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

[DarJoLe]

The new Beetham in Liverpool is just as hideous as the previous ones. Cheap, nasty cladding that looks like the inside of a supermarket toilet from the 1980s

London will be scarred for generations with this tower that resembles a leaking bottle of bleach, and give another notch to the anti-skyscraper brigade who say they don't belong in Central London.

[jimbo]

new render. I certainly haven't seen it before, and thats even after attending the public consultation in Southwark back in late summer for the redesigned (i.e. shorter) scheme.

http://www.cityscape3d.com/images.html

Dusk view from Blackfriar's Bridge station I presume - very slender from this angle isn't it!

[lyonsdown]

It'll still have the crap cladding that all their proposals have though. At least at night you wont be able to see it.

[Tharpe]

i prefered the Taller design, but i thought the Cladding was aweful, and needed to be changed, im not so botherd about the " Beetham Hump" but i agree with a couple of you in that it needs to be lower.

[ill tonkso]

I hate this design i really do, to me it looks like someone wrapped up the Spinnaker Tower and plopped it on the south bank.

[Zenith]

Not sure about this.....but I am sure that the redesign was rubbish.

[Gherkin]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

I hate this design i really do, to me it looks like someone wrapped up the Spinnaker Tower and plopped it on the south bank.

The Spinnaker tower would look absolutely awesome on the South bank

[wjfox]

I used to be against this proposal, but now I'm in favour. My main issue before was the height, which seemed out of scale. This revised height is more sensible, yet still allows plenty of soar.

Another major plus point is the viewing gallery, which will offer some absolutely jaw-dropping panoramic views of St Pauls, the City, Canary Wharf, London Bridge Tower, the Tate Modern, Southwark, Elephant and Castle, the Vauxhall cluster, the London Eye, the Houses of Parliament, BT Tower and the West End.

The overall design is less classy and elegant than some of the other proposals - but let's be fair here, you have to consider the ultra-high quality it's competing against. I think this design is acceptable for Southwark, and I don't see a major problem with it. Just compare it with the utter dross in the surrounding area. Blackfriars Road has bags of potential for redevelopment and I think it needs towers like this.

[DarJoLe]

Should be more shaped like this.

[jef]

And it makes some sense!

[Skid-Mark]

Originally Posted by jimbo

That image came out last year, quite a while back if i remember, it's from the cityscape website, and it's the previous, taller design. There were several similar renders.

[aquablue]

Idiots for reducing it..ugh, crazy fools. It echos the tate chimmney perfectly, and the future lBT... The SB needs something dramatic... everyone wows about Shanghai's Pudong across the river from its historical bund -- they do little harm to the historical context there and neither will this here..there is nothing detrimental about skyscrapers on the SB, it will just enhance the views from the NB and create excitement...

[Sikario]

It's going to look ghastly! If you're viewing the side profile anyway. Add Beetham’s signature cladding to the mixture and you have yourself a truly revolting tower.

If it were slimmed down considerably then I'd be happier.

[JGG]

Beetham will not be constructed. Not in a thousand years. It is completely in the wrong location. This project is dead.

[Luke]

I don't think you can say any project that is still going through the planning process is dead.

[aquablue]

It is absolutely fantastic at that location IMO...its not high enough to be placed further back from the bank, it would have zero impact... Its futuristic, and has an incredible novel shape to it. It will echo the taller LBT nicely. Would you rather a boring ground-scraper instead on that site?

[jimbo]

Originally Posted by Skid-Mark

That image came out last year, quite a while back if i remember, it's from the cityscape website, and it's the previous, taller design. There were several similar renders.

fair thee do's.

The height shouldn't have been reduced, the site is perfect for a landmark tower which will make a positive impact on the skyline (who gives a flying duck if its obscures the city from the London Eye - its a temporary site, given planning permission for 25 yrs!), is a unique, almost sensuous design and will bring an upmarket operator to the rapidly regenerating Southbank. No one has whinged at the proposed Wilkinson Eyre tower about 2 mins walk down Blackfriars Road - of similar height, and also a glass shard (albeit straightlined as opposed to curvy).

Can't remember who said it, but we would all despair if this was a crappy office groundscraper or the strange glass protuberance that Foster originally designed for Sainsburys on this site. Beetham will get through planning, and it will get built. Have no doubts.

[Skid-Mark]

Originally Posted by jimbo

fair thee do's.

The height shouldn't have been reduced, the site is perfect for a landmark tower which will make a positive impact on the skyline (who gives a flying duck if its obscures the city from the London Eye - its a temporary site, given planning permission for 25 yrs!), is a unique, almost sensuous design and will bring an upmarket operator to the rapidly regenerating Southbank. No one has whinged at the proposed Wilkinson Eyre tower about 2 mins walk down Blackfriars Road - of similar height, and also a glass shard (albeit straightlined as opposed to curvy).

Can't remember who said it, but we would all despair if this was a crappy office groundscraper or the strange glass protuberance that Foster originally designed for Sainsburys on this site. Beetham will get through planning, and it will get built. Have no doubts.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by jimbo

Beetham will get through planning, and it will get built. Have no doubts.

I don't trust Beetham to produce a tower that doesn't have a dated slimey messy random cladding as all the others have. None of them have lived up to the expectations of the renderings, and I doubt this will. And in the centre of London diagonally opposite St Pauls this is unacceptable.

[jimbo]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

I don't trust Beetham to produce a tower that doesn't have a dated slimey messy random cladding as all the others have. None of them have lived up to the expectations of the renderings, and I doubt this will. And in the centre of London diagonally opposite St Pauls this is unacceptable.

I'm happy that this isn't the 'iceberg blue' cladding effect that Simpson and Beetham have used in most of there collarburations and can date quickly. You're right, the cladding is the make or break in many projects, but can also often redeem those in which the shape has been the big bone of contention.

Beetham is as far from St Pauls as the Barbican Towers. It doesn't cluster around it, or crowd it and its not in a protected sightline (which I'm all for BTW). I fail to see the big issue here. You can't simply create an exclusion zone for 360 degrees around St Pauls, although perhaps thats what UNESCO are trying to do around the Tower of London. If this fails, so does Wilkinson Eyre and Doon Street.