# London skyline to change radically by 2012



## scooter (Aug 28, 2008)

I was cycling through the city and looking at the Heron Tower site. I wondered what it was going to look like so I googled it when I got home and discovered that there's actually quite a few funky skyscapers going up in the next few years in and around the city of London.

Heron Tower. 246 metres. Opening in 2011. 







The Bishopsgate Tower (known as The Pinnacle or the Helter Skelter). 288 metres. Opening in 2012. 






The Leadenhall Building aka the Cheesegrater. 225 metres. Opening in 2011.






Shard London Bridge aka The Shard of Glass. 310 metres. Construction to start January 2009.






Most bizarre of all, 20 Fenchurch Street aka the Walkie Talkie. 160 metres. Opening 2011.






Seems to be some others being built too that are whacky shapes. I say bring it on. Fuck St Pauls - it's had it's time in the sun for 300 years. Time to move on.


----------



## scooter (Aug 28, 2008)

Artist's impression of the London skyline in 2012.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 28, 2008)

London definitely needs some more skyscrapers.  My wife looked at Canary Wharf when I pointed it out to her and was like "That - that's the _highest_?"


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2008)

They're all great designs except the 'walkie talkie' which is an abomination unto architecture.

PS: No building in Canary Wharf will ever be taller than 1 Canada Square - they're limited by London City Airport.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 28, 2008)

Some nice-looking buildings there, but haven't most of these projects now been delayed or cancelled?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2008)

Shard's on track I know that much. Loads of arab money in it.


----------



## g force (Aug 28, 2008)

Cheesegrater's been put on hold. Work has stopped and the concrete core of the old P&O building covered in tarp. Apparently they're going to aim for finish "in 2012" when "market conditions will have improved"...assume they'll sell space for ads on the tarp given it's prime location in the city.

The Fenchurch St building is horrific.


----------



## Mitre10 (Aug 28, 2008)

That walkie-talkie is appalling, who the hell let that through planning?


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 28, 2008)

After the Olympics closing ceremony I thought it was going to be much smaller and hedge-like?


----------



## boohoo (Aug 28, 2008)

I like the helter skelter... not to keen on the rest... having said that, I didn't like the gherkin til it was finished..


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 28, 2008)

The 'Can of Ham' looks like one of the better ones...


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 28, 2008)

The walkie talkie looks like something from toon town. What an awful design.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2008)

skyscrapercity has a good 'current status' thread here:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=650391

Here's the relevant bits:

*Shard:*
Demolition of Southwark Towers is underway, with piling confirmed to start in January 2009. