Shard / London Bridge Tower | Southwark | 309m | 72 fl

[deanfwj]

I was down there today, the buildings there knocking down arent "in" the market..so it makes me wonder why they want to replace them with a new market section..which will not be particularly big..surely they can keep atleast the frontages of these buildings....we don't need extra market space here whatsoever, I've rarely seen the market anywhere near capacity..for aesthetic and heritage reasons we really need to save these buildings...your telling me there aint enough money floating around in London for this viaduct project to stretch to saving these..there is, and it will be a disgrace if this gets the go ahead...yes I am pissed off!

to this..

[jimbo]

has the benefit of opening up the view of the top of Southwark Cathedral, although not sure it mitigates the loss of those existing buildings. They're not outstanding really - this looks like one of those major planning decisions, lose a little bit of history, and replace with something significant, and considerable inward investment for Borough Market, and Southwark. Hmmm undecided, need to see more renders before dismissing the new scheme out of hand.

[DarJoLe]

The new viaduct is 'clipped' on to the existing bridge, so this block would have to be demolished anyway to make room for the new tracks. I'm all for retaining existing facades when the facade is worthy of being kept, but I can't seen any particular historical feature that needs saving in this.

This new glass atrium will create an open gateway with a landmark entrance to Borough Market and I really can't see the fuss being generated over it.

What I do not like, however, is how the fact no-one has brought up the idea of pedestrianising the small streets inside Borough Market or redirecting the roads to compensate for the new route of the viaduct. This would be a much grander option and allow the market to expand.

[Zenith]

I totally disagree with this attitude....These type of modest buildings are what I love most about London, the everyday victorian building that sits there with handsome gentility and makes up the urban fabric. You cant get more English, more British, more London than this. To me they have huge historical and architectural merit. It is wholly wrong to replace them. At least keep the facades. To lose them would be lazy and shortsighted.

[SirDenys]

Does anyone know whether the fate of New London Bridge House has been decided? I really wouldn't want to see another 60's Seifert building lost.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by SirDenys

Does anyone know whether the fate of New London Bridge House has been decided? I really wouldn't want to see another 60's Seifert building lost.

Yes, the 'Baby Shard' was approved earlier this year.

And frankly, I'll be glad to see the demolition of the current building.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=296278

[SirDenys]

Thanks for the info. Sorry to see it go, especially to be replaced by another mediocre glasshouse. What I love about London's architecture is the mix of buildings from across the decades and centuries. The way 60's high rises are going - Drapers Gardens, 20 Fenchurch St. and this all within a few years - we're going to have a whole generation missing from our cityscape. Of course, nobody cares now, but in 20-30 years I think there will be some regret.

[wjfox]

I take your point about "preserving the past", but I seriously doubt many people are going to miss New London Bridge House. It's a really old, grey, forgettable concrete building. No redeeming features. A cold, unfriendly, windswept base and plaza.

I wouldn't call its replacement mediocre - I think it has potential to enhance its taller parent and will greatly improve the view from the west.

The renderings below demonstrate this best. I mean, which would you honestly rather have?

This -







Or this...

[samsonyuen]

Wow, that makes a big difference. I definitely like the second one better.

[hellolazyness]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

^I agree.Borough Market is great I love it.It has character.

Great picture!

[LDN_EUROPE]

2nd one.

[Mr Bricks]

Great renders! Now if only Guy´s would disappear...

[Varenukha]

Originally Posted by SirDenys

Thanks for the info. Sorry to see it go, especially to be replaced by another mediocre glasshouse. What I love about London's architecture is the mix of buildings from across the decades and centuries. The way 60's high rises are going - Drapers Gardens, 20 Fenchurch St. and this all within a few years - we're going to have a whole generation missing from our cityscape. Of course, nobody cares now, but in 20-30 years I think there will be some regret.

SirDenys - keep going! I like these thoughtful and occasionally subversive views - I'm not automatically a big fan of anything tall and shiny either. Although - I do dislike much of the 60's/70's legacy. Seems to me that there's lots of dross (Barbican for e.g.) which overshadows the ocasional gem (Centrepoint)

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by SuomiPoika

Now if only Guy´s would disappear...

[Custer.Murphy]

El Greco, your love of Guys is almost legendary! lol!

I suppose the one thing about Guy's you can say is; as long as it's a hospital that's way too big, (...and way too expensive for the NHS) to relocate nearby anytime soon, it'll probably outlast one or two of the glass boxes itself and become London's nod to post-war brutalism.

I'm not sure yet whether it will add or remove from the view of LBT. I suppose there's the contrast... Oh man, what am I saying... I'm sorry, but I don't like it either...

[El_Greco]

I love 60s tower blocks too

[SE9]

Man, I hate the current 'New London Bridge House'. One of the most disgusting buildings in London; does little for the eye or its surroundings.

As for Guy's... I think El_greco already knows my opinion on that

[U.K]

2nd one 100% it makes the shard look more beutiful.

[Peyre]

I quite like Guys, it could do with either a right old scrubbing or a reclad. The concrete just looks so dirty now, with a bit of Cilit Bang it would make an excellent contrast to LBT.

[SirDenys]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

I take your point about "preserving the past", but I seriously doubt many people are going to miss New London Bridge House

It’s not about people missing it. My point is that we will be depriving people of the opportunity to see it in future generations. What people seem to forget is that high-rise office blocks like this were the first in London, albeit this one was towards the tail end of that period. Following them you had the likes of the Nat West Tower, the Gherkin and the skyscrapers which so many people here are excited about. In 30 years time, if someone wants to visit the historic first generation of skyscrapers, they won’t be able to because we’ll have pulled them all down. I make this comment particularly following the demolition of Drapers Gardens and the forthcoming demolition of 20 Fenchirch Street.

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

It's a really old

I think it’s about 33 years old. In a city boasting buildings which are several hundred years old, it hardly counts as old.

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

grey, forgettable

Grey/pink, cream, blue/green, silver. There's lots of colours there Several people here, ourselves included, haven’t forgotten it.

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

concrete building.

I have 2 responses to this: 1) I don’t think it’s a concrete building 2) There’s nothing wrong with concrete buildings. I’ll just stick to the first for now. There is very little concrete on show here. Some of what you might think is concrete is actually white tiles. Some of the facing may be stone, but I’m not sure. Even if everything that looks like it could be concrete is, I think it’s misleading to call it a concrete building. National Theatre, Hayward Gallery, Balfron Tower, Alexandra Road. These are concrete buildings. This building doesn’t belong on that list.

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

No redeeming features.

Obviously that’s a subjective point. To me, the main feature is that it’s a superb example of a building that reflects the optimism and forward thinking of the period. If you want to talk detail, then I’m not very good at that, but I’ll have a go.



There’s the v-shaped columns at the front which kind of reflect the slight v-shape of the tower created by the centre indentation.



The rather unusual design of the metal riveted windows.



The classic metal entrance doors and canopy, and the floor to ceiling sloping glass window revealing the open stairway to the first floor.

I’d better leave it there as I’ve probably lost everyone by now. Thanks for the debate. Needless to say, I prefer the picture that shows New London Bridge House.