme or the shorter one.





london lad está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2006, 03:11 PM   #38
Skid-Mark
Punctual and polite
 
Skid-Mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Washing my hair.
Posts: 987
Likes (Received): 0

Thats the previous design, much more elegant imo, we saw these quite a while back, there are other tower renders on that site too.
__________________
"i survived the downed-server-epidemic(s) of 2006..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by stourbridgebaggie View Post
this has decended into farce...
Skid-Mark no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2006, 03:13 PM   #39
Luke
Blackboard Monitor
 
Luke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Posts: 1,302
Likes (Received): 1

That's the big sonofabitch.
__________________
The latest movie reviews - www.sharemypopcorn.co.uk
Luke no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2006, 03:22 PM   #40
JGG
LONDON - Westminster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,841
Likes (Received): 2

I would like to see some pictures of what it looks like from pretty much each of the bridges, parks etc. No surprise they are not giving these out. there would probably be too much uproar. I think Bileduct has come up with a very good further concern and that is that it stands on the inside of a bend of the river. So if you walk along the embankment it will actually appear to stand on the north bank.

On the last render you have posted, I love how these multi-colour curtains shine through. The only thing missing is balconies where people can hang out their clothes to dry.

I really hope this crap will not be built, otherwise debates like these in 30s time will be wondering what possessed us.

A tower like this is pretty much irreversable. No develoepr will ever reconstruct it if he has to revert to normal height, he will rather leave it in a bad state. Remember how hard it was to achieve a height reduction for Paternoster Square, and then we were talking about just a few floors.
JGG no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
hotel, jumeirah, road, skyscraper, southwark, tower

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu