London skyline 2012 - all clusters in one view

[wjfox]

This is something I've been working on for the last few days, and which hopefully illustrates the sheer scale
of transformation occuring across London.

The pano itself was taken from a block of flats in Forest Hill. It was publicly accessible and I was able to reach
the 7th floor. Every cluster can be seen here - from Battersea to Lambeth, Westminster, Elephant & Castle,
Southwark, The City, right the way through to Greenwich, Canary Wharf and the Docklands.

I used Google Earth to get some of the heights and locations accurate. There are probably some midrises and
smaller towers I've left off, but the important ones are all there. More than 50% of what you see here either
has planning permission, or is undergoing demolition/construction work.

To be honest, it's more like 2015 than 2012... I've included things like the Broadgate Centre expansion,
Bishopsgate Goodsyard, Heron Quays West, Vauxhall Bondway, etc. which are longer term developments.
Anyway, this is the largest rendering I've ever done. Hope you like it.

Here's a "before and after" -




2007








2012

[Gherkin]

Very impressive... that must have taken you bloody ages! I can imagine foreigners or not-in-the-know public wondering where the centre of London is in that render! London will have at least 2 or 3 world class skylines by 2015

[Delirium]

Sort of a mix between being clustered but scattered.

also: London looks quite small...

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by helium

Sort of a mix between being clustered but scattered.

also: London looks quite small...

You creep, London looks small, eh? Is that all you can contribute... Yeah sure, maybe its small if your from NYC, or some Asian megacity, but London Ain't small -- and most of the real city is actually low rise, so your not really seeing the entire city in that photo, its deceptive.

Also, to JEF -- Your sophisiticated property talk is very interesting and all, but a tad too depressing for my liking - realism is boring and nobody ever made it big being realistic in this world. We don't care if some projects are cancelled in the future, because there will always be new projects that come along to replace them. You seem extremely pessamistic about the future - you remind me of Eor from winnie the poo. Sorry, but you do!!

[aquablue]

BTW, London's skyline won't rank up there with real skyscraper cities like NYC, etc for ages, but it will have a decent skyline in that shot -- but nothing that would classify it as a real SKYSCRAPER CITY -- it has nothing over 310m there. You can't even compare that to Kuala Lumpur, Taipei, Shanghai, etc... Sorry, London's great, but its not a true skyscrapercity yet -- i'd say it would need about 2x the ammount of towers to be considered for that title. Not that it isn't a much better city than many others wilth taller towers. I think it will take a new generation of leaders for tall towers to lose their stigma in the UK. Only then will you see real supertalls manifest. I would say that shot needs a couple of 400m'ers and 3 or 4 300m to really look stunning in the department.

Good work though mate!! Impressive, I don't know how to do that.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by aquablue

BTW, London's skyline won't rank up there with real skyscraper cities like NYC, etc for ages, but it will have a decent skyline in that shot -- but nothing that would classify it as a real SKYSCRAPER CITY -- it has nothing over 310m there. You can't even compare that to Kuala Lumpur, Taipei, Shanghai, etc... Sorry, London's great, but its not a true skyscrapercity yet -- i'd say it would need about 2x the ammount of towers to be considered for that title. Not that it isn't a much better city than many others wilth taller towers. I think it will take a new generation of leaders for tall towers to lose their stigma in the UK. Only then will you see real supertalls manifest. I would say that shot needs a couple of 400m'ers and 3 or 4 300m to really look stunning in the department.

Good work though mate!! Impressive, I don't know how to do that.

Obviously it won't rank alongside New York, Hong Kong or Chicago - and I think it's a little unfair to suggest it should. They are, after all, at the very top of the city rankings. I doubt it will ever match them. I strongly disagree with your statement however that London won't become a "skyscraper city".

310m is an impressive height by any city's standards. There are currently only five buildings in the whole of the United States which are taller than that. If you placed LBT in New York, it would be taller by roof height than everything apart from the Empire State Building. Think about that for a moment.

