Number 1 Blackfriars | Southwark | 163m | 52 fl | U/C - Page 5

london lad · November 26th, 2006, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenL

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.

Jamandell (d69) · November 26th, 2006, 02:49 PM

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.

mulattokid · November 26th, 2006, 03:28 PM

Interesting about the London eye...it was meant to be a temporary feature at that location..no longer...a bit like the Eiffel Tower.

BenL · November 26th, 2006, 03:32 PM

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.

jimbo · November 26th, 2006, 07:43 PM

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.

***gothicform*** · November 26th, 2006, 07:55 PM

their pr completely messed up. who knew it fitted LBT like that? no one because the prs didnt release any bloody images. morons.

potto · November 26th, 2006, 08:58 PM

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

Skid-Mark · November 26th, 2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo

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

I dont know why we are allowed to see buildings from a span of history but nothing from our own time!

So true.

JGG · November 28th, 2006, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenL

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.

aquablue · November 28th, 2006, 02:25 AM

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.

BenL · November 28th, 2006, 02:53 AM

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.

aquablue · November 28th, 2006, 04:39 AM

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.

JGG · November 28th, 2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

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.

mulattokid · November 28th, 2006, 12:03 PM

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.

scraper · November 28th, 2006, 02:27 PM

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.

Smoggie_Si · November 29th, 2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue

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!

aquablue · November 29th, 2006, 11:56 PM

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?

Henry_W · November 30th, 2006, 12:57 AM

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.

jef · January 5th, 2007, 09:45 AM

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.

larven · January 5th, 2007, 10:14 AM

Beetham don't mess about once they've secured planning permission, thats one thing you can say about them.

View Poll Results: What's your opinion of this building?
Love it! Superb design, perfect height and location.	191	29.29%
Like it. Good design, and the height seems reasonable for this location.	236	36.20%
Good design, but it needs to be taller.	108	16.56%
Good design, but it needs to be shorter.	23	3.53%
Hate it! Awful design, unsuitable height and location.	94	14.42%
Voters: 652. You may not vote on this poll

November 26th, 2006, 03:28 PM	#83
mulattokid BLAND Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: London Posts: 8,423 Likes (Received): 100	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 Scrotum resembles a brain - requisite with both hemispheres, and its truncated spinal cord - always in search of sensation? (Mark Joseph 2008)

November 28th, 2006, 12:03 PM	#94
mulattokid BLAND Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: London Posts: 8,423 Likes (Received): 100	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 Scrotum resembles a brain - requisite with both hemispheres, and its truncated spinal cord - always in search of sensation? (Mark Joseph 2008)

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:

November 26th, 2006, 02:49 PM	#82
Jamandell (d69) Rocking at Glasgow Uni Join Date: May 2006 Location: Glasgow Posts: 2,655 Likes (Received): 8	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.

November 26th, 2006, 03:32 PM	#84
BenL Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Oxford, London Posts: 1,644 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.

November 26th, 2006, 07:43 PM	#85
jimbo Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Leeds/London Posts: 4,677 Likes (Received): 3	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.

November 26th, 2006, 07:55 PM	#86
*gothicform* Bossman Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: not london Posts: 29,217 Likes (Received): 500	their pr completely messed up. who knew it fitted LBT like that? no one because the prs didnt release any bloody images. morons.

November 26th, 2006, 08:58 PM	#87
potto Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 13,505 Likes (Received): 255	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

November 28th, 2006, 02:25 AM	#90
aquablue Advocate of high design Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,539 Likes (Received): 15	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.

November 28th, 2006, 02:53 AM	#91
BenL Registered User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Oxford, London Posts: 1,644 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.

November 28th, 2006, 04:39 AM	#92
aquablue Advocate of high design Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,539 Likes (Received): 15	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.

November 28th, 2006, 02:27 PM	#95
scraper Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 171 Likes (Received): 0	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.

November 29th, 2006, 11:56 PM	#97
aquablue Advocate of high design Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,539 Likes (Received): 15	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?

November 30th, 2006, 12:57 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.

January 5th, 2007, 09:45 AM	#99
jef Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Brussels/London Posts: 3,362 Likes (Received): 0	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.

January 5th, 2007, 10:14 AM	#100
larven Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK Posts: 8,329 Likes (Received): 116	Beetham don't mess about once they've secured planning permission, thats one thing you can say about them.