60-70 St Mary Axe | City of London | 90m | 18 fl | Pro

[Comdot]

some pdf files from the planning application...

existing elevations
http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov...e=&pageCount=1
location plan and exisiting buildings plans
http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov...e=&pageCount=1
proposed elevations
http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov...e=&pageCount=1
http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov...e=&pageCount=1

planning statement
http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov...e=&pageCount=1
archaelogical report
http://www.planning.cityoflondon.gov...e=&pageCount=1

[Comdot]

here's a bit about the existing building at 70 st mary axe.
from an office space company- http://www.targetfollow.co.uk/pdf/st_mary_axe.pdf
aerial view, photo, map, interior, etc

[dirtydog]

Just ghastly - does the City really need yet another pretentious design of building. And why propose something so short? Although if this is the design then the shorter the better...

[fitz44]

Pretentious and too short? Isn't that a bit contradictory? It makes no exaggerated claims for itself, being surrounded (eventually we hope) by much taller buildings. Its surface treatment is relatively simple and based on current green principles for buildings of this type. I can't think of any way in which this design is pretentious other than it has an unusual form and is not a "boring glass box" cliche. We should be glad architect and developer are prepared to try something different.

[dirtydog]

Originally Posted by fitz44

Pretentious and too short? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

Not at all.

I can't think of any way in which this design is pretentious other than it has an unusual form and is not a "boring glass box" cliche. We should be glad architect and developer are prepared to try something different.

You just answered the question. Why try something "different" just for the sake of it? Isn't functionality what business demands first and foremost? Yet we get towers like the Gherkin and I believe it also applies to the Broadgate tower, which have unusual floor shapes and thus demand special furniture and the like. Meanwhile Canary Wharf doesn't fanny about, it just gets on with the job of building proper, modern office towers which are designed foremost to suit the needs of the client, and not to look 'clever' in an area which already has its fair share of such buildings.

I wonder if some people realise that the point of skyscrapers is function - they aren't being built as an art project. (Not that this 'thing' is a skyscraper of course, it's yet another bloody mid rise)

[mulattokid]

^ This building appears to be functional: and how! Do any buildings in CW produce their own heat and electricity. Also, I suspect the loosley domed shape is to compliment St. Pauls, just as Lombard St tower, Moor House and others in the past.

All buildings are meant for function arn't they? All buildings are embellished arent they?..even at CW.

CW is a blank canvass and the City is a hotbed of history, a little flamboyance and individuality cant be a bad thing.

[dirtydog]

Originally Posted by mulattokid

Also, I suspect the loosley domed shape is to compliment St. Pauls, just as Lombard St tower, Moor House and others in the past.

Why in the year 2008 are we still giving any consideration to St Pauls when we build new office towers in our main financial district?

All buildings are meant for function arn't they? All buildings are embellished arent they?..even at CW.

I thought the CW towers were seen as bland here by most. Personally give me that so called 'bland' over this pretentious tripe we keep being fed for the City!

[hugh]

I think the building's OK - it's the location I object to - dirty dog has a point -the last thing the City needs is another mid-rise.

[mulattokid]

@ DirtyDog Well bland is not the same as not being embellished. You are saying I think that Skyscrapers (why you separate them from any other buildings I dont understand) are only functional. I am saying all buildings are functional and all buildings in Canary Wharf are embellished...are they not? Which one is not?

With regard to the St. Pauls comments...Its not that I wouldnt know where to start answering that question..its that I wouldnt know where to end


@ hugh...I was not aware he was complaing about the Height...is that further back in the thread?

Edit: yes I see now, Perhaps it could be taller, but my views are about the design comments.

[Comdot]

footprint is roughly that of 30 st mary's axe, and look how much space has been left around that.

v. impressed by these renders. what do i know but i don't think it has to be over 150 metres,
[img]http://i34.************/23udkcj.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i33.************/1f92s6.jpg[/img]

[dirtydog]

Originally Posted by mulattokid

You are saying I think that Skyscrapers (why you separate them from any other buildings I dont understand) are only functional.

No I'm not saying they should be ONLY functional - I am saying it should be the prime requirement. You can have very elegant towers which are nonetheless a relatively conventional shape - other major cities around the world are full of them. In London though (in the City), it seems we have to be quirky for its own sake. I get the distinct impression some of these type of designs begin the other way round, and the function part of it is shoehorned to fit the design.

I 'separated them from other buildings' only because this is a skyscraper forum...

[fitz44]

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Not at all.


