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 > City Talk

City Talk Local talk, activities, websites, etc...



Global Announcement

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


View Poll Results: Which city will have the best future skyline?
Birmingham 122 28.18%
Glasgow 20 4.62%
Leeds 49 11.32%
Liverpool 185 42.73%
Manchester 118 27.25%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 433. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 29th, 2009, 04:48 PM   #1921
Richard_A
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,289
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFly View Post
In fact, everyone repeat after me...since we are comparing our little (UK) phallic symbols then your judgement, on a skyscraper site should be:

1. Height
2. How tall is it above the ground
3. How many floors does it have
4. How high are the floors
5. How high is it again
6. How high does it reach
7. Can you parachute off it
8. Can you parachute off, with the chute opening in time
9. Can you see it from miles away
10. How high is it
1. Quality of architecture.
2. Quality of materials and construction.
3. Relationship to surroundings.
4. The rest...


I don't think this is a 'skyscraper' site, it is a lot more than that. It's an urban planning, architecture, development and photography forum. If it were just about heights of buildings, there really wouldn't be any basis for discussion or debate and it would be a very, very dull, one dimensional place.
Richard_A no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old December 29th, 2009, 04:52 PM   #1922
yoshef
I like beer.
 
yoshef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 11,162
Likes (Received): 537

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirthParker View Post
I was defending a point I made in another post when someone incorrectly tried to correct me. Whats wrong with that?

Are you saying in nearly 5,000 posts you have never made a post which wasn't directly related to the topic at hand?

By the way I voted Liverpool as my favourite skyline

you're right, what I meant was Greater Manchester isn't Manchester. Also worth noting that big brother usually refers to age rather than size.
yoshef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 04:55 PM   #1923
TheFly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,279
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_A View Post
1. Quality of architecture.
2. Quality of materials and construction.
3. Relationship to surroundings.
4. The rest...


I don't think this is a 'skyscraper' site, it is a lot more than that. It's an urban planning, architecture, development and photography forum. If it were just about heights of buildings, there really wouldn't be any basis for discussion or debate and it would be a very, very dull, one dimensional place.
It may be to you?

Personally I think you are over complicating the URL.

See how the main threads are all tiltled about how tall buildings are?

This thread is about the best future skyline, currently and perhaps for another 42 years (see CIS to Beetham) it is Manchester within a discussion about Skycrapers on www.skyscrapercity.com

otherwise...as stated above we are having a giraffe saying Liverpool/Manc/Leeds/Brum have the best future skyline when Oxford or Stirling shit all over it...if building heights have no impact.

You cannot have it both ways chaps!
TheFly no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 04:57 PM   #1924
TheFly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,279
Likes (Received): 0

The best future skyline is Stirling.
The tallest future skyline (recession folks) is Manchester
If towers are included, Portsmouth is stunning.
If height, Elmley bloody Moor is the best

C/mon it is all about height
TheFly no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 05:05 PM   #1925
FirthParker
Registered User
 
FirthParker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 379
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoshef View Post
you're right, what I meant was Greater Manchester isn't Manchester. Also worth noting that big brother usually refers to age rather than size.

Well if Manchester isn't Greater Manchester, then the City of London isn't London but its own individual place. Would you agree?
FirthParker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 05:07 PM   #1926
Paul D
CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER
 
Paul D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 14,301
Likes (Received): 2182

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFly View Post
The best future skyline is Stirling.
The tallest future skyline (recession folks) is Manchester
If towers are included, Portsmouth is stunning.
If height, Elmley bloody Moor is the best

C/mon it is all about height
I'd say it's all about architecture,backdrop and composition myself,if it was all about height then I suppose those chimneys in Runcorn would give it a great skyline.
Paul D no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 05:12 PM   #1927
TheFly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,279
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D View Post
I'd say it's all about architecture,backdrop and composition myself,if it was all about height then I suppose those chimneys in Runcorn would give it a great skyline.
They look better on our skyline than yours...maybe Warrington can strike a claim?
TheFly no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 05:13 PM   #1928
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,468
Likes (Received): 396

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoshef View Post
you're right, what I meant was Greater Manchester isn't Manchester.
Oh come on... how many times have we debated this issue?

