Turn on thread page Beta

Skyscrapers or heritage - watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Norman Foster also designed the Viaduct de Millau - which is possibly one of the most amazing things I've ever seen.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    By the way, have any of you heard about the 'London Station building' or something similar to that name. It apparently is being planned to be built in London, and when it does, it is going to be the tallest building in Europe. Its also going to be in central London which is pissing of English Heritage, though I have to admit, it is a very attractive building.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1984198419841984)
    By the way, have any of you heard about the 'London Station building' or something similar to that name. It apparently is being planned to be built in London, and when it does, it is going to be the tallest building in Europe. Its also going to be in central London which is pissing of English Heritage, though I have to admit, it is a very attractive building.
    Are you talking about the 'London Bridge Tower'? That was planned to be 305m tall, which is just a smidge taller than the Eiffel Tower. Anyhows, it's still only a proposal, so English Heritage don't need to be quaking in their boots as of yet.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    although we do have a fair amount of skyscapers, we're lucky to have a phenomenal range of residential/leisure/whatever else "landmarks" which don't dominate the skyline; rather, they fall qutie nicely into our lines of vision and are often tucked away. you can take a short stroll off somewhere like new bond street (which reminds me, we still have the beautiful regent street) and find a few houses with their back gardens visible from the pavement. the parks are also quite splendid to say the least..

    also, however many tall buidlings are errected, i love the way that the flatness and space of the river will always put them in their place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Norman Foster also designed the Viaduct de Millau - which is possibly one of the most amazing things I've ever seen.
    I'll second that.

    Skyscrapers are a much more efficient way of building than conventional two/three storey housing, and are a great way of making a statement on a large scale (like the gherkin). Planning laws exist that protect the views of historic monuments from certain locations (or you could just go to the top of a skyscraper). Though perhaps its not wise to get carried away - apparently in Indonesia or somewhere the concentration of massive skyscrapers was so large that it opened up a fault in the earth.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Stunning. If the architects impression is true to what it will look like (which is usually the case) Its a brilliant embellishment to the City skyline. I had a look on the architects website for the project - for anyone that's not seen : http://shardlondonbridge.com/ Their little flash animation showing what it will look like throughout the day and into the night truly demonstrates how easy on the eye the tower will be.

    With a lot of the attractions on the North Bank like St. Pauls far enough away as to not be dominated by it. Canary Wharf in the background and the Gherkin just over the river. If memory serves me correctly, its quite near "The Headlight" (Ken Livingstone's Office).

    I think Renzo Piano (The Architect behind "the Shard") is designing this to be spectacular, whilst not making a huge chunk of 60's concrete. Being primarily faced with glass has the advantage of allowing it to blend into the sky - making it less imposing.

    Personally, I feel the project should go ahead. Its a fantastic prestige project for the City of London and unless it's bulldozing any heritage sites, English Heritage should bog off. After all - feats as daring as this become landmarks in their own right. Why should we not consider contemporary landmarks as "Tomorrows Heritage"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1984198419841984)
    I reside in London and I cannot help noticing the ever changing skyline of this great city. Especially in the last decade, skyscrapers and tall modern office blocks are been erected at a very fast speed. Canary Wharf looks very much like central LA already.

    Although building skyscrapers do a lot for the image of a city and contribute to the local economy, is it worth, when considering the fact that it obstructs the view of many historic buildings and monuments. I admire the energetic feeling that skyscraper swamped New York has, however the tranquility of cities like Oxford and Paris make me wonder whether its worth building more of these eyesores.

    The current Labour mayor of London - Livingstone seems to be a keen proponent of skyscrapers, but whats your opinion?
    The redevelopments and investment in skyscrapers is surely not in central London, CBD wise....they are being erected along side Canary Wharf, and other areas the to the West. This is great, it makes London look ever more dynamic, and it also enhances London's financial and business appeal, whilst preserving the historic sites to the East.

    I am happy to see it, as long as they don't erect them anywhere near West. Palace, Buck. Palace, St. Pauls, Abbey or Trafferz, that would degrade London's charm.

    Keep to one side, and they can build as high and as numerous as they want.

    Luckily I think this is the case, wisely.

    As for Livingstone, he's a half-wit, he really is a muppet; he got rid of Londons routemaster, what an idiot - hypocritical figurehead. That man is diablocially vile.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Oh and if ever there was a reason to build upwards rather than outwards...

    http://www.crosbie-casco.co.uk/casco...enium-Dome.jpg

    As we all know, it's possibly one of the most expensive white elephants in the history of the world.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angel Interceptor)
    Are you talking about the 'London Bridge Tower'? That was planned to be 305m tall, which is just a smidge taller than the Eiffel Tower. Anyhows, it's still only a proposal, so English Heritage don't need to be quaking in their boots as of yet.
    It could only make that area better. They should knock down Guy's Tower and that other tall building nearby that's equally as ugly.

