LONDON | The Shard | 306m | 1004ft | 73 fl | Com

[NothingBetterToDo]

Heron looks beautiful in that renderoid

[wjfox]

I can't believe what I'm reading in the UK forum this morning.

It sounds like this project is in danger of being cancelled.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=357

[wjfox]

From the Independent. The final paragraph gives some hope -


UN threatens to put Tower of London on danger list

By Terry Kirby, Chief Reporter

Unesco is threatening to place the Tower of London on its list of endangered World Heritage Sites because of the number of skyscrapers being planned for the surrounding area.

The fortress, which William the Conqueror started building in 1078 to dominate London, would be the only building in the developed world on the endangered list.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has got until the end of the month to demonstrate to the UN agency's World Heritage Committee why the Tower of London should not be included on the list. It is expected to say that the correct planning procedures were followed for the proposed developments.

These include the 306-metre-high "Shard of Glass" tower planned for London Bridge, which will be Britain's tallest building. Although plans for a second tower, the 200-metre Minerva building, have been scaled down, two other proposed buildings, a 324-metre high Bishopsgate tower and a 209-metre building at 20 Fenchurch Street, have also raised alarm at Unesco.

The World Heritage Committee said last year that it noted "with great concern" the proposed developments which failed to respect the significance of the site and "deeply regretted" that the Government had not yet examined the impact of such developments on the Tower. It also suggested that the developments would have a wider impact, affecting other World Heritage Sites, the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey.

A joint team from the World Heritage Centre and the independent International Council on Monuments and Sites subsequently visited the site. The Government has been asked to respond to the criticisms by the end of this month, and give a timetable for "corrective action".

A culture department spokesman has admitted it would not be possible to "row back" on permission for the Shard of Glass. He stressed that permission for the development was granted after a public inquiry which considered the environmental impact, adding: "Our response to these criticisms will be that our planning controls are among the most sophisticated in the world. As a result we are pretty confident we will not be placed on the danger list."

Unesco will make a final decision in June.

[Zenith]

Im utterly confused. Please can someone explain how a World Alpha city should not build tall buildings simply because it has a castle in it. Please explain because I am fucking livid with UNESCO for even bringing this up.

No you can't build that building because those NIMBYS object to it. NO you can't build it because some friggin shit authority will say it will impact (what the fuck does that fucking mean) the tower of London/Tower bridge /St Pauls..

No you can't build that because of sightlines....because it will blocks views of......oh im sick of hearing it all now. No you can't build that because people may see it from a fucking park !!! How the fuck does New York fucking cope then. Fuck off.

[Avens]

It'll be a fucking joke if this is cancelled. Some people need to realise this is the 21st century and stop being so fucking scared of progress. This would potentially be one of the most beautiful buildings in the world and people are trying to stop it happening. Why? Get a fucking life. The Tower of London will still be there! If this doesn't go ahead I'm going to lose faith in a large portion of the world's ability to move forward. So many people are stuck in the past. London can't just sit back and rest on it's (fantastic) past. It needs to step up and create landmarks for this era. LBT would've been the perfect start. I'll be truly devastated if this doesn't go ahead.

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

I can't believe what I'm reading in the UK forum this morning.

It sounds like this project is in danger of being cancelled.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=357

What Jef meant was, that Ken is under pressure to cancel the TFL letting from the conservatives, greens, UNESCO etc...

LOL do you really think HE of all people would do that though?

I think it'll be OK, it's just the court case left to go now before we focus on getting PWC out of Southwark towers

[Newcastle Guy]

Originally Posted by Avens

LBT would've been the perfect start. I'll be truly devastated if this doesn't go ahead.

And it still will be

[Avens]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Guy

And it still will be

Yeah maybe we're getting a little carried away and jumping the gun a bit. But it was looking like a certainty to be built, now it seems much more 50/50.

[Newcastle Guy]

Indeed. I agree that this has cast some doubt over it, but some people here act as though it has just been cancelled.

[HT]

Its the same thing like in Cologne !

Th unesco said if they build the announced skyscrapers the "Kölner Dom" will not be a UNESCO building anymore.

The unesco is such a f****** shit !

[Matthieu]

Originally Posted by zenith

Im utterly confused. Please can someone explain how a World Alpha city should not build tall buildings simply because it has a castle in it. Please explain because I am fucking livid with UNESCO for even bringing this up.

No you can't build that building because those NIMBYS object to it. NO you can't build it because some friggin shit authority will say it will impact (what the fuck does that fucking mean) the tower of London/Tower bridge /St Pauls..

No you can't build that because of sightlines....because it will blocks views of......oh im sick of hearing it all now. No you can't build that because people may see it from a fucking park !!! How the fuck does New York fucking cope then. Fuck off.

The UNESCO can't cancel that building. But it can remove the ToL from it's world heritage list.

[Varenukha]

Originally Posted by Matthieu

The UNESCO can't cancel that building. But it can remove the ToL from it's world heritage list.

This raises the question: what is the cost of defying UNESCO? It would be madness to remove the ToL from their heritage list, and it is hardly the most powerful lobbying group in the world. Is there a grant received from UNESCO for upkeep? Hardly likely! Given ToL is in such a wealthy city.
So UNESCO is getting involved. So What?

[Matthieu]

It would be fun if you people took the piss.

[Huppoe]

Originally Posted by HT

Its the same thing like in Cologne !

Th unesco said if they build the announced skyscrapers the "Kölner Dom" will not be a UNESCO building anymore.

The unesco is such a f****** shit !

Protecting cultural environments is not "f****** shit !", you will thank them in 30 years. You can always build skyscrapers to another place but try to move Kölner Dom...

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Varenukha

It would be madness to remove the ToL from their heritage list,

Why?Would The Tower disapear if removed from heritage list?

[chjbolton]

Frankly, I think there full of crap as well, but they DID put an 'official' finger on something that a lot of people think about London:
it has build and still builds anything anywhere!!
London, however cool and great and blablabla (I agree with most of it), London is such an architectural mess!
A beautiful Victorian monument can be squeezed between a big glassy tower on one side and a shitty kebab restaurant on the other!
If you look at the skyline, it speaks for itself. We could almost start a bet about when they will build a 200 m skyscraper just in front of Big Ben.

I'm not saying UNESCO is right, and I'm not saying London should go for a Paris-style law (nothing taller than 37 meters inside the historical city), but I do hope their message it going to be heard in the future. For the sake of the London's monuments. Although it's a bit late if you ask me. Just look at St Paul's surroundings...

Canary Warf is fine! Why do they have to cram the city with new clusters everywhere?
And London is NOT like New York.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by chjbolton

London is such an architectural mess!

That's the whole point.

Why shouldn't a city mix up all its architecture and dare to place modern next to old?

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by chjbolton

London is such an architectural mess!

Of course it is, and as DarJoLe says, that's the whole point. This is what gives the city its character, and makes it such a fascinating place to explore and photograph - you're never quite sure what's around the next corner. London has an almost unrivalled variety of styles, shapes, colours, materials and designs, spanning nearly a thousand years. This creates some amazing juxtapositions and contrasts. London is a photographer's paradise.

[delahaye]

it doesn't make a city more worth living though

[chjbolton]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

That's the whole point.

Why shouldn't a city mix up all its architecture and dare to place modern next to old?

It's a point of view some people will defend.
I think it's fine if a city gathers different neighbourhoods, but mixing them all up...
I don't know. I see it more as the formation of a big gray mass, or even the 'swallowing' of certain cultures by others, more than an effective way to promote ALL those cultures.

I guess we just see cultural enhancement for a city a different way.