Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 160 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,115 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Interesting story over on London-se1 which I'm sure many of you might have an opinion on.

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2734

Incidentally, he mentions that he supported the London Eye - but I seem to remember actually when that was proposed that there was a campaign against siting it outside County Hall and people wanted it put up in Hyde Park instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,919 Posts
Interesting story over on London-se1 which I'm sure many of you might have an opinion on.

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2734

Incidentally, he mentions that he supported the London Eye - but I seem to remember actually when that was proposed that there was a campaign against siting it outside County Hall and people wanted it put up in Hyde Park instead.
I like the way that the London Eye was used as an example of high rise modern architecture that they support.... but in the grand scheme of things a giant ferris wheel its not actually that useful and isnt going to deal with Londons housing and workspace needs!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,919 Posts
I find it unbelievable that an MP can attack London Bridge Tower and then in the same breath of air proclaim as a glory of their legacy such tall structures and Tower 42 and 1 Canada Square... completely mind boggling and a blatant hypocrisy if there ever was one. Would love to do a poll on which structure the general public would find the most attractive ;)

I find this whole UNESCO fiasco that is being fanned by the conservative parts of the press a really insidious movement echoing the creationism resurgence in the US and the islamist ideology that has crippled the Islamic world.
 

·
BLAND
Joined
·
8,868 Posts
^^^ its tough for them isnt it..as I aid, they are torn between the crap they talk and money making! I am sure a number of our fellow forumerswill soon be up in arms complaining about partisan activity very soon...be warned :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,342 Posts
To be honest, I can't muster the energy to argue on this thread against his views. We all know his arguements are two faced, ridiculous and bordering on paranoia. Like most Tories then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,872 Posts
I find it hard to argue against someone who has no argument.
London Bridge Tower and the proposals for the Waterloo and Vauxhall areas don't affect any World Heritage Site.

And they Victoria towers might appear above the HoP roof line, but the final design hasn't been made public yet, although we can see his opinion has already been decided based on height alone.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
35,227 Posts
i was in westminster yesterday. i couldnt help but feel how the place has actually been ruined by the roads and heavy traffic going through it. the square in the middle is completely cut off from the rest and inaccessible whilst simply crossing the road from the tube station to westminster abbey is a challenge that takes a good 10 mins! i felt the entire area was more under threat from motorcar than anything else. stop cars from driving between westminster abbey and parliament and cobble that area over. im sure nothing will be built above the roof line of the buildings there but if they really cared about the area theyd fix it - politicians have no excuse, they work there every day and cant plead ignorance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
I would consider voting Tory (for economic reasons). Now no way - this news points to a general outdated view of the world today and will spread into all policy issues.
 

·
Just Relax
Joined
·
22,870 Posts
God its draining to read this crap again and again. Every building has to be built in front or next to or in view of another building. ITS CALLED A CITY!!! THATS THE WHOLE POINT.

Perhaps they would like us to make sure all buildings are not visible from one another. This can be done by making sure that buildings are at least 70 miles apart and no more than one storey high i.e over the horizon. It means a town the size of Tumbridge Wells would cover rounghly the area of North America. Could link them together by mag lev trains.

Or perhaps build everything on top of each other. Demolish all of London except the Houses of Parliament and the Tower of London and rehouse everything an enormous skyscraper. That way we all have uninterrupted views of these two great sites :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
I've just read the link and the shadow minister said certain named projects should be stopped. He did not say skyscrapers per se should be stopped. This of course invited the knee jerk reaction about Tories.
The problem with these forums is people react to things which have not been said and the rants develop a momentum of their own.
If you really want to rant then look at the current governments proposals to centralise planning for large projects thus avoiding any local interest (which can have value, it's not all nimbyism) and any sense of context. If this goes through don't complain about one of Tony's Nuclear Power Stations next door.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,917 Posts
^^^^^^^^^

Well he only mentioned practically every highrise proposal in central London so I suppose your right he didn't say skyscrapers per se. I bet he jolly well likes the ones abroad but not in London per se.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
^^^^^^^^^

Well he only mentioned practically every highrise proposal in central London so I suppose your right he didn't say skyscrapers per se. I bet he jolly well likes the ones abroad but not in London per se.
Except all those actually in the city, Heron, the Pinnacle, Leadenhall the new Allies and Morrison. I don't actually think he did mention practically every highrise proposal. And strangely nobody has yet pasted this link. Perhaps we should wonder why our heritage sites are being described as endangered before leaping to the defence of every tall building.

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2606
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,919 Posts
He fucking mentions London Bridge Tower as something that should be stopped! NOW TELL ME HOW EXACTLY DOES LBT AFFECT OUR HERITAGE SITES?!?!? While in the same paragraph mentioning how glorious Tower 42 and 1 Canada Square is, excuse me you cant see the hypocracy in that jumping out at you?! The whole connection between failing heritage sites is with skyscrapers!!!! An illogical unilateral zombie train of thought spreading through the conservative media and its readership.

In that pathetic link you provide EH have a go at LBT and the Doon Street tower while going on about heritage sites. They must have the same brain disease as that Tory MP.

I know why dont you tell us why our heritage sites are being described as endangered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,342 Posts
Perhaps we should wonder why our heritage sites are being described as endangered before leaping to the defence of every tall building.
But 20 Fenchurch Street doesn't 'endanger' a world heritage site anymore than Swiss Re or Tower 42 do.

Just because he didn't mention a handful of other skyscrapers doesn't mean he's not against them. His arguements about the others pretty much stand for the City cluster as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,342 Posts
"Vaizey also rejected the claim - reiterated on Monday by Ken Livingstone in comments to this website - that skyscrapers are essential to London's economic development.

He noted that a House of Commons select committee had "concluded that no company had been put off locating in London because of lack of office space, and that there was in any case plenty of other areas suitable for development"."

Yes, of course there are plenty of other areas suitable for development. Like Shoreditch. Spitalfields. Smithfields. The locals living there are incredibly welcoming of low rise offices.

Tell me again Mr Vaizey, where exactly are these plentiful "areas suitable for development"?
 

·
BLAND
Joined
·
8,868 Posts
It ill be interesting to see what forumers do not comment in this thread...I find that Tory voters tend to keep their views private...why is that??
 
1 - 20 of 160 Posts
Top