20FC the POLL: the most controversial project in London - which side are you on? - Page 3

City of Rain · July 1st, 2009, 05:56 PM

i like it.

i think it looks unique and id love to see it built

the skygarden is a bonus, of course, but it is by no means the sole reason for why i want it built!

Splendidineogh · July 1st, 2009, 09:57 PM

I have disliked this building from the very first moment I saw it.

I love tall buildings and interesting, challenging architecture, but I think a lot of people who support this are in the "pro-skyscraper no matter how bad it is" camp.

The building looks bloated and disgustingly proportioned. I know this might sound really over the top, but looking at it somehow makes me feel a bit sick. There is something a bit stomach turning, and vertigo-inducing about its top-heavy and wobbly-wavey appearance. It's just a big, ugly, blobby tongue and it will be even more hideous in reality than it is on those renders. I am stunned that this ever gained planning permission.

It will ruin London's skyline and it will take many decades to get rid of it. They cannot even hide the fact, on the renders, that the sheer top-heavy bulk of the thing will just completely dominate everything around it.

Horrible. Utterly horrible.

Loyalist. · July 1st, 2009, 09:59 PM

Build it!

If people don't like it once its built, it could encourage more tall buildings in the area so that this tower becomes less visible in the midst of a cluster.

design_man · July 1st, 2009, 09:59 PM

Shocking! Disgraceful! Ugly! No! No! No!

Splendidineogh · July 1st, 2009, 10:04 PM

I think I've just realised what is so wrong with it, and why it makes me feel a bit sick and vertigo-ish... Look at the render below, and it actually looks, towards the top, like it is leaning over and will fall. I just think that's a terrible design concept for something so big and bulky. It literally over powers; leaning over all before it.

City of Rain · July 1st, 2009, 10:27 PM

i think it looks very cartoonish, and it would help londons skyline with looking more unique and have its own identity, IMO

i can see some of what you mean, though. its not the greatest scraper ive ever seen, but i still think it looks good in its own way, and id like to see it built.

and this is coming from someone who wishes the best for London

i want london to look amazing, as it together with Paris and other major european cities, presents europe and i think this building would make London look even better

gazzab1990 · July 2nd, 2009, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splendidineogh

I have disliked this building from the very first moment I saw it.

The building looks bloated and disgustingly proportioned. I know this might sound really over the top, but looking at it somehow makes me feel a bit sick. There is something a bit stomach turning, and vertigo-inducing about its top-heavy and wobbly-wavey appearance. It's just a big, ugly, blobby tongue and it will be even more hideous in reality than it is on those renders. I am stunned that this ever gained planning permission.

It will ruin London's skyline and it will take many decades to get rid of it. They cannot even hide the fact, on the renders, that the sheer top-heavy bulk of the thing will just completely dominate everything around it.

Horrible. Utterly horrible.

100% agreed. I hope someone intervenes before it gets off the ground. How the unbelievably bad design of this tower has managed to gain planning permission in the first place is beyond me.

I've got a good feeling it'll never be built though

dirtydog · July 2nd, 2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splendidineogh

I think I've just realised what is so wrong with it, and why it makes me feel a bit sick and vertigo-ish... Look at the render below, and it actually looks, towards the top, like it is leaning over and will fall. I just think that's a terrible design concept for something so big and bulky. It literally over powers; leaning over all before it.

I believe that is the older design which was closer to 190m FWIW. Whether the shorter version is better or worse is debatable.

dirtydog · July 2nd, 2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Exactly. I think people are believing the City cluster will stop growing after 20FC is built and it will stay frozen in time never to be joined up or given neighbours to relate with.

It isn't exactly beyond the realms of possibility that this COULD be all the skyscrapers the City gets for a very long time. Look how long it's taken to get the handful we have currently. I don't assume the worst, but nor do I think we should assume that because a few are going up now that the floodgates will inevitably be opened to more towers any time soon.