You just answered the question. Why try something "different" just for the sake of it? Isn't functionality what business demands first and foremost? Yet we get towers like the Gherkin and I believe it also applies to the Broadgate tower, which have unusual floor shapes and thus demand special furniture and the like. Meanwhile Canary Wharf doesn't fanny about, it just gets on with the job of building proper, modern office towers which are designed foremost to suit the needs of the client, and not to look 'clever' in an area which already has its fair share of such buildings.

I wonder if some people realise that the point of skyscrapers is function - they aren't being built as an art project. (Not that this 'thing' is a skyscraper of course, it's yet another bloody mid rise)

I understand pretension to be the act of making exaggerated claims for yourself. I would think a building that doesn't stand out (when it's on a plot that could have held a much taller, noticable tower) to be anything but exaggerated and it's certainly not pretending to be anything other than an office block. So, how is it pretentious?
I'm sure the architects could provide a reasonable rationale for the building's form i.e. reduced ground floor-plate & wider pavements + maximum sq footage & low energy consumption etc. There is obviously more than one solution to all those issues but that doesn't mean that this particular shape is arbitrary or an attempt to be "clever" ( although I'm with Ian Dury on this one; "There ain't half been some clever bastards.Probably got help from their mum.There ain't half been some clever bastards.Now that we've had some,let's hope that there's lots more to come.")


Functionality comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes. If this got a pre-let for example it would probably change to suit the tennant.
What's wrong with specially designed furniture, are you saying we should make the towers as cheap as possible? Business demands what it can afford -if a bank wants a gallery space in its new office building to show off its art collection for example,that's what it gets. The prime requirement is what the client wants, this will change as wealth fluctuates.
City businesses have been pretty wealthy for the last decade or so their buildings will (and do) reflect this.

It's been mentioned many times before that the City towers are different to the Wharf for many reasons; sight-lines, floor-plate size, ancient light laws, planning constraints such as conservation areas etc. As Mulatto Kid points out they are not different "just for the sake of it", they are intelligent responses to external constraints.

And yes architecture is an art form. This I think has been pretty universally accepted by many cultures for at least a couple of millenia now.

[potto]

Originally Posted by dirtydog

No I'm not saying they should be ONLY functional - I am saying it should be the prime requirement. You can have very elegant towers which are nonetheless a relatively conventional shape - other major cities around the world are full of them. In London though (in the City), it seems we have to be quirky for its own sake. I get the distinct impression some of these type of designs begin the other way round, and the function part of it is shoehorned to fit the design.

I 'separated them from other buildings' only because this is a skyscraper forum...

So why are you so stubbornly stuck in North America circa 1970? Your so called functionality does not take into consideration many important aspects like relationship to other buildings, street space and environmental credentials. With regards to environmental credentrials the last thing you would find being functional would be a sealed box. You seem to be so impressed with the function of developer profit that you fail to see anything else. Scary

[dirtydog]

Who mentioned developer profit? Not me. Buildings aren't built FOR developers or FOR architects, they are built for the businesses which will occupy them - are their needs being put foremost with some of the designs we get for the City? I don't think so.

[Zenith]

Originally Posted by Officer Dibble

I believe the Corporation of London insists on sticking to mediaeval street patterns throughout the City, though I couldn't say why.

Surely it's obvious why?

Would you prefer it to be a grid based pattern? I am not attacking here, just interested to know.

[potto]

fucking hell. My need as an office worker? What could that be? That my right angle furniture can fit snuggly against the edge of the outer wall? That every floor be identical? That I can feeling nothing when i approach my building? That I need florescent lighting and breathe artificial air-conditioning? That I may never have to sit outside? That I may never sit with butterflies and exotic plants while looking up at the clouds? That I can be safe in the knowledge that I will never again experience anything different ever again?

[dirtydog]

I guess the rest of the world is wrong and the City is right then, as that's about the only place we're getting these quirky designed officer towers.

I suppose so long as it looks like some poncey modern art exhibition you'll be happy though

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by dirtydog

I guess the rest of the world is wrong and the City is right then, as that's about the only place we're getting these quirky designed officer towers.

Hardly.

Originally Posted by dirtydog

I suppose so long as it looks like some poncey modern art exhibition you'll be happy though

Well that says it all about your attitude to design doesn't it.

[potto]

I guess then the eternal love of nature is complete bollocks and the diminishing rather niche 50 year fascination with the box is the ultimate truth

[fitz44]

Why do you think this building will be less "functional" than a rectangular one? Looking at the design in terms of floor-plates all the floors on this building will be rectangular - exactly the same as those at the Wharf. So how is it "arty" "poncey" "pretentious" etc.

If you think only London is building "quirky" towers you really haven't read through the foreign developments threads on this forum.