Bishopsgate Tower isn't far behind. In fact it's taller by roof height than the Chrysler Building and the Citigroup Center, among the most prominent buildings on the Manhattan skyline. You need to study the diagrams on SkyscraperPage.com to see the effect London's current proposals will have.

The sheer number of projects in the 150m+ range means that London will leapfrog over many American cities which have traditionally been thought of as "skyscraper cities". Even the likes of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta and Seattle will fall behind unless they build new towers to match London's. Even some Asian cities like Singapore had better watch out.

Anyway, it's all about context... and clearly a 200m building in a historic, world famous, far more visited, and traditionally lowrise city like London is going to receive way more attention than yet another 200m office building in America. When you take into account the location, extremely high design quality, and sheer number of towers going up, then in my opinion there's no reason why London can't become a "skyscraper city".

[AXISPAW]

Originally Posted by wjfox2002

Obviously it won't rank alongside New York, Hong Kong or Chicago - and I think it's a little unfair to suggest it should. They are, after all, at the very top of the city rankings. I doubt it will ever match them. I strongly disagree with your statement however that London won't become a "skyscraper city".

310m is an impressive height by any city's standards. There are currently only five buildings in the whole of the United States which are taller than that. If you placed LBT in New York, it would be taller by roof height than everything apart from the Empire State Building. Think about that for a moment.

Bishopsgate Tower isn't far behind. In fact it's taller by roof height than the Chrysler Building and the Citigroup Center, among the most prominent buildings on the Manhattan skyline. You need to study the diagrams on SkyscraperPage.com to see the effect London's current proposals will have.

The sheer number of projects in the 150m+ range means that London will leapfrog over many American cities which have traditionally been thought of as "skyscraper cities". Even the likes of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta and Seattle will fall behind unless they build new towers to match London's. Even some Asian cities like Singapore had better watch out.

Anyway, it's all about context... and clearly a 200m building in a historic, world famous, far more visited, and traditionally lowrise city like London is going to receive way more attention than yet another 200m office building in America. When you take into account the location, extremely high design quality, and sheer number of towers going up, then in my opinion there's no reason why London can't become a "skyscraper city".

I couldnt agree more. People fail to realise that New York's skyline is compromised of skyscrapers around the same height of canary wharfs tallest. the only 400+ buildings it had were the twin towers. To look at the 2012 picture and say that London isnt a true skyscraper city is rediculous. i must be looking at a different picture from you then because cleary to me it is, plus you have to remember that there are 2 main clusters there big enough to be cities themselves and then 2 smaller clusters, just imagine if you were to combine then all into 1 cluster, you would have a seriously large cluster of buildings.

[SAKBAZ]

Originally Posted by Helium

Sort of a mix between being clustered but scattered.

also: London looks quite small...

YOU ARE LOOKING AT ZONES 1 AND 2 OUT OF 6

[El_Greco]

Very nice

[Medo]

Great render Fox, very impressive indeed.

[randolph]

Great Work!!!! Lets hope that this will indeed be the view from forest hill in a few years from now!! Cw looks awsome! London will truely be without peers if all these come to fruition!

[mk61]

awesome. That's one hell of a view

[Stefan88]

That is a very impressive render. I like how London will have seperate clusters of highrises but imagine how good it would look if they were all together.

[labcreation]

very nice!!

[potto]

delicious stuff, the best way forward for London, unique, identity, polycentric

[Telfordboy]

That looks great. I hope it works out like that. Some impressive skills there Will.

[Dan1987]

Very good Will! Quite a view to behold in 5 years time

[jorgen]

Impressive. We should have a timelapse camera there, taking a new pic every month, see the beauties popping up

[DocShergar]

Amazing job.

[DarJoLe]

This is excellent and proves that London is large enough to sustain several impressive clusters, whether they be high density such as the City or Canary Wharf, or smaller 'village' clusters such as Vauxhall and the South Bank.

There is also a distinct difference between each of the clusters, the City being more iconic buildings, Canary Wharf being an American box style cluster, and Vauxhall being tall soaring slim residential. I'd like to see this difference exploited further to keep each cluster separate and instantly recognisable.