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: 38 votes, 5.00 average.
Old November 26th, 2006, 05:12 AM   #81
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,773
Likes (Received): 489

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenL View Post
How much will this tower actually interfer with key London sights when viewed from the London Eye? I can see it getting in the way of St. Paul's, Canary Wharf and distracting the eye from the Shard. And I can see it blotting out skyscrapers in the main City of London cluster:



It would be great if anyone with computer skills above that of MS Paint or other knowledge could prove otherwise...
Why should a view on a tourist attraction take precedence of where a building is sighted. Anyway the whole expeirence of the London eye is a 20 min ride seeing London from different angles & whenever i've been on it tourists are more concerned with the view looking North across Central London- If this spoils a viewing of the above then so what- the tourists can simply go to the taller viewing gallery in this tower to see the city & LBT etc.
london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old November 26th, 2006, 03:49 PM   #82
Jamandell (d69)
Skyscraperholic
 
Jamandell (d69)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 2,732
Likes (Received): 92

I disagree with you London lad, the London Eye is the most popular tourist attraction in London and gives most people their image of London.
I am still generally in support of this tower though, but still, I think London Eye views are important.
Jamandell (d69) no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2006, 04:28 PM   #83
mulattokid
BLAND
 
mulattokid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London
Posts: 8,712
Likes (Received): 259

Interesting about the London eye...it was meant to be a temporary feature at that location..no longer...a bit like the Eiffel Tower.
__________________
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 ******* resembles a brain - requisite with both hemispheres, and its truncated spinal cord - always in search of sensation?
(Mark Joseph 2008)
mulattokid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2006, 04:32 PM   #84
BenL
Registered User
 
BenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oxford, London
Posts: 1,642
Likes (Received): 0

I didn't say it should London_Lad, I was merely curious as to whether it would. Views from the Eye certainly aren't as important as Greenwich Park, Waterloo Bridge etc. but I do think they should be considered, especially if a new tower would block out what could be icons for London.
BenL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2006, 08:43 PM   #85
jimbo
Registered User
 
jimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Leeds/London
Posts: 4,673
Likes (Received): 5

still can't see what everyone is whinging about. I think its a rather fine tower. Much more imaginative that the St George's Wharf tower, which is just as close to the river, albeit not in as much of a central location.

I actually think the height reduction is disasterous, the original was much better proportioned.







jimbo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2006, 08:55 PM   #86
gothicform
Bossman
 
gothicform's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: s****horpe
Posts: 30,850
Likes (Received): 3069

their pr completely messed up. who knew it fitted LBT like that? no one because the prs didnt release any bloody images. morons.
gothicform no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2006, 09:58 PM   #87
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,965
Likes (Received): 1961

yep agree, beautiful tower, outlasses the drab St Georges wharf in every aspect, terrible decision to reduce the height just to appease Westminster, they would have walked away proved innocent if a court case was brought against it I reckon.

The view from Horse Guards would have been enhanced with the glass spire poking up behind its varied skyline, not so convinced about the coin street building but that is another issue. I dont know why we are allowed to see buildings from a span of history but nothing from our own time!

Great piece of work to give a nod to LBT shame the impact of its soar with LBT is lost with the redesign
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2006, 10:42 PM   #88
Skid-Mark
Punctual and polite
 
Skid-Mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Washing my hair.
Posts: 987
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
I actually think the height reduction is disasterous, the original was much better proportioned.
My thought's too, i don't care that it's still a 600ft tower, it's not properly proportioned now, maybe if it had been reduced in scale evenly i would'nt have an issue with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by potto View Post
I dont know why we are allowed to see buildings from a span of history but nothing from our own time!
So true.
__________________
"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 November 28th, 2006, 03:13 AM   #89
JGG
LONDON - Westminster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,841
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenL View Post
How much will this tower actually interfer with key London sights when viewed from the London Eye? I can see it getting in the way of St. Paul's, Canary Wharf and distracting the eye from the Shard. And I can see it blotting out skyscrapers in the main City of London cluster:



It would be great if anyone with computer skills above that of MS Paint or other knowledge could prove otherwise...
Thanks for this map. It shows the main problem of the Beetham tower which is that it is constructed on the most northern part of the southbank... in fact straight in the middle between St Pauls and the Houses of Parliament when drawing a straigh line. The Beetham tower will destroy a lot of popular vistas all for the benefit of one single greedy developer. When you get out of the Westminster tube station you will still see the London Eye, but with Beetham sticking out above it. It will completely distract from both the London Eye and LBT. In fact from the Hungerford bridge or similar postions on the embankment the Beetham Tower will be in front of the LBT. Basically, in any view from Westminster these two towers will be fighting for dominance, destroying any feel of soar or uniqueness. It destroys the opportunity for LBT to become some modern-day eiffel tower equivalent for London. It will also completely overshadow its neighbour the Tate Modern (it will do so literally every evening) and diminish the observed dimensions of the Tate. I can go on for ever, but it all comes down to the fact that Beetham is as much an example of poor taste as many of those 60s developments were.
JGG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2006, 03:25 AM   #90
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,757
Likes (Received): 182

what the hell is that disgusting huge behemoth block of a building on the river below Kings Reach tower? That should be demolished, its an eyesore.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2006, 03:53 AM   #91
BenL
Registered User
 
BenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oxford, London
Posts: 1,642
Likes (Received): 0

Completely agree JGG. It's quite a nice tower (particuarly before the height reduction) but the location is wrong. What is now quite a stumpy building will dominate some of the most important views of London and will completely overshadow the Thames and one of my favourite London buildings - the Tate Modern - which still (despite the growth of groundscrapers behind it) has a feeling of height.

