SkyscraperCity banner

What do you think of the new Beetham London tower?

  • Love It

    Votes: 40 32.3%
  • Its OK

    Votes: 48 38.7%
  • Hate It

    Votes: 32 25.8%
  • Dont Care

    Votes: 4 3.2%
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 588 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
Skyscraperkid2K4 said:
no... please just keep two clusters, one in the city and one canary wharf... really don't want three different ones... :bash:
Keep in mind Southwark and Vauxhall too will have their own separate clusters. I know Southwark is in close proximity to the City but a river is separating them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,420 Posts
Ensignia said:
Keep in mind Southwark and Vauxhall too will have their own separate clusters. I know Southwark is in close proximity to the City but a river is separating them.
100 years time and we will become new york :bash:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
Not at all. NYC is an amorphous mass of towers, with an almost impossibility to read any single tower other than the very tallest. London seems to be developing a series of very small but quite visible groupings of towers, with most potentially crowned by very tall and graceful towers (i.e. LBT, DIFA, Columbus, Vauxhall Tower), with a varying number of other towers forming a visible connection to them. Which I think will work for London, which is not a city of sweeping vistas or grand views, but a city of surprising interventions and, largely, a collection of smaller cities and villages.

I've seen skyline renders featuring all of the new towers, including the subject of this thread... and it looks beautiful. There's the potential to recreate a modern version of the Renaissance London skyline, which was pierced by slender church spires... to replace today's skyline, which is by and large a collection of boring outdated boxes. The array of forms we could see on the skyline would be a truly amazing sight... without doubt one of the world's most captivating.

But obviously the impact on local views and streetscape is just as important, and while I acknowledge that some views or areas may not look as good with towers popping up in unexpected places, I think it'll really reinforce the sense that you're in a huge city of great importance and activity... which some times you don't feel in Central London because all you see is the street you're on.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,131 Posts
Britannia said:
I've seen skyline renders featuring all of the new towers, including the subject of this thread... and it looks beautiful.
There's the potential to recreate a modern version of the Renaissance London skyline, which was pierced by slender church spires...
Indeed :yes:

Here's a picture I posted in the world forum - shows how the City used to look:



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,919 Posts
Skyscraperkid2K4 said:
no... please just keep two clusters, one in the city and one canary wharf... really don't want three different ones... :bash:
your logic sounds even worse than the local authorties who demand 5 stories being knocked off proposals for being 'too tall'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,919 Posts
Britannia said:
Not at all. NYC is an amorphous mass of towers, with an almost impossibility to read any single tower other than the very tallest. London seems to be developing a series of very small but quite visible groupings of towers, with most potentially crowned by very tall and graceful towers (i.e. LBT, DIFA, Columbus, Vauxhall Tower), with a varying number of other towers forming a visible connection to them. Which I think will work for London, which is not a city of sweeping vistas or grand views, but a city of surprising interventions and, largely, a collection of smaller cities and villages.

I've seen skyline renders featuring all of the new towers, including the subject of this thread... and it looks beautiful. There's the potential to recreate a modern version of the Renaissance London skyline, which was pierced by slender church spires... to replace today's skyline, which is by and large a collection of boring outdated boxes. The array of forms we could see on the skyline would be a truly amazing sight... without doubt one of the world's most captivating.

But obviously the impact on local views and streetscape is just as important, and while I acknowledge that some views or areas may not look as good with towers popping up in unexpected places, I think it'll really reinforce the sense that you're in a huge city of great importance and activity... which some times you don't feel in Central London because all you see is the street you're on.
Exactly that is why I wouldnt want just a single tight cluster in the city... we need other buildings like LBT and clusters on the South Bank to create a series of soaring peaks to echo Londons glorious past
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,332 Posts
There's the potential to recreate a modern version of the Renaissance London skyline, which was pierced by slender church spires
Not many church spires have the mass to incorporate several hundred appartments! IMO Kings Reach, Shell and their neighbours would be better off being hit with the wrecking ball. This tower would be the next centre point.
 

·
Do A Little Dance
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
potto said:
Exactly that is why I wouldnt want just a single tight cluster in the city... we need other buildings like LBT and clusters on the South Bank to create a series of soaring peaks to echo Londons glorious past
Although I accept the sentimant of what is being said, it must be remembered that the glorious London of the past that is depicted in that engraving was a complete shithole that burnt down and had to be rebuilt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,919 Posts
true, I wasnt particularly thinking of medieval london... there is the London of Wren too with its church spires and new St Pauls... but both medieval and Wren London were celebrated skylines drawing artists from all over the world... what was happening on the streets and up the alley ways were celebrated in a very different way of course!

I think that post war London really lost confidence, there was the half-hearted tower blocks and an un-easy conenction with the past, the post war world was all too much of a jolt. Now things look brighter and I see no reason not to grasp the concept of tall elegent towers set in isolation and within a number of clusters around london. Having said that we should also celebrate the historic fabric and restore the damage done by parastic buildings... that is confidence
 

·
Large Member
Joined
·
1,127 Posts
If only we hadn't the second world war, we would have city like Paris or Rome, but then I suppose that would mean no skyscrapers. In some ways if we can have the best of both it would be ideal. All the crap from the last century bulldozed and replace with modern clusters of DIFA quality, and the old stuff preserved and highlighted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
I think we need to keep some of the 'dross' from the 60's and 70's to maintain our country's architectural legacy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,131 Posts
^ I think they're quite impressive when you see them close up, but their positioning on the skyline is terrible. From certain places on the South Bank, they appear almost directly behind St Paul's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
NothingBetterToDo said:
well......some 60's and 70's "dross" is alright and worth keeping.....i quite like Centrepoint for example and wouldnt want to see it demolished.
been up close to that recently? it looks awful, neds a good lick of paint (preferably from one of those iron balls on a crane) but from a distance, it does look quite good
 

·
Waiting for 122
Joined
·
3,803 Posts
wjfox2002 said:
^ I think they're quite impressive when you see them close up, but their positioning on the skyline is terrible. From certain places on the South Bank, they appear almost directly behind St Paul's.
yep quite impressive close up, but not in the right place and can often look awful on the skyline. The views from them must be staggering though. Wouldn't mind an apartment there thats for sure.
 
21 - 40 of 588 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top