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

[suede685]

They get so agitated!

I can understand the depression some might feel with this future building but for us 'Happy go Lucky' people I feel you all need to read the designs of the 'Shard'!

Obviously I haven't but I'm pretty damn sure of the site of where its happening, middle of nowhere but for a tall Hospital.

20FC won't spoil the view or the surrounding area of anything, it might look a tad bulbous but that's progression and others will meet it, I bet ya they will!

Seriously the only thing that would of scared me 8yrs ago is if someone said that their going to build a glass pyramid by 'Guys Hospital' and it will be HUGE and dominate the whole area!

Some of you guys & gals seem ok with that?

Well I love both and you won't have one without the other!

[Nightjar]

No, still doesn't make any sense.

[Whittonstall]

Originally Posted by suede685

They get so agitated!


20FC won't spoil the view or the surrounding area of anything, it might look a tad bulbous but that's progression and others will meet it, I bet ya they will!

Bulbous buildings represent progression?
I wish I could be happy go lucky about this building (as I am with most things) but I honestly find it offensive. I'm resigned to it happening and I really wish that I could like it but I can't. It won't grow on me in time and I want to raise a petition and if necessary a small private army to finally stop Land Securities from this gross act of vandalism. I'll meet you all at Liverpool St. station this Saturday morning (don't forget to bring a packed lunch).

[DarJoLe]

It's hardly 'bulbous'. It barely bulbs off the vertical when you look at the plans.

[heywindup]

Originally Posted by suede685

They get so agitated!

I can understand the depression some might feel with this future building but for us 'Happy go Lucky' people, I feel you all need to read the designs of the 'Shard'!

Obviously I haven't but I'm pretty damn sure of the site of where its happening, middle of nowhere but for a tall Hospital.

20FC won't spoil the view or the surrounding area of anything, it might look a tad bulbous but that's progression and others will meet it, I bet ya they will!

Seriously the only thing that would of scared me 8yrs ago is if someone said that their going to build a glass pyramid by 'Guys Hospital' and it will be HUGE and dominate the whole area!

Some of you guys & gals seem ok with that?

The Shard looks pretty while this one just looks so fat and ugly. This building would be much better in Canary Wharf or Stratford.

Besides, I bet the garden on top would require visitors to pay £25 per entry. It's not like it's free.

[london lad]

Originally Posted by heywindup

Besides, I bet the garden on top would require visitors to pay £25 per entry. It's not like it's free.

It is. Its part of the planning permission. It will be a public park.

[Nightjar]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

It's hardly 'bulbous'. It barely bulbs off the vertical when you look at the plans.

Indeed - it is svelte and elegant (compared to an onion).

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by heywindup

The Shard looks pretty while this one just looks so fat and ugly. This building would be much better in Canary Wharf or Stratford.

If you think the building is fat and ugly, what suddenly makes it acceptable to be located in Canary Wharf or Stratford?

The Shard is pretty fat as well, it must be said.

[heywindup]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

If you think the building is fat and ugly, what suddenly makes it acceptable to be located in Canary Wharf or Stratford?

The Shard is pretty fat as well, it must be said.

Because Canary Wharf requires less architectural standards than the 'City'. For one, very little tourists go there. Second, it's not as prominent when viewed from the South Bank. Third, it doesn't jive well with other buildings in the 'City'. Fourth, it blocks views of the Gherkin (which should have protected views just like St. Paul's).

The Shard is fat at the base but gets thinner as it gets on top. This building is the complete opposite. And yes, it is very "bulbous" -- that's why it's so ugly.

[DarJoLe]

I think you're giving it too much credit that it will suddenly draw everyone's attention away from everything else that they already look at along that stretch of river. By the nature of its sheer height the Shard will dominate everything around it and be more of a presence than this tower will be. And the idea of protected views for the Gherkin is just as absurd as so many of your other posts lately.

[heywindup]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

And the idea of protected views for the Gherkin is just as absurd as so many of your other posts lately.

Such as.... ?

I don't post absurd things.

[Ejit]

Originally Posted by heywindup

Fourth, it blocks views of the Gherkin (which should have protected views just like St. Paul's).

That's a bit much isn't it?

The Gherkin doesn't have anything like the historical significance, let alone religious that St Paul's has. Not to mention it being 70m taller. I understand it's your opinion, but I don't think the two buildings are really comparable.

Do you object to The Pinnacle, Heron Tower and other tall buildings going up in the City on the same grounds?