In fact... how many times have we debated every issue
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 05:35 PM   #1929
yoshef
I like beer.
 
yoshef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 11,162
Likes (Received): 537

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirthParker View Post
Well if Manchester isn't Greater Manchester, then the City of London isn't London but its own individual place. Would you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accura4Matalan View Post
Oh come on... how many times have we debated this issue?

In fact... how many times have we debated every issue

Manchester is a city, it is neither Manchester City Council nor is it Greater Manchester. When people talk about Manchester they're talking about the city center and the surrounding built up area including Salford and Trafford, they are not talking about Wigan or Bolton.
yoshef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 05:35 PM   #1930
VoldemortBlack
Want a coffee after this?
 
VoldemortBlack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North Manchester M28
Posts: 3,782
Likes (Received): 4

Could we please get back to the point of future skylines ??

PERSONALLY, I think we need to get an ordinary member of the public to decide 'who has the best skyline', because, lets face it, we're all skyscraper nerds so we're gonna get picky about it, aren't we ??

But if we get someone with NO experience on the matter, and just ask them 'which skyline do you think is most stunning?' they'll answer their' answer, and then we can all button it x
VoldemortBlack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 05:40 PM   #1931
Richard_A
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,289
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFly View Post
It may be to you?

Personally I think you are over complicating the URL.

See how the main threads are all tiltled about how tall buildings are?

This thread is about the best future skyline, currently and perhaps for another 42 years (see CIS to Beetham) it is Manchester within a discussion about Skycrapers on www.skyscrapercity.com
URLs are purchased based on availability. They are chosen to balance relevency with memorability. You are reading far too much into a simple URL.

A forum is what its members make it.

The UK sections are clearly about far more than heights of buildings, and more interesting as a result. That is what its members have decided, through their choice of discussion and topic.

If you want to restrict the discussion of skylines to mere heights of 'skyscrapers', ignoring other factors which people deem relevent, the sort of factors which lead to Edinburgh being considered to have a great European skyline, then we really do have little to talk about:

Quote:
A loose convention in the United States and Europe now draws the lower limit of a skyscraper at 150 meters (500 ft). A skyscraper taller than 300 meters (984 ft) may be referred to as supertall. Shorter buildings are still sometimes referred to as skyscrapers if they appear to dominate their surroundings.
Perhaps we should find another forum with the correct URL?

Is www.midrisecity.com available?
Richard_A no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 06:03 PM   #1932
ill tonkso
Portsmouths Finest, Maybe
 
ill tonkso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Albans
Posts: 15,401
Likes (Received): 971

Future Portsmouth. Both new City Centre Tower proposals included.


From the M27 coming in from the West.

From the Royal Terrace at Osborne House (one of the best places to view the skyline imho).



From a Ferry coming into Portsmouth Harbour.

ill tonkso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 06:04 PM   #1933
VoldemortBlack
Want a coffee after this?
 
VoldemortBlack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North Manchester M28
Posts: 3,782
Likes (Received): 4

That second picture looks like a foreign city
VoldemortBlack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 06:08 PM   #1934
yoshef
I like beer.
 
yoshef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 11,162
Likes (Received): 537

at last a render, well done Tonkso, looking good
yoshef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 06:28 PM   #1935
Richard_A
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,289
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirthParker View Post
Well if Manchester isn't Greater Manchester, then the City of London isn't London but its own individual place. Would you agree?
Though unique in the UK and technically not a normal London Borough, the City of London Corporation is acts similarly to the London boroughs, though it only has a resident population of around 8,000.

You're analogy is questionable because the relationship of places like Bolton and Wigan to Manchester is not fully analagous to the relationship of places like Barnet and Newham to the City of London Corporation.

