Page 2 of 152 FirstFirst 1234561252102 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 2267

Thread: London Projects

  1. #16
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY


    I like it, but can they keep it that clean all the time?

  2. #17


    Quote Originally Posted by TLOZ Link 5
    London is one of those few great cities that I wish had never built skyscrapers in their historic center. Peripheral cluster developments like Canary Wharf and Southwark are fine (in a perfect world, One Canada Square would have been replaced by The Gherkin), but nothing so sight-obscuring in the City or Westminster, and maybe also around in the Bloomsbury/Fitzrovia/Camden area near Regent's Park (Telecom Tower + Centre Point + 286 Euston = Eeew). With due respect to Richard Rogers, I want to see Wren's churches more than I do the Lloyd's Building.

    If you take away Saint Paul's Cathedral, the Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, and Tower Bridge, then London's skyline starts to look remarkably like Tokyo's.
    A good argument, but then again this is is possibly one of the most adapt and continually evolving cities on the face of the planet.

    When St Paul's went up, Sir Christopher Wren used scaffolding to hide the dome and western towers that he they weren't on the building plans that were accepted by the bishops and were his own inspirations. Most Londoners at the time detested it, as it detracted away from the original 150m tall St Paul's that had the 'gothic' spire. Now its admired the world over and was the reason for why skyscrapers never took off: sightlines to protect the view of St Paul's from several locations around London.

    Now what has happened is there are areas where skyscrapers can be built which don't interfere with these lines (no developer would be mad enough to put such a tower in the sightline - it would ruin their credibility and future chances of building towers). Now the design of these towers is world-class (and nothing less) from this to LBT, to Swiss RE and this is a reason why they are going ahead:
    - They respect the sightlines of St Paul's
    - They don't compete with St Paul's or are located slap bang next to the cathedral
    - They are of nothing less than the highest quality and unique in approach by internationally recognised architects
    - Fuel the requirement for large buildings to allow the City of London to remain the world's premier financial centre
    - The buildings also replace 60's concrete brutalist buildings erected post-WW2 thanks to Hitler Demolition & Co, so no architectural loss

    St Paul's, Big Ben, the Palace of Westminster, etc... shall remain on the skyline, like they always have, but London must move on. I would though be complaining if these towers actully went up next door to St Pauls or Big Ben though.

    Also when you look to Canary Wharf you get the NA-style box with large floorplates but plain box rectangular shapes. The reason for this is because there is very little historical areas which the skyscrapers should respect. With the City we are going to have pretty much every single shape skyscraper imaginable - triangles, pyramids, books, conical cylinders, etc....and there are more designs on their way of similar fashions. All these designs are iconic, revolutionary (eg double skin cladding) and go beyond a skyscraper just being an office place like they might be in New York City.

    Afterall, this is a city that has a 16th century church with the industrial-looking Lloyds of London and Swiss RE as next-door neighbours. Or a book skyscraper (Minerva - 217m) approved within the vicinity of the mediaeval Tower of London. No other city has this sort of pick-a-mix style to architecture on the face of the planet and its what sets London apart from every other city on the planet, as it combines the museum-qualities of Paris, but the functional vibe of Hong Kong or Tokyo. Without out this, London wouldn't be the greatest city in the world (prepares for flak ) at the moment.

  3. #18
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    New York City


    Without out this, London wouldn't be the greatest city in the world (prepares for flak ) at the moment.

  4. #19


    Might take the opportunity to give some life into this thread by highlighting three 150m+ that London is getting and this is from the last week and a bit....noticable lack of square boxes....

    The UK equivalent of Donald Trump; Stephen Beetham has announed that he will be building his tallest tower yet in none other than London, at 219m it would be one of the highest towers in London. Shaped like a diamond, he hopes to get building in early 2006 and from his previous projects around the UK in the last few years the projects go from the drawing board to habitation within a very short span of time. Of interesting note, is that his average tower height is increasing and in Liverpool he has plans for his own skyscraper cluster. The building will be practically opposite St Pauls Cathedral, but is outside any historical sightlines. The tower will consist of offices, a 6* hotel, apartments and a 4 storey top floor viewing platform (practically every new tower in London will have a public access viewing gallery, LBT will have 2 3 floor viewing galleries for the public).

    At the rate of growth, London could have a 300m+ residential proposal on its hands within the next few months/years.