And even if they are, 20FC is in such a position that it will likely still dominate the view from the river and detract from the superior towers behind it.

london lad · July 2nd, 2009, 10:12 AM

How did a 160m tower get planning permission to replace a 100m tower in a clearly defined highrise area outside any viewing corridors in an area with perhaps the highest demand for office space in the country. Hmm thats a tough one to answer.

Loyalist. · July 2nd, 2009, 10:40 AM

A public inquiry examined this tower in minute detail and they decided that it is an acceptable addition to London' skyline. That's good enough for me. There is no need to continue debating this for years on end. This file is closed.

Jack Rabbit Slim · July 2nd, 2009, 07:35 PM

I wish I could make up my mind about this one. It seems to be the definition of a love it or hate it project, yet I'm stuck somewhere in the middle. I think both sides have some valid arguements.

I agree with the people who say that it's unique and has character, and could help to stretch out the City cluster when viewed from certain directions; I love the idea of the sky garden and from certain renders the tower looks very modern, sleek and quirky enough to give it a London style, plus in some ways its non-conformity is arragantly admirable.

However, I also agree with the people who say the design just doesn't sit quite right, the overhang and non-tapering shape make it look just a bit too bulky and obtrusive in its surroundings, and while I don't think its proximity to the river is too much to worry about or as bad as some people are making out, it does mean that whatever goes up there is under added pressure to look good, and I just think that out of all the thousands of possible designs out there that they could have come up with, this one isn't really what I would have chosen.

Unfortunately I think it's one that I'm only ever going to be able to make up my mind about if it is actually built and I can see what it looks like for real, but of course by then it would be too late.

***wjfox*** · July 2nd, 2009, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Rabbit Slim

I wish I could make up my mind about this one. It seems to be the definition of a love it or hate it project, yet I'm stuck somewhere in the middle. I think both sides have some valid arguements.

I agree with the people who say that it's unique and has character, and could help to stretch out the City cluster when viewed from certain directions; I love the idea of the sky garden and from certain renders the tower looks very modern, sleek and quirky enough to give it a London style, plus in some ways its non-conformity is arragantly admirable.

However, I also agree with the people who say the design just doesn't sit quite right, the overhang and non-tapering shape make it look just a bit too bulky and obtrusive in its surroundings, and while I don't think its proximity to the river is too much to worry about or as bad as some people are making out, it does mean that whatever goes up there is under added pressure to look good, and I just think that out of all the thousands of possible designs out there that they could have come up with, this one isn't really what I would have chosen.

Unfortunately I think it's one that I'm only ever going to be able to make up my mind about if it is actually built and I can see what it looks like for real, but of course by then it would be too late.

My thoughts exactly!

ibiza · July 3rd, 2009, 01:23 AM

very well put indeed. However if I read the pro part it comes across much stronger than the contra one. It's ideed not an ideal solution but hey, it's not a wishing game and it could be worse. I anytime take it compared to what was there before..

Splendidineogh · July 3rd, 2009, 08:18 PM

Ok, you can't get more rational than a cost-benefit analysis, so here goes...

Cost Benefit Analysis

Cost

a) The building is ugly (1)
b) The building will diminish the skyline and the area around it (1)
c) The opportunity cost of having something better there (1)

Benefit

a) It is a tall building that would be better than what is there right now (1)

Conclusion

Cost (3) > (1) Benefit

Cost out weighs benefit; the building should not be built.

Nightjar · August 23rd, 2009, 12:23 PM

Why is it "better than what is there right now" - in the case of 20FS I prefer a hole in the ground.

gegloma01 · August 23rd, 2009, 12:58 PM

I am against.

Heron, Shard, Pinnacle, Leadenhall are all elegant towers pointing towards the sky.

20FC is not. Shame because Vinoly is a world-famous architect.

And I liked the building that was there before.

london_marcus · August 23rd, 2009, 01:03 PM

i really like it

If You Insist · August 23rd, 2009, 02:28 PM

Butt ugly. I like the idea of a leaning tower to counter-act St Pauls, but looking head on from the southbank this completely overpowers everything around it.