Bolton and Wigan are now Boroughs of Greater Manchester. However, Barnet and Camden are London Boroughs, not Metropolitan Boroughs. Therein lies the difference. It's political, cultural and psychological. London has been far more than The City for centuries, whereas Greater Manchester is a relatively recent construct which inlcudes not just continuous urban areas of Manchester proper, but some fairly disparate towns.

Greater London grew outwards organically. Many of its outer boroughs are relatively new, built in the 19th and 20th centuries, often in response to London Transport expansion. Those small pre-existing towns and villages that were subsumed didn't have quite the same distinct traditions and identity of some of those south Lancashire towns that have been redefined as the outer areas of Greater Manchester.

Greater London and Greater Manchester are essentially quite different constructs, so direct comparisons based on labels have limited value.

Merseyside is a different sort of construct again, though it makes sense to liken Sefton/Liverpool to, say, Brent/London, it would be misleading and simplistic to also consider Southport part of Liverpool.

In short, the UK's administrative arrangements are so mixed, changing, varied, inconsistent, and sometimes confused, that it makes it hard to use them as the basis for defining the boundaries and limits of a city and then comparing that city to others.

For example, we all know that its misleading to accept either the 464,000 or 2,500,000 figure for the population of Manchester. The meaningful figure is somewhere above the middle, including the fully integrated inner boroughs and excluding some outer areas that are part of Greater Manchester but quite distinct from Manchesrer itself.

However the 7,500,000 figure for London is easier to identify, define and justify. Nobody in their right mind would liken The City of London, with its 8,000 residents, to the City of Manchester Metropolitan Borough, with its 464,000. Again... Greater London and Greater Manchester are quite different constructions.
Richard_A no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 06:28 PM   #1936
yoshef
I like beer.
 
yoshef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 11,162
Likes (Received): 537

Fantasy I know, but Liverpool in 3,4 or 5 years time? Wasn't going to put this here for fear of inciting a bickering contest, but what the hell!

Shanghai Tower has been moved to the south end of clarence dock, there for affect! LCC supplementary planning doc was changed to allow tall buildings of around 200m in this area. Interesting to see if Peel ever build anything in Liverpool other than expanding the airport!

The council originally knocked back King Eddy for being confused and slab like, and altough the developers said they had funding in place, they have gone quiet, probably wont happen.

The Pall Mall block is predicated on government relocations.

Central Village & The Quarter are the only two big developments likely to continue at the moment.


Last edited by yoshef; December 29th, 2009 at 06:36 PM.
yoshef no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 06:36 PM   #1937
VoldemortBlack
Want a coffee after this?
 
VoldemortBlack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North Manchester M28
Posts: 3,782
Likes (Received): 4


good but, it's not what I expected from Liverpool, it's not got as much OOMF as the current skyline does. Maybe because the really tall buildings are spaced too far apart, which makes them look a bit ... unimportant.

Plus, how many of those have actually been approved/are under construction ?
VoldemortBlack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 06:55 PM   #1938
Richard_A
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,289
Likes (Received): 7



In 5 years time.... as you imply... very little chance.... but still... just imagine... it would look superb.

Though the recession has put the brakes on the pace of development in our regional cities (London seems less effected), some of the factors which contributed to the banking crisis also helped fuel that development.

I've always been uneasy with city centre development that was built on residential property speculation rather than commercial developments.

We have to be honest, a number of these towers, planned or actually built in Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds, have been based on a flawed economic model. If we are being sensible, we have to hope that this is not repeated in the same way in the future, and that development is more longsighted and built on solid foundations, rather than being about pandering to the whims of the housing market.

Offices, relocation and redistribution of economic activity from the historically overheated South East*. That's what our northern and Scottish cities, and the country as a whole, need. Not flats.

The new towers we have seen completed or underway have contributed to creating/underlining a sense of rebirth in some of our provincial cities, but it is very much surface perception.

Let's have some non-residential towers in Liverpool's 'knowledge quarter' first (for example). Let's have hubs of new towers around our universties.

