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

[scalatrava89]

What a beautiful sunset.

[teemac]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire Boy

sounds like a sex position. Sorry, I'm immature, I know.

Life would be sad if we couldn't be a bit immature from time to time.Personally I thought reverse Porto nuts was one of Ronaldo's soccer moves.

On a serious note,though,wasn't that photo from the quad of Guy's impressive?Don't think I've seen one that captures the sheer presence of the Shard better than that.Thanks,11001001.

[Forb Noj]

Originally Posted by BeestonLad

I'm doing a reverse Porto nuts here - theres some great photos on this page in the world section that don't seem to have been posted here...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...18897&page=133

This one's my favourite, the cladding looks awesome...

One of the best shots yet. Perhaps not as accomplished artiistically as those of Chest et al but it gives such a sense of presence. One question. Why is the glass cladding having to step in each floor on the south side? I see no reason to have to do this (the joints appear aligned)?

[BorderBoy]

Originally Posted by scalatrava89

What a beautiful sunset.

FAAANTAAASTIC shot

[RedArkady]

Originally Posted by BeestonLad

I'm doing a reverse Porto nuts here - theres some great photos on this page in the world section that don't seem to have been posted here...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...18897&page=133

This one's my favourite, the cladding looks awesome...

Really starting to see the point of the darker glass in the 'grooves'. This build is even managing to surpass expectations... A

[mulattokid]

A pre-war shot of the area.

Look how the warehouses go right up to Soutwark Cathedral. I dare anyone to complain about modern buildings blighting such historic buildings!

[BorderBoy]

Originally Posted by mulattokid

A pre-war shot of the area.

Look how the warehouses go right up to Soutwark Cathedral. I dare anyone to complain about modern buildings blighting such historic buildings!

I suspect there was rather more harmony (of materials and scale) than there might be between a medieval cathedral and a 1000foot steel and glass tower.

[mulattokid]

Originally Posted by BorderBoy

I suspect there was rather more harmony (of materials and scale) than there might be between a medieval cathedral and a 1000foot steel and glass tower.

Oh....so you think the Shard is out of place then? LOL

Cathedrals were built to 'dominate' their surroundings, NOT harmonise with them, whereas skyscrapers 'have to' harmonise as much as possible (hence the Shard attempt at being relatively transparent)....in ancient cities like this anyway. Retrospect is such a dodgy tool. You have it completely the wrong way round. Why does it not surprise me?

[Gherkin]

Of course the Shard is out of place! Are there any other 1000ft glass skyscrapers nearby!? And does it not already dominate Southwark, even at half it's full height?

Any building with an 'iconic' tag means it is out of place... but being out of place can also really enhance an area, like cathedrals. Skyscrapers are very rarely harmonious in low rise cities, the trick of using glass to 'reflect' the surroundings works on planners but at the end of the day a 300m building surrounded by 10-20m buildings will always look out of place. But this isn't a bad thing. 'Iconic' or 'landmark' buildings become the new focal point for an area, and people will always warm to them given enough time.

[googledpeakoil]

I see on the webcam that the construction lift girders have got taller - there's 2 prongs that have risen up above that black climbing formwork... based on past history this seems to happen before the formwork rises. So maybe in a few days we'll see the core setback. From that schematic pic I saw on this thread I think the only side that won't setback is the side with the construction lifts on the core - which of course would make sense!
I imagine those lifts don't go from the formwork all the way to the ground - they must remove the bottom bit each time they pour a new floor. Is that right?

[ill tonkso]

I would not say the Shard is out of place at all, it is in the middle of one of the worlds 'big 4' cities, adjacent to one of it's larger rail stations.

What IS out of place is that god awful 80s office block that wraps around the Cathedral. It breaks up the streetscrape and doesn't allow the catherdral room to breath. A glass box would be far more appropriate for that location.

[i_like_concrete]

Yeah, the phrase "out of place" jars with me too, it suggests that the building doesn't belong there, when it quite obviously does belong next to one of London's largest transport hubs, within a stones throw of the city's financial centre and geographically speaking well within the centre of London.