I reckon it needs straight vertical lines up from this angle and leaning curves and slanted roof when viewed from Waterloo similar to Chase Tower above, butobv with 20FC's roof profile.

bstl · August 23rd, 2009, 02:34 PM

While I do agree with both sides of the argument, I would rather that it was built as I think it's unique, it has a lot of character and it will stretch out the City cluster.

In terms of being 'overpowering', yes that is a point, but at the same time the rest of the City 'scrapers are also rather unique in their own way, and I really don't think that 20FCS could possibly overpower the likes of the Pinnacle, Gherkin, T42 or Heron in any way.

Having said that, I must also add that I much prefer the taller design - the newer one is considerably stockier and I think that the taller, more slender design looks a lot more elegant.

View Poll Results: What do you think of 20 Fenchurch Street?
It's one of my favorite projects, especially for being a very different design from everything else going up	115	29.79%
I find the design ok but want to have it built mostly for the skygarden	88	22.80%
I find the design ok but I'd rather have it not built because the location is completely wrong for it	70	18.13%
It's butt ugly, I hate it, please don't build it	113	29.27%
Voters: 386. You may not vote on this poll

July 2nd, 2009, 07:35 PM	#52
Jack Rabbit Slim Divemaster! Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: The Empire Posts: 5,817 Likes (Received): 281	I wish I could make up my mind about this one. It seems to be the definition of a love it or hate it project, yet I'm stuck somewhere in the middle. I think both sides have some valid arguements. I agree with the people who say that it's unique and has character, and could help to stretch out the City cluster when viewed from certain directions; I love the idea of the sky garden and from certain renders the tower looks very modern, sleek and quirky enough to give it a London style, plus in some ways its non-conformity is arragantly admirable. However, I also agree with the people who say the design just doesn't sit quite right, the overhang and non-tapering shape make it look just a bit too bulky and obtrusive in its surroundings, and while I don't think its proximity to the river is too much to worry about or as bad as some people are making out, it does mean that whatever goes up there is under added pressure to look good, and I just think that out of all the thousands of possible designs out there that they could have come up with, this one isn't really what I would have chosen. Unfortunately I think it's one that I'm only ever going to be able to make up my mind about if it is actually built and I can see what it looks like for real, but of course by then it would be too late. __________________ Over ONE HUNDRED MILLION sharks are killed each year by humans, 11,000 sharks every hour of every day. Many species of the oldest predator on this planet will be extinct in less then 50 years at this rate. They will never be here again.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

July 1st, 2009, 05:56 PM	#41
City of Rain BANNED Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bergen Posts: 2,078 Likes (Received): 0	i like it. i think it looks unique and id love to see it built the skygarden is a bonus, of course, but it is by no means the sole reason for why i want it built!

July 1st, 2009, 09:57 PM	#42
Splendidineogh Ffestiniog Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 838 Likes (Received): 0	I have disliked this building from the very first moment I saw it. I love tall buildings and interesting, challenging architecture, but I think a lot of people who support this are in the "pro-skyscraper no matter how bad it is" camp. The building looks bloated and disgustingly proportioned. I know this might sound really over the top, but looking at it somehow makes me feel a bit sick. There is something a bit stomach turning, and vertigo-inducing about its top-heavy and wobbly-wavey appearance. It's just a big, ugly, blobby tongue and it will be even more hideous in reality than it is on those renders. I am stunned that this ever gained planning permission. It will ruin London's skyline and it will take many decades to get rid of it. They cannot even hide the fact, on the renders, that the sheer top-heavy bulk of the thing will just completely dominate everything around it. Horrible. Utterly horrible.

July 1st, 2009, 09:59 PM	#43
Loyalist. Let's modernise Britain Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: London Posts: 387 Likes (Received): 0	Build it! If people don't like it once its built, it could encourage more tall buildings in the area so that this tower becomes less visible in the midst of a cluster.

July 1st, 2009, 09:59 PM	#44
design_man Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,197 Likes (Received): 29	Shocking! Disgraceful! Ugly! No! No! No!