    I don't mind seeing more tall buildings in London so long as they're stylishly designed and practical. I would hate to think that in 30 years time, our kids will be wanting to knock them down as they declare them as ugly as we think late 60s/70s concrete buildings are now.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angel Interceptor)
    Are you talking about the 'London Bridge Tower'? That was planned to be 305m tall, which is just a smidge taller than the Eiffel Tower. Anyhows, it's still only a proposal, so English Heritage don't need to be quaking in their boots as of yet.
    Renzo Piano's shard of glass is planned at 310 metres high, which would make it Europe's highest building (as opposed to tower). The Eiffel Tower is 324m with its flag pole.

    Personally I think we need to be careful about London's tower design - New Labour's love-in with Rogers and Foster means I think we risk having a skyline which will look very dated within a short period of time. The Swiss Re building epitomises what I don't like about Foster - its a very obvious solution and I'm getting to the end of my tether with triangular pieces of glass. Foster is undeniably a good engineer, and has worked out how to be at the forefront of "le hi-tech" - but I'm not sure he's a great architect, in the sense that architecture, in my book at least, involves a little more cross-over with art, and therein passion, emotion, love. His work is very clinical, and that's one of the reasons I think it will date badly - it doesn't capture an era or meaning that well, so people are likely to stop appreciating it pretty quickly. At least it will be easy to dismantle though....

    New York's skyline is far more interesting from my perspective; I think it would be good if London's skyscrapers didn't always turn into the same 2-3 leg race between the same old names. Variety is the spice of life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jrhartley)
    Renzo Piano's shard of glass is planned at 310 metres high, which would make it Europe's highest building (as opposed to tower). The Eiffel Tower is 324m with its flag pole.

    Personally I think we need to be careful about London's tower design - New Labour's love-in with Rogers and Foster means I think we risk having a skyline which will look very dated within a short period of time. The Swiss Re building epitomises what I don't like about Foster - its a very obvious solution and I'm getting to the end of my tether with triangular pieces of glass. Foster is undeniably a good engineer, and has worked out how to be at the forefront of "le hi-tech" - but I'm not sure he's a great architect, in the sense that architecture, in my book at least, involves a little more cross-over with art, and therein passion, emotion, love. His work is very clinical, and that's one of the reasons I think it will date badly - it doesn't capture an era or meaning that well, so people are likely to stop appreciating it pretty quickly. At least it will be easy to dismantle though....

    New York's skyline is far more interesting from my perspective; I think it would be good if London's skyscrapers didn't always turn into the same 2-3 leg race between the same old names. Variety is the spice of life.
    However, in Manhattan the necessity to build high was very real and has been for a long time because space was so limited, plus, the NY skyline has been ingrained into many peoples minds since childhood, almost as a defintion of how a 'real city' should look and to many represents visions of success and grandeur, and who could blame them? New York is a world financial hub, and is iconised the world over - why else would the terrorists attack it? It's because they saw it as a symbol of success.

    Anyhows, with regards to your opinions on the designs of Foster et al, I'd beg to differ. Foster is a very good engineer and architect - his designs are innovative, yet subtle as opposed to tasteless monstrosities that are being erected everywhere in Dubai and the fledging newly-enhanced economies of Pacific rim countries. Dubai in particular though is a showpiece for a lack of taste when it comes to building design, although there are a few hidden gems that there have been plans for that I'd hope to see come to fruition. Still, this is only my opinion.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    and obviously you are entitled to your opinion about Foster, but I wouldn't necessarily benchmark him as a good architect simply because his stuff is better than the naff stuff going up in Dubai! I accept your view, but I don't see a lot of love in his work.

    There are a lot better architects out there who fail to get commissions purely because the corporates want a "Foster building" or a "Rogers building" or a "Libeskind Building", etc. The corporations reinforce the architect, the architect reinforces the corporate brand. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - more buildings means more corporations think they have to appoint the standard names, the cycle in perpetuated and people think they are great architects, whereas they may just be good at self-publicity. I just think its a shame that people's knowledge of architects is so frequently limited to these high-tech guys - I'm not convinced most people are able to accurately say whether Foster and his creed are truly great architects as they don't know enough about architecture and truly great architects that have lived before to be able to make a fair comparison. But that's just my opinion... ;-)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Skyscrapers can look stunning and be tourist attractions in their own right. Take the (erotic) Gherkin for example. At first, I thought... oh great... Norman Foster - this is bound to be crap.
    How can you think that after so many wonderfully beautiful constructed and designed buildngs? The guy is a genius. Not many can follow hs innovative style, and he is prepared to try his hand at anything.