Our cities need to encourage creativity, invention and innovation if they are to compete internationally with the rapidly growing cities of the east which increasingly have mass consumer goods production sewn up.

King Edward Tower was another primarily residential development. Part of me would like to see it still happen, but for essentially shallow reasons. In the future we need more than that.

Shanghai Tower... perhaps more interesting in terms of its supposed purpose?


* As opposed to redistribution of economic activity from other parts of the North, or indeed, 'North West'.
Richard_A no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 06:59 PM   #1939
Leeds No.1
Registered User
 
Leeds No.1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Leeds, EU
Posts: 25,141
Likes (Received): 694

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_A View Post
We have to be honest, a number of these towers, planned or actually built in Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds, have been based on a flawed economic model. If we are being sensible, we have to hope that this is not repeated in the same way in the future, and that development is more longsighted and built on solid foundations, rather than being about pandering to the whims of the housing market.

Offices, relocation and redistribution of economic activity from the historically overheated South East*. That's what our northern and Scottish cities, and the country as a whole, need. Not flats.
In some ways this is true, but it's not the big towers that have failed us. The skyscrapers have generally been succesful- Bridgewater Place is 100% occupied because the accommodation is prime apartments. It's the more average mid-rises that haven't worked- the ones that are essentially cheap thrown up 'rabbit hutches'.

I agree about relocation from the South East. The only problem here is that the government doesn't back this at all. I mean it says it does, but the continued investment in the Sotuh East and the failure to invest in the rest of the country demonstrates they are all for further centralisation in the SE if anything. Having said that, the current attack on the City could be beneficial to the regions.
Leeds No.1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2009, 07:12 PM   #1940
TheFly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,279
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard_A View Post
Though unique in the UK and technically not a normal London Borough, the City of London Corporation is acts similarly to the London boroughs, though it only has a resident population of around 8,000.

You're analogy is questionable because the relationship of places like Bolton and Wigan to Manchester is not fully analagous to the relationship of places like Barnet and Newham to the City of London Corporation.

Bolton and Wigan are now Boroughs of Greater Manchester. However, Barnet and Camden are London Boroughs, not Metropolitan Boroughs. Therein lies the difference. It's political, cultural and psychological. London has been far more than The City for centuries, whereas Greater Manchester is a relatively recent construct which inlcudes not just continuous urban areas of Manchester proper, but some fairly disparate towns.

Greater London grew outwards organically. Many of its outer boroughs are relatively new, built in the 19th and 20th centuries, often in response to London Transport expansion. Those small pre-existing towns and villages that were subsumed didn't have quite the same distinct traditions and identity of some of those south Lancashire towns that have been redefined as the outer areas of Greater Manchester.

Greater London and Greater Manchester are essentially quite different constructs, so direct comparisons based on labels have limited value.

Merseyside is a different sort of construct again, though it makes sense to liken Sefton/Liverpool to, say, Brent/London, it would be misleading and simplistic to also consider Southport part of Liverpool.

In short, the UK's administrative arrangements are so mixed, changing, varied, inconsistent, and sometimes confused, that it makes it hard to use them as the basis for defining the boundaries and limits of a city and then comparing that city to others.

For example, we all know that its misleading to accept either the 464,000 or 2,500,000 figure for the population of Manchester. The meaningful figure is somewhere above the middle, including the fully integrated inner boroughs and excluding some outer areas that are part of Greater Manchester but quite distinct from Manchesrer itself.

However the 7,500,000 figure for London is easier to identify, define and justify. Nobody in their right mind would liken The City of London, with its 8,000 residents, to the City of Manchester Metropolitan Borough, with its 464,000. Again... Greater London and Greater Manchester are quite different constructions.
yeah yeah yeah, recent constructs.....what compared with Toronto? or Milton Keynes or Skelmersdale.

Manchester is now what it is, not what it was 200 years ago or what you want it to be
TheFly no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

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 02:06 AM.


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