July 1st, 2009, 10:04 PM	#45
Splendidineogh Ffestiniog Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 838 Likes (Received): 0	I think I've just realised what is so wrong with it, and why it makes me feel a bit sick and vertigo-ish... Look at the render below, and it actually looks, towards the top, like it is leaning over and will fall. I just think that's a terrible design concept for something so big and bulky. It literally over powers; leaning over all before it.

July 1st, 2009, 10:27 PM	#46
City of Rain BANNED Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bergen Posts: 2,078 Likes (Received): 0	i think it looks very cartoonish, and it would help londons skyline with looking more unique and have its own identity, IMO i can see some of what you mean, though. its not the greatest scraper ive ever seen, but i still think it looks good in its own way, and id like to see it built. and this is coming from someone who wishes the best for London i want london to look amazing, as it together with Paris and other major european cities, presents europe and i think this building would make London look even better

July 2nd, 2009, 10:12 AM	#50
london lad Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: London Posts: 8,155 Likes (Received): 45	How did a 160m tower get planning permission to replace a 100m tower in a clearly defined highrise area outside any viewing corridors in an area with perhaps the highest demand for office space in the country. Hmm thats a tough one to answer.

July 2nd, 2009, 10:40 AM	#51
Loyalist. Let's modernise Britain Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: London Posts: 387 Likes (Received): 0	A public inquiry examined this tower in minute detail and they decided that it is an acceptable addition to London' skyline. That's good enough for me. There is no need to continue debating this for years on end. This file is closed.

July 3rd, 2009, 01:23 AM	#54
ibiza ....ENGAGE Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,116 Likes (Received): 0	very well put indeed. However if I read the pro part it comes across much stronger than the contra one. It's ideed not an ideal solution but hey, it's not a wishing game and it could be worse. I anytime take it compared to what was there before..

July 3rd, 2009, 08:18 PM	#55
Splendidineogh Ffestiniog Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 838 Likes (Received): 0	Ok, you can't get more rational than a cost-benefit analysis, so here goes... Cost Benefit Analysis Cost a) The building is ugly (1) b) The building will diminish the skyline and the area around it (1) c) The opportunity cost of having something better there (1) Benefit a) It is a tall building that would be better than what is there right now (1) Conclusion Cost (3) > (1) Benefit Cost out weighs benefit; the building should not be built.

August 23rd, 2009, 12:23 PM	#56
Nightjar Bird Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Under a hedge Posts: 13,779 Likes (Received): 248	Why is it "better than what is there right now" - in the case of 20FS I prefer a hole in the ground.

August 23rd, 2009, 12:58 PM	#57
gegloma01 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bruxelles Posts: 1,154 Likes (Received): 102	I am against. Heron, Shard, Pinnacle, Leadenhall are all elegant towers pointing towards the sky. 20FC is not. Shame because Vinoly is a world-famous architect. And I liked the building that was there before.

August 23rd, 2009, 01:03 PM	#58
london_marcus Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: London Posts: 654 Likes (Received): 11	i really like it

August 23rd, 2009, 02:28 PM	#59
If You Insist Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 15 Likes (Received): 0	Butt ugly. I like the idea of a leaning tower to counter-act St Pauls, but looking head on from the southbank this completely overpowers everything around it. I reckon it needs straight vertical lines up from this angle and leaning curves and slanted roof when viewed from Waterloo similar to Chase Tower above, butobv with 20FC's roof profile.

August 23rd, 2009, 02:34 PM	#60
bstl Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London Posts: 507 Likes (Received): 0	While I do agree with both sides of the argument, I would rather that it was built as I think it's unique, it has a lot of character and it will stretch out the City cluster. In terms of being 'overpowering', yes that is a point, but at the same time the rest of the City 'scrapers are also rather unique in their own way, and I really don't think that 20FCS could possibly overpower the likes of the Pinnacle, Gherkin, T42 or Heron in any way. Having said that, I must also add that I much prefer the taller design - the newer one is considerably stockier and I think that the taller, more slender design looks a lot more elegant.