In my opinion FC could compliment Gherkin and the city quite nicely, detracting from the more conventional buildings going up to further the huge contrast between buildings styles.

[heywindup]

Originally Posted by Ejit

Do you object to The Pinnacle, Heron Tower and other tall buildings going up in the City on the same grounds?

No because those buildings enhance the skyline. I can't say the same thing for 20FC.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

If you think the building is fat and ugly, what suddenly makes it acceptable to be located in Canary Wharf or Stratford?

I disagree with him there - we should aim to have good buildings everywhere - but I imagine he thinks Central London is especially precious, and we must be especially careful, therefore, to avoid erecting offensively ugly buildings there.

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

The Shard is pretty fat as well, it must be said.

No it isn't. The Shard's a very slender tower. It's very high relative to its width.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by london lad

It is. Its part of the planning permission. It will be a public park.

That's not nearly enough compensation to offset its ugliness. We're making a big mistake here, and its ugliness and resulting unpopularity will give a lot of ammunition to those who oppose tall buildings in London on principle. If we're going to win the argument for skyscrapers in London then we simply have to build good ones.

[london lad]

If you haven't nothing Monkey, EH el Al all all out of ammo when it comes to successfully objecting tall buildings. They have been firing blanks for a good few years now. What can they do in future when most of these towers are built??

[Langur]

^ If there's widespread disgust with the new buildings then our planning processes will be reviewed and changed, the mayor and local authorities will be more sensitive to public opinion, and the whole anti-'raper agenda will be bullied along by a more aggressive and concerted media campaign. And if we get a more suspicious anti-tall Tory minister, then a lot of the PIs that EH will doubtless call will result in defeat for the developers, especially if the minister feels he/she is responding to a popular mood that London is being vandalised.

[ibiza]

Originally Posted by Langur

If there's widespread disgust with the new buildings

there you said it yourself. Only if there were a whole bunch of controversial buildings were to be built this would be a real threat. But within the next few years we will rather have one finished controversial one in the area and 4 new (Shard, Pinnacle, Heron and probably a little behind 20FC also 122LH) almost universally liked skyscrapers.

So in the worst case people will say - that one's design is a bit fucked up, maybe we should have a closer look on agreeability of design in future planning permissions. And wouldn't we all welcome that? Even most of those people on here that like 20FC already agree that it could be improved quite easily and making it less controversial in the process by eg. making it a bit taller with the same width or making it less of a hunchback by balancing the overhang on the other side..

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Langur

And if we get a more suspicious anti-tall Tory minister, then a lot of the PIs that EH will doubtless call will result in defeat for the developers, especially if the minister feels he/she is responding to a popular mood that London is being vandalised.

Yeah, in maybe somewhere like Clapham, but the City of London? Please. As if the Tories would halt a development that makes more money for developers that's already surrounded by towers.

All this talk of 'widespread disgust' makes it sound like the public will start vomiting at a mere glance of 20FC. Please. This debate has been so whipped up and I think people really need to take a step back and have another look at the latest tower design, note the fact it doesn't loom like a gnashing toothed giant nor does it suddenly bulge out like an obese lump of belly fat but is actually quite an elegantly designed piece of sculptural architecture that can not only stand on its own but be seen as a spokesperson for the tighter cluster behind it. It doesn't even loom over any buildings because it doesn't extend anywhere over its plot nor the roads surrounding it. The front only bends out over the plaza outside.

Seriously, the way some people go on about it you'd think people's brains will start exploding because they can't comprehend the notion of a building having a curve that bends so slightly outwards at the top. Honestly, people will just remember it as the building that is bigger at the top than the bottom. Oh and has that park thing at the top.

[Langur]

^ The top view is the most flattering but no one will ever see it from there. In the next four views it does loom darkly, though the effect is no worse than another fat scraper. However in the last view you can perceive the ugly impact on the skyline. The views from the river, which you haven't shown at all, but where millions of Londoners and visitors will see it, are the most offensive. No surprises that you, Philistine in chief, are all for wrecking any aesthetic virtue and grace that London's better skyscraper projects will lend our current mess of a skyline.

Even with gorgeous light and a pink wash sky, there's no getting away from the fact that this building is a minger. It commits the cardinal sin of any skyscraper by being fat. If scrapers aren't graceful, if they don't have soar, then they're ugly. There are no exceptions to this rule. This one will also appear extremely dark as its downward facing facade will be almost always in shadow. It's the diametric opposite of the Shard which is tall, slender, graceful, and has a sky-facing facade so will appear light: