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

[mole]

Originally Posted by eXSBass

I just don't understand why they won't move their Southwark offices into the future newly built Shard. It makes sense to me. They're the largest partnership joint company. Their operations are really big. When their customers want to see their headquarters, they want to see something spectacular. Not More London!

Their UK headquarters are at Embankment Place and there is no intention to move out of there.

[mole]

Originally Posted by jef

Any chances that PwC are reconsidering the selection of More London 7 ? Is the move of 2/3 of KPMG staff to the CW likely to influence PwC?

The London Bridge area is good for the financial services group because it's close to the City, it's a 10 minute ride to Canary Wharf on the Jubilee Line and it's also in the right commuting location for many of the staff, including several of the senior partners who will be making the decisions.

The idea of a building that overlooks E&Y's European headquarters, despite only being PwC's secondary London location, is also appealing.

[wjfox]

I think it's fair to say that Moscow wins in the height department.

[Newcastle Guy]

I agree, but we will have to wait until they are built to see which is the best skyscraper overall. Height isn't everything!

[Ntn_Rawlings]

Height isn't everything, but when youre talking skyscrapers...its very nearly everything.

[Newcastle Guy]

Height isn't everything, but when youre talking skyscrapers...its very nearly everything.

But come on. Would you say Russia tower is better than, say The Chrysler building? And it's only half the height. I do like the Russia Tower, I think it is one of the few times Moscow has actually gotten it right(but that's probably down to Norman Foster lol) I mean they really don't have much more than height to their name. come on, Federation tower? For god sakes make an effort! I would much rather have the shard represented Europe as our tallest skyscraper than that piece of unimaginative architecture.







I just think this has 'stunning' and 'amazing' written all over it. The wayit only reflects the sky, and changes colour excellently according to the light level and weather...

[ismail]

Oh not this discussion again.
The last thing we want is that twat COTH on this thread.
To be honest I couldn't give a monkey's about that tower in russia, as long as we get LBT.
A 600m tower in London would look utterly ridiculas

[Varenukha]

Why would a 600m tower look ridiculous in London?
Sorry if this is contentious, and/or old ground, but I honestly don't know why 300m is OK, but 600m not.
And I'll resist referring to M***ow for the same reason that Ismail has pithily described.

[Mr Bricks]

Moscow is also a low-rise city so it wouldn´t look any worse in London.

[Fragmentor]

A 600m tower in London right now would be totally overbearing. The river would be overshadowed and quite frankly it's not London's style. 600m is showing off, why ever would a place like Moscow need to build a tower that size? I'd much rather have the space offered in several 100-200-300m towers, just like London, rather than one mahoosive tower, no matter how good it looks.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by Varenukha

Why would a 600m tower look ridiculous in London?
Sorry if this is contentious, and/or old ground, but I honestly don't know why 300m is OK, but 600m not.
And I'll resist referring to M***ow for the same reason that Ismail has pithily described.

It's all about scale and context.

Surely you can see, a building of 600m would completely dominate Central London. A good building is one that contributes to its surroundings, not overwhelms them. It would interfere with historic views, it would draw attention away from dozens of other important landmarks, it would look almost scarily out of scale, and it would overshadow huge tracts of land around it. Even if you built such a tower in the Docklands or Stratford, it would still be visible all over the place, cropping up in countless views and sticking out like a sore thumb, no matter how slim or elegant the design.

Anyway - as we've said countless times on this forum, London doesn't need to compete for the world's tallest building in order to improve its status. It is already one of the greatest and most successful world capitals; the centre of modern civilization, and the most cosmopolitan place on Earth. It has the strongest and most international financial centre, the busiest and most connected airport hub, the greatest sporting pedigree of any city, one of the most important media and creative industries, a world-renowned arts and music scene, the world's biggest nightlife district, a history and heritage spanning two millenia, a cultural influence which is unmatched anywhere, and is one of the most visited places on Earth. Need I go on?

[Newcastle Guy]

I believe that, one day, London will be ready for towers of that height, and higher. But not for a long time. A good few decades yet. And they would have to respect the cities heritage just like todays towers tend to do.

[Varenukha]

Moscow has a river too, and if there is one thing that most major cities like to do, it's show off. That's why they all wanted to Olympics.
I still cannot see why 600m is overbearing, and 300m not.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by Varenukha

I still cannot see why 600m is overbearing, and 300m not.

Just look at this rendering from South London.

Frankly, even 300m is bordering on overbearing -

[LDN_EUROPE]

Does make LBT look tiny though doesn't it?

Still lovin LBT though... nothing can ever change that.

[Fragmentor]

Originally Posted by Varenukha

Moscow has a river too, and if there is one thing that most major cities like to do, it's show off. That's why they all wanted to Olympics.
I still cannot see why 600m is overbearing, and 300m not.

600m is, not suprisingly, double the height. When 300m is as tall compared to it's surroundings as The Shard is, 600m would just be unimaginable. It would be visible anywhere, there would be no escaping it, and London would just look like Dubai, building ridiculous buildings in ridiculous sizes, who wants that?

[Varenukha]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

It's all about scale and context.

Surely you can see, a building of 600m would completely dominate Central London. A good building is one that contributes to its surroundings, not overwhelms them. It would interfere with historic views, it would draw attention away from dozens of other important landmarks, it would look almost scarily out of scale, and it would overshadow huge tracts of land around it. Even if you built such a tower in the Docklands or Stratford, it would still be visible all over the place, cropping up in countless views and sticking out like a sore thumb, no matter how slim or elegant the design.

Anyway - as we've said countless times on this forum, London doesn't need to compete for the world's tallest building in order to improve its status. It is already one of the greatest and most successful world capitals; the centre of modern civilization, and the most cosmopolitan place on Earth. It has the strongest and most international financial centre, the busiest and most connected airport hub, the greatest sporting pedigree of any city, one of the most important media and creative industries, a world-renowned arts and music scene, the world's biggest nightlife district, a history and heritage spanning two millenia, a cultural influence which is unmatched anywhere, and is one of the most visited places on Earth. Need I go on?

Do you work for Ken or the touristboard?
I'll leave aside how the residents of Paris, New York, Rome etc etc could take you to task on most of those descriptions of London, and focus instead on the original point.
Why would 600m be overbearing, and 300m not? Clearly you would not place such a tower in the West End, or the City, but why not somewhere else? I'm not saying it should, and I'm not convinced that you're in error, but I just haven't heard any compelling argument in this forum against a building of such magnitude. You seem to be suggesting that London should not because it doesn't need to - culture, sports, nightlife etc etc. I think that the number of tall buildings that are constructed because a city needs to are in the minority (New York needs a 1774ft tall building?) so that shouldn't hold London back. And anyway, how does that rationale tie in with it being overbearing?

[potto]

I think you could still easily have a 1km high towers in Stratford or Wembley, redifine the sprawling deserts of London give the villages back to the village, why should they all cow to central London? Imagine epic vertical towns looking out over the green belt, defining and solidifying the boundary

[DarJoLe]

The base of a 600m building would be too big for Central London. It wouldn't fit into the existing townscape.

[Myster E]

what would you have thought the cancelled Milennium tower, I mean that was almost 400m tall. it made T42 looks ridiculous and short arse.