    Beetham's other projects
    Beetham Tower Liverpool, Liverpool - 90m - 2004 - Built
    Holloway Circus Tower, Birmingham - 122m - 2005 - U/C
    Beetham Tower Manchester, Manchester - 157m - 2006 - U/C
    Beetham Tower West, Liverpool - 125m - 2007 - Proposed
    New England Square, Brighton - 122m - 2007 - Proposed
    Beetham London, London - 219m - 2008 - Proposed

    (expect all the other horrific towers that are on the River Thames here (the right bridge being Blackfriars Road Bridge, the left one Blackfriars Rail Bridge) to go as a new cluster forms here as this is an area that has been guaranteed cluster-status. Infact Beetham's tower could be outdone by even taller towers, but another proposal is by Wilkinson Eyre which is around 180m and will be just to the left of the above tower. Who would have thought, before 2000 London would have only 2 150m+ towers. Now its going for at least 30 by 2012!!!!!

    Approval was also granted for the 181m all-residential St Georges Wharf Tower which is cog shaped

    Planning permission was also granted for this, the 164m Bishopsgate Tower which is from plan view akin to a trapezium

  5. #20


    Are the plans for the Bishopsgate tower final?

  6. #21


    Pretty much the final design as its the one that has planning permission (ie all the relevant boxes have been ticked with the planning department and local authorities). The site I believe is a relic from WW2, where a building that once existed is now no more. Its been bordered for years with images of the building to the right which is an immense groundscraper (larger in floor area than the actual skyscraper) showing what would go there. The tower though is something new - earlier this year it came to light accompaning the groundscraper that we knew was coming, it was given planning permission the other week and it will be built speculatively.

    The site is also interesting in that currently there is only a large slab which has been in place for well over a decade waiting for something to built on it. Below it are the main approach tracks into the busiest station (passenger count) in London and the UK: London Liverpool Street (the station from the image would be just behind us to the right) and is in a massive cutting. The foundations for both the skyscraper and groundscraper are already built because of the previous work last decade on the slab and the tower is expected to hence rise quite rapidly with little to no disruption to the tracks below. Construction will start soon, with completition scheduled for early 2007.

    Its hard to see from this image which is from the northern side looking south, but due to the requirement to fit the rendering into the image it looks a bit blocky, the entire building though is shaped like a trapezium

    The plan-view, note the immense size of the groundscraper - this is 12 storeys high and a 'skyscraper' in its own right (if this was a tower it would be upwards of 200m), the railway tracks go from bottom-left to top-right and this is shown by the large slab going in the general direction. You also get an indication of the shapes and also the new public plaza that is inbetween the two buildings. Expect more 150m+ towers in this and across the road within the next few years.

  7. #22


    London is a nice little hotspot right now. And its getting more interesting towers than ny is getting.

  8. #23


    London Bridge Tower is no more....

 is now Shard London Bridge!

  9. #24


    London Bridge Tower should be starting soon. PWC have to get the hell out and then the current 100m tower can be knocked down, so that LBT can rise. A large pre-let is apparently on the tables.

    London has the habit of knocking down old 'scrapers' and building new ones in their place. 20 Fenchurch Street will be no different, with a horrific 92m box being replaced by this new 192m tower designed by Rafael Vinoly, already termed the 'Walkie Talkie'.

  10. #25


    ^ Mind-boggling ugliness.

  11. #26


    Its had mixed reviews as its close to the Thames, but disconnected from the main 'cluster' developing around Bishopsgatw/London Wall. There is the possibility that this would actually be the beginning of the southern end of the main cluster, meaning other new towers are on the horizon. It would also be around 2x taller than the current tower.

    The good news is that this replaces the current tower which is even worse, while due to the shape of the tower, its footprint is smaller meaning a new park will be created at the front.

  12. #27


    ^ all the rest are great, but please god not that one

  13. #28


    This tower could put the lid on London high-rise construction for a quarter-century, if allowed to be built as designed. Reeling from the shock of this monstrosity, NIMBYs would bring skyscraper London to a screeching halt. There's nothing wrong with unusual --Gherkin and Shard are both unusual-- but please let us have the novelty leavened with beauty, as they do.

    This one scores an F in that department.



    I'm not sure either Koolhaas or Libeskind could come up with something as wretched as this.

    Needs to be stopped, for its harm threatens to linger.

  14. #29


    Well it might not be so bad, but it shouldn't be allowed near the Thames. Maybe somewhere on the northern fringes of the City.

  15. #30


    Has anyone done a wind study of this building?

Similar Threads

  1. Chicago Projects & Construction
    By Grimm in forum World Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: September 7th, 2013, 02:53 AM
  2. Sensible Projects and Crazy Pipedreams
    By ablarc in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: March 12th, 2011, 11:23 AM
  3. Movie Studio Projects
    By Edward in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: February 14th, 2007, 12:33 PM
  4. The Sand. The Surf. The Projects?
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 4th, 2005, 05:15 PM
  5. Big Planning Projects: Avoiding the Public?
    By Agglomeration in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 10th, 2003, 12:33 AM

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software