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

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by chjbolton

I think it's fine if a city gathers different neighbourhoods, but mixing them all up...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.

London is the most multicultural city in the world. All manner of cultures, languages, religion and creed live side by side all over the city in harmony, bouncing ideas and skills off each other like a global village that spans thousands of years of history.

Why shouldn't its architecture be any different?

[malec]

I don't get why they're fussing over the shard and bishopsgate tower. I think they're fantastic and do everything to enhance. I'd be much more worried about that walkie-talkie tower that just looms over everything

[london lad]

Originally Posted by 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.

You cant just build anything anywhere in London. One of the reasons skyscrapers in particular have such a hard time getting through the planning process is because there are protected conservation areas & protected sightlines for buildings such as St Pauls. Large areas of central London will never have skyscrapers due to this.

However where most of these new skyscrapers are planned & approved are in what has been designated a highrise area for the city of London. Out of the current skyscrapers approved or planned they are replacing post war buildings & not one Victorian building will be lost.

[brisavoine]

Originally Posted by chjbolton

I'm not saying London should go for a Paris-style law (nothing taller than 37 meters inside the historical city).

There is no law in Paris saying that nothing taller than 37 meters should be built in the historical city. What the law says is that buildings shorter than 37 meters go through the usual building permit application, whereas buildings taller than 37 meters require special authorization. The current mayor of Paris has hinted many times that he would authorize towers in central Paris if the projects proposed to him were meeting very high quality standards. There have been leaks that the mayor was currently considering authorizing the construction of a 246 m (807 ft) skyscraper, the so-called Hypergreen Tower by architect Jacques Ferrier, on the Avenue de France in the 13th arrondissement of the city proper.

Anyway, back to the topic, it is only natural that building a 300-meter skyscraper just across the Thames from the Tower of London would create a controversy. I'm actually surprised the controversy didn't happen earlier. Just imagine if the mayor of Paris had authorized a 300-m skyscraper just across the Seine from the Louvre Museum. It would have created a world uproar, with nasty editorials in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Americans have this fascination for the old Paris...

Building Paris supertalls in La Défense or Moscow supertalls in "Moscow-City", i.e. far enough from the historical centers, is safe in terms of controversies, and I think London should have built its own supertalls in Canary Wharf to avoid such controversies. Perhaps Ken Livingston was a bit too bold on this, but only time will tell.

[aquablue]

The tower of london has all ready been surrounded by modern structures -- its ridiculous to think that the LBT would be more detrimental just because it is tall...these UNESCO people don't seem to consider architectural quality at all, just height, that is a joke! Its not as if the City of London is a preserved meideval or "old" city at all anyway, given the bombing, the many concrete structures from the 1960's, etc... Crazy how cities can be bullied by these organizations...Cologne was crazy for bowing to them, setting a horrible precedent of cowardice.......I'd be extremely dissapointed if London capitulates.

[chjbolton]

Originally Posted by aquablue

I'd be extremely dissapointed if London capitulates.

Perhaps a bit further away from the original site but overall, I couldn't agree more.
This tower IS a beauty. No doubt.

[Stefan88]

Better to wait a long time and see a building as special as the London Bridge Tower rather than the whole planning process taking no time at all and seeing a load of crap being built.

[wjfox]

Yes, we keep being told "it's worth the wait". The trouble is, some of us have been waiting nearly 7 years already and the current site hasn't even been vacated yet. There comes a point where you begin losing the will to live. If this tower doesn't start soon, it won't be finished in time for the Olympics.

[wjfox]

Having visited London recently, UNESCO are recommending that LBT be cancelled, or the Tower of London could lose its "World Heritage" status. Please sign this petition to the Mayor of London -

http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html

[Newcastle Guy]

The petition has 70 signatures at the moment, we need lots more

Please help support London

[909]

Petition signed (#83).

[Newcastle Guy]

Thanks

We have gone over 90 now, but we need alot more

[El_Greco]

Signed.

[Skid-Mark]

I have voted, now at 137, but there are some worrying comments from some of the signee's, such as

"Shard of Glass and the Bishopsgate Tower = Good. Nimbyism = Bad"

and also "Die labour voters"

Hope these sorts of comments don't risk what we're trying to achieve here.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by Skid-Mark

but there are some worrying comments from some of the signee's, such as

"Shard of Glass and the Bishopsgate Tower = Good. Nimbyism = Bad"

Er... what's so worrying about that?

[alex-style]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

Er... what's so worrying about that?

where can i vote?

sry i´m new

[jef]

see signature

[spenster]

We need your support planet earth!!!!

[Skid-Mark]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

Er... what's so worrying about that?

Well we're not going to be taken seriously with such coments.

[wjfox]

An updated development programme has appeared on the official website. Confirms that demolition will start this year.