Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
35,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
well i thought this deserves it's own thread as he KEEPS posting his strange ideas on this subject. his latest post below. can some people who haven't responded to his blog before goahead and do so, looks a bit rubbish when the same people keep replying to his posts all the time :) i know there's plenty of people out there who think he's missing some common sense.

http://edvaizey.mpblogs.com/2007/06/01/skyline-debate-continues/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,872 Posts
A spam the Ed Vaizey blog thread?

Right...
 

·
Tea. Earl grey. Hot.
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
Nah don't spam it. A person is entitled to his thoughts and opinions no matter how dogmatic and narrow they may be. It's up to us to put that right. Not by spamming, by informing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,917 Posts
He's full of shit- don't inflate his ego by filling his blog & ignore him. He hasn't even addressed any issues raised. In fact he's like the rest of the heritage &anti-high rise lobby he would rather see London drowned in massive low rise buildings than see a tall building.
 

·
Lincoln - London - Greece
Joined
·
605 Posts
I replied to one of his entries - personally I think as many people as possible need to question his stance. However, as soon as he realises the debate on tall buildings isn't going to win votes he'll get bored anyway.

Give it 10 years and he'll be claiming the Shard was his idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,919 Posts
I loved his bit about the 'Imagine if scenario' of St Thomas Hospital being knocked down and London Bridge Tower taking its place... the concept being that if you would be against that then you should hate London Bridge Tower full stop and every other tall building!

what the hell is trying to prove their?!?!?!?!? Reminds me of George Bush and his you are with us or against us stance.
 

·
BLAND
Joined
·
8,868 Posts
Very true...although at least Ed's arguement is in English
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,396 Posts
the guy isn't even a londoner, in any sense so how can he truely speak for it, the guy is from berkshire, and based in oxfordshire. really i think the tories are in need of a london mp to speak on this matters, or to quietly have a word with ed, i mean it's all rather embarrasing for the party. they really need to be taking more advice from business, or having a prominent businessman speak on behalf of the party, lets face it slandering developers and commercial interests will probably put alot of companies and prominant figures from wanting to give any donations, or even make them want to donate to the opposition who seem on the whole to be alot more welcoming, new tories indeed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,396 Posts
the thing i don't get is how he thinks the towers are ego projects, they are being built by commercial developers who's responsibilty is first and foremost to their shareholders, profits come before egos. therefore the developers will only build property that they know will provide them with the best possible income, if tall buildings weren't a good investment then they would only be investing in groundscrapers, but this is not the case, different companies have different property needs and the developers need to provide for those. most larger companies prefer the taller buildings as they can have both the large floorplates they need as well as having their entire operation kept in one building, and most major banks and insurers prefer skyscrapers as they see them as being positive to their image as well as practical. think royal liver insurance building, natwest tower etc
 

·
Let the Jam decide
Joined
·
2,184 Posts
Well, if it helps Ive posted one aswell. This man is a complete **** and doesnt know anything
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
35,227 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
there's a nice touch to a section of onoffice this month. we have a small piece on ed vaizey saying how tall buildings arent wanted/needed by the city and the next piece is on canary wharf's latets lets and vacancy rates of only 3%. heh. we're not being biased, just a snazzy piece of editing.

still, can we have more posts that are anti ed posts please :) the more people who bitch about his policy the more embarassing it is given the complete lack of comments on most other things he writes about.
 

·
BLAND
Joined
·
8,868 Posts
^^^^ Bless his heart..he is crumbling as Newcastle guy said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,396 Posts
hmm regarding his opinion about skyscrapers not being needed perhaps he ought to watch the bishopsgate tower promo video.. where the chief planner of the city of london explicitly claims that the city is running out of space and can only build upwards
 

·
Titter ye not.
Joined
·
19,298 Posts
I posted another one.

"Martin Caldwell said on June 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pm:
The Evening Standard has a record of opposing all skyscrapers in London. The nickname the Erotic Gherkin was coined intended by them to be a negative term. And arch ES skyscraper critic Simon Jenkins is a well known as loathing skyscrapers, therefore these are hardly balanced sources.

I must also question the validity of speaking to one developer as it is nothing more than anecdotal. Surely you should follow the decision of CABE to decide whether they are high quality skyscrapers? Afterall, they are experts in architecture, ensuring high quality designs that contribute to London."
 

·
Futurist
Joined
·
38,736 Posts
I find Vaizey's whole argument depressing as **** to be honest. Not to mention flawed, paranoid and ignorant beyond belief. Even a sixteen year old (Newcastle Guy) completely and utterly decimates his arguments. Hopefully, the total pwning he's received on that blog will encourage him to at least reconsider his views.

I will simply never understand those who oppose these towers. It is paranoia on a grand scale. The arguments have been debunked so many times, and so easily, it's barely worth discussing anymore.

The very minor intrusion on the setting of the Tower of London is vastly outweighed by the world class quality of the skyscrapers, the potential for an iconic and highly recognizable skyline for the capital, the importance of building taller in the crowded Square Mile, the importance of providing a flexible range of office space for corporate tenants, and the importance of allowing London to naturally evolve and develop, without being held back - just as it's been doing throughout its 2,000 year history. End of debate.
 

·
Titter ye not.
Joined
·
19,298 Posts
I have to say though I draw the line at 20fc.

And we can see the cheap, blocky uninspired towers at Canary Wharf apart from 1CS.

So the only towers the Tories supported in 18 years in office were the Natwest tower, which i believe was planned in the 70s? And 1CS. Well done, what a forward thinking bunch.

I have been saying all along, don't believe the Cameron rhetoric of being a modern forward thinking party. He is borrowing from the Blair/Campbell/Mandleson school of public relations. ie vacuous and smoke and mirrors.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top