And, whilst it may not interfer with any official sightline, it does feel rather wrong to have a tower of this height so close to St. Paul's. I love the Shard and I think most Londoners will do too, but they will be wary. To block it out of view with a far less architectually-skilled and poorly placed building will scare many Londoners off the Shard and I do believe that it will lose some of its icon status.

Wouldn't be upset if this one gets a planning enquiry - save for the obvious negative effects this could have on future skyscraper construction around the City.

A very rough look at how this would effect views from the Eye - again, those with software could help here:

Edit: It would probably appear much higher than this, looking back.
BenL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2006, 05:39 AM   #92
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,757
Likes (Received): 182

Should look fantastic there, juxtaposed against st. pauls, wonderful blending of the old and futuristic...remember, there will be a cluster of buildings around beetham anyway in the future -- the glass tower, etc.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2006, 12:39 PM   #93
JGG
LONDON - Westminster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,841
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Should look fantastic there, juxtaposed against st. pauls, wonderful blending of the old and futuristic...remember, there will be a cluster of buildings around beetham anyway in the future -- the glass tower, etc.
Aquablue - you live in Washington DC if I remember well. Now imagine the Beetham Tower at 300 meters from the Congress building, sticking out above the White House, competing with the Washington memorial... would you still like it? What would the average Washington citizen say? Nothing against the Beetham tower as such, but its location is wrong IMO.
JGG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2006, 01:03 PM   #94
mulattokid
BLAND
 
mulattokid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: London
Posts: 8,712
Likes (Received): 259

DC has a VERY strick building code...NO buildings are allowed over about 12 storeys. Am I right...nothing is allowed to overshadow that wonderful cross shaped green of monuments. ponds and.....things.
__________________
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 ******* resembles a brain - requisite with both hemispheres, and its truncated spinal cord - always in search of sensation?
(Mark Joseph 2008)
mulattokid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2006, 03:27 PM   #95
scraper
Registered User
 
scraper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 171
Likes (Received): 3

I love the bettham tower, It is one of my favorite proposals. I think it will enhance the views from the london eye, add a dynamic between the foreground and horizon.
scraper no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2006, 10:16 PM   #96
Smoggie_Si
Bermondsey Boro
 
Smoggie_Si's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,279
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
what the hell is that disgusting huge behemoth block of a building on the river below Kings Reach tower? That should be demolished, its an eyesore.
Sea Container House and I totally agree with you!
Smoggie_Si no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2006, 12:56 AM   #97
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,757
Likes (Received): 182

Yes, no building in D.C can be higher than the Capitol dome. There is an area just across the river in Virginia called Rosslyn which has some midrises, the tallest being two twin towers around 115m. Otherwise, its all very low rise.. The grassy area with the memorials is the "national mall". To be honest, i'd prefer a bit of architectural innovation, its all too conservative for me.

Rosslyn


Sea Containers house, is that building going to be around for years to come?
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2006, 01:57 AM   #98
Henry_W
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Epsom and Ewell- Surrey- England
Posts: 5
Likes (Received): 0

Nay- Not a fan of this tower- it just looks really out of place. I think that building it would make the skyline look a bit messy- they are better off sticking to clusters any day of the week.
Henry_W no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2007, 10:45 AM   #99
jef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brussels/London
Posts: 3,349
Likes (Received): 5

I am not a huge fan of this one but Beetham seems determined to build it.

From Property Week:

http://www.property-week.co.uk/story...de=3079437&c=1

Beetham invests £50m in London's Southwark

The Beetham Organization has completed the acquisition of 1 Blackfriars Road in London's Southwark for more than £50m

04.01.2007

By Daniel Thomas

The developer has proposed a 52-storey mixed-use tower on the site, which was previously owned by Sainsbury’s. The £600m scheme is awaiting planning permission. Following consent, completion of the scheme is expected by 2011.

Beetham initially exchanged contracts on the site in 2004. In September 2006, it agreed a 25-year conditional management contract with Jumeirah Hotels to run a six-star hotel in the development.
jef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2007, 11:14 AM   #100
larven
Registered User
 
larven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 10,035
Likes (Received): 703

Beetham don't mess about once they've secured planning permission, thats one thing you can say about them.
larven está en línea ahora   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 02:30 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