    (Original post by Ferrus)
    Didn't he do the new Reichstag?
    Yep. Mixing contemporary with history is a not an easy task.

    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Norman Foster also designed the Viaduct de Millau - which is possibly one of the most amazing things I've ever seen.
    Completely agree. Why god damn it could he not have done that in England :mad:

    (Original post by Angel Interceptor)
    Are you talking about the 'London Bridge Tower'? That was planned to be 305m tall, which is just a smidge taller than the Eiffel Tower. Anyhows, it's still only a proposal, so English Heritage don't need to be quaking in their boots as of yet.
    I'm sure its approved and has been for some time. The commencement date for works was put back due to objections on height interfering with St Pauls. There are various categories of skyscraper phases:
    - Visionary
    - Proposed
    - Approved
    - Completed
    London Bridge Tower (i'm not going to look now), I'm sure is ready due for completion by 2010. Commencement is due for this year or early next (again, I can't be bothered to look as my eyes are going)

    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    With a lot of the attractions on the North Bank like St. Pauls far enough away as to not be dominated by it. Canary Wharf in the background and the Gherkin just over the river. If memory serves me correctly, its quite near "The Headlight" (Ken Livingstone's Office).

    I think Renzo Piano (The Architect behind "the Shard") is designing this to be spectacular, whilst not making a huge chunk of 60's concrete. Being primarily faced with glass has the advantage of allowing it to blend into the sky - making it less imposing.

    Personally, I feel the project should go ahead. Its a fantastic prestige project for the City of London and unless it's bulldozing any heritage sites, English Heritage should bog off. After all - feats as daring as this become landmarks in their own right. Why should we not consider contemporary landmarks as "Tomorrows Heritage"?
    Ken Livingstons office is on South Bank territory in between London Bridge & Tower Bridge. Canary Wharf is located on the North side of the Thames as is anything to do with the City.

    I also want the project to go ahead, and like you feel exactly the same way. Show me something symbolic that represents the late twentieth century - and don't say the dome


    The main development in the City is focused around one specific road; Bishopsgate & Leadenhall Streets. The towers that are either approved or proposed have been for 6 years roughly apart from the new Bishopsgate Tower that has just been proposed. They need to try extremely hard not to mess the City up, as I do like it the way it is. Contemporary buildings do work extremely well with the St Pauls and the Bank of England etc, so its up to the Architects to get it spot on. Paris hasn't got a patch on London in regards to economy or being the financial hub, and never will have due to their static stance on evolution. In fact, it was London that took steps to look like Paris after the great fire of London, and was then further modernised in other areas after.
    As long as they leave the area of St Pauls alone, they can do what they like with EC3 & EC2. As for postcode EC4, that should be left alone.

    Canary Wharf is a marvel. The more skyscrapers there the better. Its a skyscraper place, and will forever be. They even have precedence over London City Airport with the Columbus Towers height being approved regardless of appeals from City Airport.
    I'm not sure what the definition of a skyscraper is in terms of height - but I do see 'taller than 12 floors' or 'taller than 100m' on some other sources. Either way, Canary Wharf will have at least 20 buildings that are skyscrapers with another 15 approved or proposed. (approx).
    As Canary Wharf are stealing tenants from the City, the London Mayor should pay close attention to declining office space in the City, and any new skyscrapers put on hold.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jrhartley)
    and obviously you are entitled to your opinion about Foster, but I wouldn't necessarily benchmark him as a good architect simply because his stuff is better than the naff stuff going up in Dubai! I accept your view, but I don't see a lot of love in his work.

    There are a lot better architects out there who fail to get commissions purely because the corporates want a "Foster building" or a "Rogers building" or a "Libeskind Building", etc. The corporations reinforce the architect, the architect reinforces the corporate brand. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - more buildings means more corporations think they have to appoint the standard names, the cycle in perpetuated and people think they are great architects, whereas they may just be good at self-publicity. I just think its a shame that people's knowledge of architects is so frequently limited to these high-tech guys - I'm not convinced most people are able to accurately say whether Foster and his creed are truly great architects as they don't know enough about architecture and truly great architects that have lived before to be able to make a fair comparison. But that's just my opinion... ;-)

    Lord Foster has long been understated. I have been a follower of his design for the last 10 years simply attracted to what he has achieved. Only in the last few years has he got major recognition over here with 30 St Mary Axe and the Maillau Viaduct Bridge in France.

