The Scalpel | City of London | 190m | 39 fl
So as not to keep cluttering up the Pinnacle thread; W.R. Berkley in talks with Kohn Pederson Fox (KPF) to design a new 40 story tower on 52-54 Lime Street (27 Leadenhall Street). W.R. Berkley are currently based at 40 Lime Street opposite the Lloyds Building and Willis building and have bought the land.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/0...86B0C220120712
![]()
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/0...86B0C220120712
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
The tower being proposed is not at 40 Lime Street but the building on the other side of Willis between it and Leadenhall Street. Whatever is proposed will need to deal with the St Paul's sight line that influenced the design of 122 Leadenhall.
It's to the left of Willis and not that tall.
Again, that's not the right building, but the one that is going is similar.
I think that will be pretty amazing when you think that church isn't going anywhere.
No idea what is going on in this render, but anyway.
![]()
We'll see what is proposed but yes this is where the lift shaft is located.
"Floor plates will range in size from 9,000 sq ft to 22,000 sq ft and are arranged around a side core located to the south of the building, which optimises floor plate dimensions, limits solar gain and offers views of London to the, north, east, west and south west."
"Floor plates will range in size from 9,000 sq ft to 22,000 sq ft and are arranged around a side core located to the south of the building, which optimises floor plate dimensions, limits solar gain and offers views of London to the, north, east, west and south west."
Not sure why everyone is suddenly bigging up the Willis, very much a product of its time and will be gone in a couple of cycles. That said, how this proposal relates to the new pedestrian space created by Willis will be interesting to see.
Nope.
What a surprise.
Exactly why I gave up posting news articles and photos a while back. So much news and planning applications out there that no longer gets reported here because they know why bother because when you do someone else takes all the glory a few days later.
Not to mention the factual inaccuracies that often crop up because the design and access statements haven't been read properly have damaged several planning applications when news articles are read by local people against developments.
I'm sure there is a lot of work behind the website (although from what I have heard it wasn't exactly an 'original' website in the beginning) but there's only so much goodwill you an give before you realise who's actually doing all the feeding.
Not to mention the factual inaccuracies that often crop up because the design and access statements haven't been read properly have damaged several planning applications when news articles are read by local people against developments.
I'm sure there is a lot of work behind the website (although from what I have heard it wasn't exactly an 'original' website in the beginning) but there's only so much goodwill you an give before you realise who's actually doing all the feeding.
It's the triangular space created between it, Lime Street itself and the Willis Building, as shown on the aerial renders.
Days numbered.
![]()
This one:
![]()
I think they're going to shift it further to the east within the new alley that Willis created at its base.
I think they're going to shift it further to the east within the new alley that Willis created at its base.
Eventually, but there's other sites nearby that can house towers of a significant height
London's towers are hardly unconventional, damn right bland compared to some of the more bold and exciting proposals around the world.
Yep out of all the clusters Vauxhall is turning out to be an incredibly bland selection of tall buildings, bar Canary Wharf. I'd actually say it needs to raise its game, there's nothing to me tall there that says 'world class architecture' bar a couple of projects. Most of the good stuff is the lower end of the height spectrum.
London is perfectly suited for really pushing the envelope with regards to its tall building design. For such a creative city I still don't think it is pushing hard enough in promoting its incredible ability to adapt to whatever architecture is thrown at it and this diversity needs to continue. I'm more than happy to see London tear up the rule book and give us something completely different to what is expected of a skyscraper; it did it with 20 Fenchurch Street which is the most exciting new addition to London since the Gherkin and it can easily do it again. All these constraints need to be used to its advantage, as london lad said without them we would have 122 Leadenhall the way it is, we wouldn't have the originality of One New Change and its faceted roof line that actually brings a physical manifestation of those sightlines into reality, and in some ways the delicacy of the Shard wouldn't have been so pronounced without the challenge of placing a tall building in a historical city. The idea that we should revert back to bland shapes rather than using new technology to create whatever shapes we want is complete backwards thinking. Why can't we have buildings that instead of just going up go sideways, and back down in a different plot to the original? Or structures that cantilever over others, or are like thin petals that house bulbous floorplates above like flowers? All these things are what London should be exploring.
London is perfectly suited for really pushing the envelope with regards to its tall building design. For such a creative city I still don't think it is pushing hard enough in promoting its incredible ability to adapt to whatever architecture is thrown at it and this diversity needs to continue. I'm more than happy to see London tear up the rule book and give us something completely different to what is expected of a skyscraper; it did it with 20 Fenchurch Street which is the most exciting new addition to London since the Gherkin and it can easily do it again. All these constraints need to be used to its advantage, as london lad said without them we would have 122 Leadenhall the way it is, we wouldn't have the originality of One New Change and its faceted roof line that actually brings a physical manifestation of those sightlines into reality, and in some ways the delicacy of the Shard wouldn't have been so pronounced without the challenge of placing a tall building in a historical city. The idea that we should revert back to bland shapes rather than using new technology to create whatever shapes we want is complete backwards thinking. Why can't we have buildings that instead of just going up go sideways, and back down in a different plot to the original? Or structures that cantilever over others, or are like thin petals that house bulbous floorplates above like flowers? All these things are what London should be exploring.
Seen quite a few around the Gherkin.
Very annoying the small block on the corner of Billiter Street (the far left of the photo) isn't included in this scheme.
![]()
White sheet of death has begun to shroud the corner today.
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
