Its A Tall As The Eiffel Tower & Being Built In London...

[Bluebarge]

Skyscrapers are for 3rd world countries run by tin-pot dictators. They are very old hat. I, for one, am very glad that London's skyline looks nothing like Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Houston, Dubai or any other identikit "modern" city you care to mention. This development has "white elephant" and "Centrepoint of the future" written all over it.

A large modern building that doesn't need masses of power to heat and cool it, is nice to work in and won't fall down/look like a slum after 30 years' use, would be news. This is same old, same old.

[youngsyr]

Bluebarge said:

Skyscrapers are for 3rd world countries run by tin-pot dictators. They are very old hat. I, for one, am very glad that London's skyline looks nothing like Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Houston, Dubai or any other identikit "modern" city you care to mention. This development has "white elephant" and "Centrepoint of the future" written all over it.

A large modern building that doesn't need masses of power to heat and cool it, is nice to work in and won't fall down/look like a slum after 30 years' use, would be news. This is same old, same old.

I'm willing to bet it will actually signal the continuing redevelopment of what was previously a pretty run-down site.

The location is approximately half a mile from Bank tube station and has a direct connection with the City via London Bridge, yet it has historically been under-developed due to the stigma attached to being "South of the River".

Since the London Assembly Building was built on an adjacent site a few years back, several of the Big Four accountancy firms and one law firm have built their UK headquarters right within what will be the shadow of the Shard.

I can easily see that area just the latest extension of the City of London financial district.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 8th September 12:54

[Bluebarge]

youngsyr said:

Bluebarge said:

Skyscrapers are for 3rd world countries run by tin-pot dictators. They are very old hat. I, for one, am very glad that London's skyline looks nothing like Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Houston, Dubai or any other identikit "modern" city you care to mention. This development has "white elephant" and "Centrepoint of the future" written all over it.

A large modern building that doesn't need masses of power to heat and cool it, is nice to work in and won't fall down/look like a slum after 30 years' use, would be news. This is same old, same old.

I'm willing to bet it will actually signal the continuing redevelopment of what was previously a pretty run-down site.

The location is approximately half a mile from Bank tube station and has a direct connection with the City via London Bridge, yet it has historically been under-developed due to the stigma attached to being "South of the River".

Since the London Assembly Building was built on an adjacent site a few years back, several of the Big Four accountancy firms and one law firm have built their UK headquarters right within what will be the shadow of the Shard.

I can easily see that area just the latest extension of the City of London financial district.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 8th September 12:54

Erm, PwC were in the building that was knocked down to build the "Shard" and had been for years. That whole area was re-developed in the 80's, is full of accountants and law firms, and yet, walk 300 yards south of the river and its' still a s***hole. It's always been that way and always will unless London's business centre expands (and all the projections are for it to shrink) or some other upscale area is allowed to fall into disrepair (most unlikely).

[youngsyr]

Bluebarge said:

youngsyr said:

Bluebarge said:

Skyscrapers are for 3rd world countries run by tin-pot dictators. They are very old hat. I, for one, am very glad that London's skyline looks nothing like Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Houston, Dubai or any other identikit "modern" city you care to mention. This development has "white elephant" and "Centrepoint of the future" written all over it.

A large modern building that doesn't need masses of power to heat and cool it, is nice to work in and won't fall down/look like a slum after 30 years' use, would be news. This is same old, same old.

I'm willing to bet it will actually signal the continuing redevelopment of what was previously a pretty run-down site.

The location is approximately half a mile from Bank tube station and has a direct connection with the City via London Bridge, yet it has historically been under-developed due to the stigma attached to being "South of the River".

Since the London Assembly Building was built on an adjacent site a few years back, several of the Big Four accountancy firms and one law firm have built their UK headquarters right within what will be the shadow of the Shard.

I can easily see that area just the latest extension of the City of London financial district.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 8th September 12:54

Erm, PwC were in the building that was knocked down to build the "Shard" and had been for years. That whole area was re-developed in the 80's, is full of accountants and law firms, and yet, walk 300 yards south of the river and its' still a s***hole. It's always been that way and always will unless London's business centre expands (and all the projections are for it to shrink) or some other upscale area is allowed to fall into disrepair (most unlikely).