    What Architects would you state that are a lot better?
    KPF / SOM??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mad Vlad)
    Stunning. If the architects impression is true to what it will look like (which is usually the case) Its a brilliant embellishment to the City skyline. I had a look on the architects website for the project - for anyone that's not seen : http://shardlondonbridge.com/ Their little flash animation showing what it will look like throughout the day and into the night truly demonstrates how easy on the eye the tower will be.

    With a lot of the attractions on the North Bank like St. Pauls far enough away as to not be dominated by it. Canary Wharf in the background and the Gherkin just over the river. If memory serves me correctly, its quite near "The Headlight" (Ken Livingstone's Office).

    I think Renzo Piano (The Architect behind "the Shard") is designing this to be spectacular, whilst not making a huge chunk of 60's concrete. Being primarily faced with glass has the advantage of allowing it to blend into the sky - making it less imposing.

    Personally, I feel the project should go ahead. Its a fantastic prestige project for the City of London and unless it's bulldozing any heritage sites, English Heritage should bog off. After all - feats as daring as this become landmarks in their own right. Why should we not consider contemporary landmarks as "Tomorrows Heritage"?
    Those are some excellent points - I am quite fond of the design and the Flash animation helps to give you an idea of the impact it will have on the skyline, both during the night and in the daytime.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    As a Civil Engineering student, I naturally loathe architects because they expect the impossible. I've recently gained a lot of respect for Foster, but he is the classic example of an architect really pushing the envelope of what is possible.

    Take the Millau Viaduct for example. I saw a documentary on it a couple of weeks back, and... damn! It breaks the rules governing what can/should be done all over the place! Building a bridge that high is insane as it is, but building from both sides! That's potential suicide if the project cocked up. Those of you who saw that documentary will share with me, my admiration of Eiffel, for taking on such a project.

    With 30 St. Mary Axe, when erecting that, they constructed the superstructure differently to how it was specified in the plans. Then when they poured the floors and added the weight, the structure sagged exactly into its proposed place under loading.

    I take the point made by jrhartley and I agree to some extent that we need to be careful that architects aren't pushing the limits of design just to out-do each other to make the biggest statement. But whatever their motives, architects like Foster ARE producing aesthetically stunning and technologically outstanding structures, and that fact can't be denied.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by walshie)
    Lord Foster has long been understated. I have been a follower of his design for the last 10 years simply attracted to what he has achieved. Only in the last few years has he got major recognition over here with 30 St Mary Axe and the Maillau Viaduct Bridge in France.

    What Architects would you state that are a lot better?
    KPF / SOM??
    I'm not sure that's correct - Foster has had recognition for about the past 30+ years, ever since he did the Willis, Faber Dumas curtain walled building in Ipswich. He hasn't only got the recognition in the past few years. He really got loads and loads of attention in the mid 80s when he did HSBC HQ in Hong Kong, which is still reputedly the most expensive building ever constructed.

    What architects would I state that are a lot better? - a whole host that are dead now (Corbusier, Khan, Aalto, Utzon [ok, he's still alive, but he's getting on]), and a lot of smaller guys that are doing stuff for passion and not just to boost their own egos and bank balances. I think Ando is probably the best example I can think of of a superstar status architect who manages to win lots of commissions but has managed to guard an element of creative integrity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think to say we need to "preserve" history is a bit selfish. I'm a massive fan of history, and think that it's a travesty to lose any historic buildings, but they aren't being lost. I don't want london being a relic from the 1800's - the fact there are buildings from hundreds and hundreds of years ago, as well as modern, glass skyscrapers is, more than merely having old buildings, the biggest compliment to it's history. To not build modern buildings would be to remove the right of future generations to see us in a historic light. Then, in 100 years, people will look back at London and still see all the old cathedrals and churches, old pubs, and those "funny glass buildings" from the early 21st century.

    London has always been on the cutting edge of technology and fashion. To NOT build skyscrapers would be to fly in the face of heritage.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    I love skyscrappers and feel we need more of them in this country.

    London is going the right way and I remember looking at a website last year which listed loads of potential tall buildings for London. I guess many will never be built, but if just some of them are added to the London skyline then I will be happy as I feel ther eis a need in any city for a good mix of important and histroic buildings and well designed and sympatheitc modern structures.

    In a city in which space is limited and yet expansion is needed, skyscrappers are the best option forward.

    Lets hope the planning officals all agree
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The original shard of glass was planned to be much taller. 911 happend and they reduced the height by about 25% if memory serves me right. I think the current project is excellent.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
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.