I would say that whilst it stands out and offers a contrast to its immediate surroundings, it is most certainly not out of place. There is nowhere in London where this would look better in my opinion.

[NorthLimitation]

Originally Posted by mulattokid

Oh....so you think the Shard is out of place then? LOL

Cathedrals were built to 'dominate' their surroundings, NOT harmonise with them, whereas skyscrapers 'have to' harmonise as much as possible (hence the Shard attempt at being relatively transparent)....in ancient cities like this anyway. Retrospect is such a dodgy tool. You have it completely the wrong way round. Why does it not surprise me?

He's right though, it was a lot more harmonious.

[cybertect]

Originally Posted by mulattokid

Cathedrals were built to 'dominate' their surroundings, NOT harmonise with them

quite.

The cathedral building spree in England by the Normans in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries (Durham, Winchester, Ely, Norwich etc.) was as much an act of political domination as their parallel castle building programme.

To use the terminology of the Second Gulf War, the construction of early medieval English cathedrals was a 'shock and awe' tactic to make their new subjects know who was boss.

Even St. Paul's Cathedral, several centuries later, was decidedly out of kilter with the scale of the rest of London, and the general population's expectations of what an English cathedral should look like.

[googledpeakoil]

Originally Posted by Megalothian

The up-and-coming tapering in of the core should balance things out from that view (I think?)

If you look at eddyks most recent pic/render the core should soon go up from the S to the R of the SHARD core logo making it appear more central...

If you look at this image. In section 3. On the corner facing us, left edge you will see the last 4 levels (at full width) have holes for entry to the lift block. On the right side are 2 gaps.
These correspond exactly with the photos of the last 2 floors of the core that are visible now.
This is DEFINITELY the last floors of the core at full size visible now! As soon as the formwork goes up we'll see the thinner core.

Compare it with this photo from flicker - and all the funny holes match exactly:
image hosted on flickr


I'm sure that diagram is super-accurate based on this - and we're going to see the core setback on 3 sides at the next floor... from Guy's tower where this is taken - the only floor that won't setback is the one facing the river! Do folks agree?
FYI - The mini tower is definately in the bottom right corner of this photo (just below camera and below the crane) - so that lines up correct too

[BuildItBig]

Originally Posted by googledpeakoil

If you look at this image. In section 3. On the corner facing us, left edge you will see the last 4 levels (at full width) have holes for entry to the lift block. On the right side are 2 gaps.
These correspond exactly with the photos of the last 2 floors of the core that are visible now.
This is DEFINITELY the last floors of the core at full size visible now! As soon as the formwork goes up we'll see the thinner core.

Compare it with this photo from flicker - and all the funny holes match exactly:
image hosted on flickr


I'm sure that diagram is super-accurate based on this - and we're going to see the core setback on 3 sides at the next floor... from Guy's tower where this is taken - the only floor that won't setback is the one facing the river! Do folks agree?
FYI - The mini tower is definately in the bottom right corner of this photo (just below camera and below the crane) - so that lines up correct too

I completely concur... I reckon that diagram must be the business. Can't wait for stage two to begin.

[Skyscrapercarazeeee]

Yep,which is why the core hasn't risen for several days.At present it's 138 metres,so still 171 metres to go..almost a Tower42 heights worth to be added ! It looked massive enough when i was there two and half weeks ago :-0

.

[DSQ]

Originally Posted by mulattokid

A pre-war shot of the area.

Look how the warehouses go right up to Soutwark Cathedral. I dare anyone to complain about modern buildings blighting such historic buildings!

Fantastic picture, is the anyway you can contrast this with a modern shot of the same view

i've looked but can't find one

[mulattokid]

This is a near as I can get

[mulattokid]

Originally Posted by NorthLimitation

He's right though, it was a lot more harmonious.

Harmonious in which sense? The Cathedral is overwhelmed by dirty warehouses and their spoil in that old pic. Not what the church and people of London wanted when it was built. Would the people of its time call that old view harmonius?

Only today might some call that view harmonius because architecture has moved on and is of a much greater scale, yet again. This talk of harmony is a red herring as it means nothing in a constantly evolving city Like London.

Now nostalgia! there we find a very useful word.