Well, time will tell I guess, but PWC had two buildings on/near that site, 1 London Bridge (which they sold a couple of years back) and the tall building next to the station that has since been demolished. I hear rumours that they have plans to return to the area.

In the meantime, Ernst & Young and KPMG have build new UK headquarters and have been joined by Norton Rose just around the corner at More London, next to the London Assembly. In addition, Mazars have recently acquired two floors in a new building at Tower Bridge House, just over the river from there and are in joined in the same building by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain.

Mercer and Marsh also occupy a very large new building/buildings directly opposite More London at Tower Hill.

To me that looks like a migration of some of the countries biggest professional service firms to the area. Looking at some of the new stores/restaurants at More London (Groucho Grill, Strada, M&S) and the modern architecture/artwork on that site, it certainly seems as if that area is in the process of being regenerated.

Short term limited growth projections for the City do not mean that migration within and around the City won't happen, nor that firms aren't looking to pick up bargain real estate in currently unpopular areas ready for when growth picks up again or simply to reduce their current overheads.

[Bluebarge]

youngsyr said:

Bluebarge said:

youngsyr said:

Bluebarge said:

Skyscrapers are for 3rd world countries run by tin-pot dictators. They are very old hat. I, for one, am very glad that London's skyline looks nothing like Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Houston, Dubai or any other identikit "modern" city you care to mention. This development has "white elephant" and "Centrepoint of the future" written all over it.

A large modern building that doesn't need masses of power to heat and cool it, is nice to work in and won't fall down/look like a slum after 30 years' use, would be news. This is same old, same old.

I'm willing to bet it will actually signal the continuing redevelopment of what was previously a pretty run-down site.

The location is approximately half a mile from Bank tube station and has a direct connection with the City via London Bridge, yet it has historically been under-developed due to the stigma attached to being "South of the River".

Since the London Assembly Building was built on an adjacent site a few years back, several of the Big Four accountancy firms and one law firm have built their UK headquarters right within what will be the shadow of the Shard.

I can easily see that area just the latest extension of the City of London financial district.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 8th September 12:54

Erm, PwC were in the building that was knocked down to build the "Shard" and had been for years. That whole area was re-developed in the 80's, is full of accountants and law firms, and yet, walk 300 yards south of the river and its' still a s***hole. It's always been that way and always will unless London's business centre expands (and all the projections are for it to shrink) or some other upscale area is allowed to fall into disrepair (most unlikely).

Well, time will tell I guess, but PWC had two buildings on/near that site, 1 London Bridge (which they sold a couple of years back) and the tall building next to the station that has since been demolished. I hear rumours that they have plans to return to the area.

In the meantime, Ernst & Young and KPMG have build new UK headquarters and have been joined by Norton Rose just around the corner at More London, next to the London Assembly. In addition, Mazars have recently acquired two floors in a new building at Tower Bridge House, just over the river from there and are in joined in the same building by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain.

Mercer and Marsh also occupy a very large new building/buildings directly opposite More London at Tower Hill.

To me that looks like a migration of some of the countries biggest professional service firms to the area. Looking at some of the new stores/restaurants at More London (Groucho Grill, Strada, M&S) and the modern architecture/artwork on that site, it certainly seems as if that area is in the process of being regenerated.

Short term limited growth projections for the City do not mean that migration within and around the City won't happen, nor that firms aren't looking to pick up bargain real estate in currently unpopular areas ready for when growth picks up again or simply to reduce their current overheads.

A brand new skyscraper will not be "bargain real estate". The current massive over-supply of office space means that speculative building projects that add to that space stand a high risk of failure. Expensive developments like this one will be hard to market unless thay are in a prime location. The developments you refer to are all in a v.short strip of real estate 100m deep between Tower Bridge and some existing office developments funded by the Kuwaitis in the 1980s. 100m south of there is still as rough as it comes. The weakness of the "Shard" is that is sits atop an overcrowded rail terminus which, like train stations the world over, attracts tossers, dossers and crazies. This will not be a "destination address" if you have to step over winos to get there - I expect they weren't shown in the architect's drawings.

[im]

For those interested, a little perspective:

[ewenm]

The need all the extra height because sea-level rises are predicted to be "much worse than previously thought" so they need to get well above the flooding level

[im]

I had no idea how much I'd understated the future development of London's skyline. The picture below shows the London skyline as has been agreed thus far I believe.

