London skyline 2012 - all clusters in one view

[london lad]

Originally Posted by JamesC

You have forgotten Leadenhall Building.

Have another look- I think the only thing forgotten is your glasses

[jorgen]

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

[jef]

Originally Posted by Dan1987

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.

[wjfox]

Originally Posted by london lad

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.

[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".

[patch]

That render is briliant! I cant wait til 2012!!

[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.

[Delirium]

Originally Posted by twiz

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!

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.

[JDRS]

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.

[aquablue]

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.

[potto]

Londons skyline will look more attractive than NY and that of the big Asian cities

[aquablue]

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.

[Tharpe]

yeah but no city has 2 and a half big clusters lol

[Tharpe]

Originally Posted by AXISPAW

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

[Manuel]

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.

[MNL]

AWESOME!

[jorgen]

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

[Dan1987]

Originally Posted by jorgen

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

[jorgen]

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

[SELondoner]

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!