Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    because there are rules about how tall buildings can be in london. Which is a gooo thing because skyscrapers look horrible and cast a shadow.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You can't really compare London to Hong Kong and New York City, both the latter had limited space to build upon so as the population exploded up was really the only way to go. Thats why you see so many skyscrapers on Manhattan but comparitively much less in Queens, the Bronx etc as theres much more room to spread outwards as London did. The vast majority of the UK's skyscrapers are business related not mixed use or residential unlike NYC and HK.

    It wasn't really until Livingstone's time as Mayor either that you can get a skyscraper built in London (aside from the Natwest and a few others) because of English heritage and a desire to retain London's historic skyline. They're sprouting up all over the place though now, every day I walk down Mile End Road I can see the Heron getting taller and taller and just around the corner the Pinnacle finally being built. Give it another 20 years and the City will be a cluster of skyscrapers, Canary Wharf is being expanded in the next few years aswell with three more 'scrapers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am currently writing a 12,000 word dissertation on exactly this topic. If anyone is interested in reading it for a full explanation then just email me.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Will people stop copmlaining that we don't need them!!

    Have you got ANY idea how much rent is in London!?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidCraig)
    Will people stop copmlaining that we don't need them!!

    Have you got ANY idea how much rent is in London!?
    ...and Skyscrapers in London are generally office buildings not residential. So they don't really affect your rent in any way. Unless of course you happen to be the chairman of a city firm posting on TSR, which I think is highly unlikely.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I've always thought it ludicrous that we haven't adopted skyscrapers widely. They are a fantastic space saving measure. I'm glad that they seem to be popping up more in London and elsewhere around the country, if we had it my way the only developments that could be proposed in major cities would be skyscrapers dammit!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    ...and Skyscrapers in London are generally office buildings not residential. So they don't really affect your rent in any way. Unless of course you happen to be the chairman of a city firm posting on TSR, which I think is highly unlikely.
    so what happens to the land used for the old office buildings? less demand for it= less valuable...etc

    besides i was talking about sky scrapers becoming more main stream- like in new york they are used as residential.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A big reason is that in London the ground is really soft and its costs loads to build the foundations, however places like new york have the perfect ground to build on. Also years ago in London there were not really space issues where we needed to build high like in new york
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    ...and Skyscrapers in London are generally office buildings not residential. So they don't really affect your rent in any way. Unless of course you happen to be the chairman of a city firm posting on TSR, which I think is highly unlikely.
    I'd have thought that if they have any effect on your rent it might be the opposite. Skyscrapers provide new premium office space which is taken up by prestigious companies, more high-earning professionals move to London in order to occupy them, these professionals want to live in commutable distance of their fancy skyscraper so they want your flat, and can offer your landlord more money for it than you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ventura7)
    A big reason is that in London the ground is really soft and its costs loads to build the foundations, however places like new york have the perfect ground to build on. Also years ago in London there were not really space issues where we needed to build high like in new york
    Err, no. Manhattan was a swamp. London is on an old flood plain, but it doesn't flood - it's actually pretty good for building on.

    And there have been space issues in the capital since the 19th century, hence why we built high density terraces.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidCraig)
    so what happens to the land used for the old office buildings? less demand for it= less valuable...etc

    besides i was talking about sky scrapers becoming more main stream- like in new york they are used as residential.
    ...Land value has absolutely nothing to do with rental rents. The market sets rental rates.

    Also you're not going to see residential skyscrapers popping up around London, they tried that with tower blocks and it failed miserably. Mainly because unlike in New York where there are many trendy residential towerblocks, which are clean, safe and expensive and are in nice neighbourhoods. In London they decided to put them in the worst neighbourhoods where they become horrible crime riddled dangerous things and London has spent the past twenty years tearing down as many as it can. Manhattan is built around them, so they slotted in nicely and attracted a high class clientele, whereas London isn't. So what you saw is the odd skyscraper here and there, very conspiciously, very cheaply made, very ugly and with all the aforementioned problems that arose.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ventura7)
    A big reason is that in London the ground is really soft and its costs loads to build the foundations, however places like new york have the perfect ground to build on. Also years ago in London there were not really space issues where we needed to build high like in new york
    I'm pretty sure that's rubbish, though if you can provide a citation I'd be interested to see it. London clay (the predominant soil type) is excellent, this is one of the reasons why London had the world's first urban underground railway.

    Other major cities in the world which do feature lots of tall buildings (particularly those in the Far East) have much, much worse geotechnical conditions to deal with. Add to this the fact that they are also often in earthquake and hurricane zones and you see London is relatively simple to build in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Really, not that many European cities have many skyscrapers, bar obvious exceptions like Frankfurt. Perhaps we just have a different architectural culture in Britain that favours low-rise buildings. :dontknow: I know high-rise buildings are tightly regulated (in London, for example, you won't get planning permission if your building obscures the view of St Paul's Cathedral and I'm pretty sure that in Birmingham they don't allow buildings over a certain height, but I can't remember why).

    That said, with buildings like the Shard opening soon, and developments like Mersey Waters outside of the capital springing up, perhaps it's just a matter of time before more skyscrapers start popping up.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    ...Land value has absolutely nothing to do with rental rents. The market sets rental rates.
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    I'd have thought that if they have any effect on your rent it might be the opposite. Skyscrapers provide new premium office space which is taken up by prestigious companies, more high-earning professionals move to London in order to occupy them, these professionals want to live in commutable distance of their fancy skyscraper so they want your flat, and can offer your landlord more money for it than you.
    I dont even...

    ...strong economics fail/10
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Most skyscrapers are either nondescript boxes or fugly vanity projects imo.

    it's a pain in the butt to live/work in them and there's no real need.

    I'm not a fan.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Err, no. Manhattan was a swamp.
    That there was was once swampy ground on the surface is irrelevant. Underneath it is solid bedrock which rises to near the surface in the midtown area and financial district, and which is perfect for building tall buildings on. It is in these areas that the skyscrapers predominate. The clay soil and gravel in London is much less suitable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I like how the UK doesn't have loads of sky scrapers.

    It sets its cities apart from the skyscraper filled cities elsewhere (which you probably wouldn't be able to distinguish between if you were shown unnamed pictures of them).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That there was was once swampy ground on the surface is irrelevant. Underneath it is solid bedrock which rises to near the surface in the midtown area and financial district, and which is perfect for building tall buildings on. It is in these areas that the skyscrapers predominate. The clay soil and gravel in London is much less suitable.
    If Dubai can build a structure almost a kilometre in height in a desert, I'm sure we'll be fine. Really it's not an obstruction to modern construction - look at Shanghai's CBD, built on the banks of one of the longest rivers in the world.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    If Dubai can build a structure almost a kilometre in height in a desert, I'm sure we'll be fine. Really it's not an obstruction to modern construction - look at Shanghai's CBD, built on the banks of one of the longest rivers in the world.
    Again, the nature of the surface is not relevant. It is what is underneath that is important for building. I believe that the Dubai desert covers bedrock (there are mountains nearby); it certainly isn't infinitely deep sand.

    The proximity of water, whether in the form of a rivers, lakes or the sea, is also irrelevant.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Err, no. Manhattan was a swamp. London is on an old flood plain, but it doesn't flood - it's actually pretty good for building on.

    And there have been space issues in the capital since the 19th century, hence why we built high density terraces.
    the rocks underneath the swamp, the same rocks poking out of central park, funnily enough i was told by a new york tour guide, pfft what do they know compaerd to you?
 
 
 

1,698

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.