Bear in mind the 'shard' in the middle of the picture is the height of the Eiffel Tower and then look at the amount of buildings going up that are almost the same height:



And thats not all......reading this there are literally a hundred other new buildings being planned...try this 3/4's of the way down is a list with details of each proposal.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=857...

[Jonny671]

I saw that picture before, its very cool.. I'd love to see London looking like that one day.

[cazzer]

And none with any permanance. All concrete, glass and metal. All temporary structures ultimately. Like high level B&Q greenhouses.

Compare....


with...


I'm no architect but I'm pretty sure I know which one will still be standing when the other one has been demolished.

Edited by cazzer on Wednesday 9th September 10:57

[grumbledoak]

Jonny671 said:

I saw that picture before, its very cool.. I'd love to see London looking like that one day.

I completely disagree (that's seemingly what the internet is for!)

London's character is in it's history. Despite the best efforts of the Luftwaffe, plenty of real historical significance remains, generally stone or stone clad, and maybe five stories tall. For a short while we had a policy of building very carefully around them, pushing most of the skyscrapers to the Wharf, much as 'Ze French' have done at La Defense.

The current, apparent, free-for-all will just destroy the character that we have, replacing it with ego and juvenile priapism. It just seems like a final big 'fk you' from the outgoing, largely Northern, lackwits, of whom Prescott was the ideal personification.

[cazzer]

grumbledoak said:

Jonny671 said:

I saw that picture before, its very cool.. I'd love to see London looking like that one day.

I completely disagree (that's seemingly what the internet is for!)

London's character is in it's history. Despite the best efforts of the Luftwaffe, plenty of real historical significance remains, generally stone or stone clad, and maybe five stories tall. For a short while we had a policy of building very carefully around them, pushing most of the skyscrapers to the Wharf, much as 'Ze French' have done at La Defense.

The current, apparent, free-for-all will just destroy the character that we have, replacing it with ego and juvenile priapism. It just seems like a final big 'fk you' from the outgoing, largely Northern, lackwits, of whom Prescott was the ideal personification.

Oi...I object to that. Don't think being northern has anything to do with it.
I'm northern and I think it's a travesty.
The rot set in with the London Eye.

[im]

cazzer said:

grumbledoak said:

Jonny671 said:

I saw that picture before, its very cool.. I'd love to see London looking like that one day.

I completely disagree (that's seemingly what the internet is for!)

London's character is in it's history. Despite the best efforts of the Luftwaffe, plenty of real historical significance remains, generally stone or stone clad, and maybe five stories tall. For a short while we had a policy of building very carefully around them, pushing most of the skyscrapers to the Wharf, much as 'Ze French' have done at La Defense.

The current, apparent, free-for-all will just destroy the character that we have, replacing it with ego and juvenile priapism. It just seems like a final big 'fk you' from the outgoing, largely Northern, lackwits, of whom Prescott was the ideal personification.

Oi...I object to that. Don't think being northern has anything to do with it.
I'm northern and I think it's a travesty.
The rot set in with the London Eye.

Well surely if its not to your liking then the rot set in with Canary Wharf...

[cazzer]

No cos thats....over there ------>

[im]

16th February 2010



12th March 2010 (or 28 Days Later)




Now thats an impressive construction speed!

Edited by im on Tuesday 16th March 16:01

[im]

Going up like a rocket now.

Edited by im on Tuesday 16th March 16:03

[Willie Dee]

London needs to adapt, im glad its rediculous architectural rules are being changed.

[normalbloke]

Blimey, good to see those cranes are still upright.I did the ground radar/utility surveys for those...

[3sixty]

im said:

2 Storeys a week minimum apparently. Fantastic.

2 storeys a week is quite quick for todays standard, would usually expect 1 or 1/2. However, interestingly, Empire State Building went up at 4 1/2 storeys per week... I'm guessing health and safety has a lot to do with that.

Had a presentation with that as an ending, was quite interesting.... also only took 20 months from employing architect to actual completion date.

Edited by 3sixty on Tuesday 16th February 18:45

[grumbledoak]

Willie Dee said:

London needs to adapt, im glad its rediculous architectural rules are being changed.

Want an opinion of Brizzle?