daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > London Metro Area

London Metro Area London Calling...



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 21 votes, 4.81 average.
Old June 23rd, 2007, 10:27 AM   #41
london lad
Registered User
 
london lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 8,764
Likes (Received): 485

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesC View Post
You have forgotten Leadenhall Building.

Have another look- I think the only thing forgotten is your glasses
london lad no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old June 23rd, 2007, 11:13 AM   #42
jorgen
Viking
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norway (ex London)
Posts: 1,074
Likes (Received): 1

JamesC was right at the time. I think Leadenhall was added after his comment, I wasn't able to see it either.

Anyway, it's there now
jorgen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2007, 11:55 AM   #43
jef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brussels/London
Posts: 3,349
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan1987 View Post
I thought Skanska had signed to build the Heron Tower last year?
Substructure only. Decision to build to super-structure has not yet been taken.
jef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2007, 12:08 PM   #44
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 37,487
Likes (Received): 6110

Quote:
Originally Posted by london lad View Post
Have another look- I think the only thing forgotten is your glasses
He was talking about the label on the annotated version, which I've now added.
__________________
FutureTimeline.net...
wjfox está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2007, 12:58 PM   #45
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 37,487
Likes (Received): 6110

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
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".
__________________
FutureTimeline.net...
wjfox está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2007, 01:07 PM   #46
patch
junglist
 
patch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 6

That render is briliant! I cant wait til 2012!!
patch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2007, 02:54 PM   #47
AXISPAW
Registered User
 
AXISPAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 834
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjfox2002 View Post
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.
AXISPAW no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2007, 09:39 PM   #48
Delirium
Sexy Astronaut
 
Delirium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,698
Likes (Received): 894

Quote:
Originally Posted by twiz View Post
capital of the world!

"London looks quite small..." WHAT?! I guess you're talking about the city of London which I think is relatively small bu London as a whole looks heeuuge!
Quote:
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

No I mean it looks smaller than it does because of the illusion the ridge of hills give (which look ruralish in alot of places) behind the north London skyline*,
But when you consider those hills are something like 30 miles away, it just shows that although in terms of built up area London is huge, you can can still see the countryside in that pic, Which is very nice.
but calling me a creep, that was uncalled for.

But yes very nice pano' and renders.

Last edited by Delirium; June 23rd, 2007 at 09:46 PM.
Delirium no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2007, 10:44 PM   #49
JDRS
Against ID Cards
 
JDRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 9,787
Likes (Received): 2

Fantastic render, I really like the fact that we'll have almost several different skyscraper districts, rather than everything in one place. It allows for the different styles from modern canary wharf to the more unusual & original city of london.
JDRS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 12:37 AM   #50
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,757
Likes (Received): 182

Regarding comments about NYC: NYC has many more buildings higher than Canary Wharf's tallest other than the old twins and the ESB. Check out the bloomberg building, woolworths, chrysler, etc. Also, NYC is getting 1 new 500m, 2 new 300m, and 2 potential twin towers of in midtown.

Again, London will resemble Tokyo with its mostly medium sized skyscrapers with 1/2 talls rather than a super dense highrise city like NYC, HK, Shaghai. Tokyo is not really a true skyscrapercity either.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 12:39 AM   #51
potto
Registered User
 
potto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14,936
Likes (Received): 1936

Londons skyline will look more attractive than NY and that of the big Asian cities
potto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 12:57 AM   #52
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,757
Likes (Received): 182

It may look more attractive and minamilist - with each building unobstructed by countless others - but that wasn't my point. Regarding the render - I'd like to see a view up the river including all the proposed talls - that would be interesting given that they mostly hug the riversides. I think that would be a more impressive view - this one looks slightly distant and lonley given the distance of the vantage point.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 09:42 AM   #53
Tharpe
Registered User
 
Tharpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Minas Tirith
Posts: 301
Likes (Received): 0

yeah but no city has 2 and a half big clusters lol
__________________
selvom du ikke tror det Gud elsker dig og stadig bryder sig om dig, han ønsker at være i forhold med dig og dele dit liv med glæde, hvis du vil lade ham.
Tharpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 09:46 AM   #54
Tharpe
Registered User
 
Tharpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Minas Tirith
Posts: 301
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by AXISPAW View Post
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.
which probably would be bigger then manhattans density of skyscrapers
__________________
selvom du ikke tror det Gud elsker dig og stadig bryder sig om dig, han ønsker at være i forhold med dig og dele dit liv med glæde, hvis du vil lade ham.
Tharpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 09:51 AM   #55
Manuel
Registered User
 
Manuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,952
Likes (Received): 15

Very good job Wjfox! Clusters looks good but your rendering also reveals the incongruity of some towers, notably in Paddington/Victoria and in the Southbank.
Manuel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 09:58 AM   #56
MNL
!eccentric!
 
MNL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Metro Manila
Posts: 783
Likes (Received): 0

AWESOME!
__________________
"The Philippines is a Latin American country that was transported to the Orient by a gigantic marine wave". - Arnold J. Toynbee

"Las Islas Filipinas"
MNL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 12:44 PM   #57
jorgen
Viking
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norway (ex London)
Posts: 1,074
Likes (Received): 1

It's not fair comparing London 2012-2015 with NYC 2007

Also, before 2012, NYC will have built far more highrises than London in the same period. There are 17 or so buildings over 150 meter U/C in NYC right now, some of them with amazing design (WTC towers).

London will have the best skyline in Europe though
jorgen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 05:55 PM   #58
Dan1987
Registered User
 
Dan1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NW Surrey
Posts: 946
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgen View Post
It's not fair comparing London 2012-2015 with NYC 2007

Also, before 2012, NYC will have built far more highrises than London in the same period. There are 17 or so buildings over 150 meter U/C in NYC right now, some of them with amazing design (WTC towers).

London will have the best skyline in Europe though
How many of them in NYC will you notice though? I'd say you'd only be able to notice the Freedom Tower + chums if you were given a comparison diagram, the problem with NYC is they're building too many buildings of the same height so they're unnoticeable
Dan1987 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 08:06 PM   #59
jorgen
Viking
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norway (ex London)
Posts: 1,074
Likes (Received): 1

In NYC It's just so very many, that some do of course have the same height. Together they make the greatest skyline still though
jorgen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 08:29 PM   #60
SELondoner
Registered User
 
SELondoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 633
Likes (Received): 12

Great effort with the montage, well done.

Regarding the N American and Asian cities, of course they're denser - that's the way the world is, they don't have the same historical issues we have in Europe. That's no slur on those cities, I have been to and love N American cities like New York and Toronto, Asian cities like Hong Kong and Singapore, and indeed Australian cities like Sydney and Melbourne. They're great. London will never match the skyscraper skylines of midtown Manhattan, or Hong Kong as viewed from Victoria Peak or Kowloon.

But European cities don't have the same freedom to raze large sections of land in the city centre and put up skyscrapers with no consideration of how they impact on existing views. It's far, far harder to successfully build toall buildings which will tower over old churches, royal palaces, castles, listed buildings, historic parks. That's why most historic cities haven't tried to mix the old and new, and skyscrapers in Paris, for example, are clustered in La Defence, not within the peripherique.

The reason the UN don't object to skyscrapers going up in NYC is that London is far more sensitive. London is probably the only historic European city which has had the front to insert skyscrapers into its historic heart, and it's fantastic in my view.

Comparisons with cities in Asian and the new world are inevitable but are unfair; the other major European cities are our peers, and realistically that means Paris and Frankfurt at the moment. Paris is too lopsided in my view with no talls in the centre, and Frankfurt too soulless, but they're probably our biggest rivals which we need to keep and eye on.

I think this view of 2012-2015, even if several of the proposals drop out, shows we'll be hard to beat in Europe, but it will always be subjective!
SELondoner no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu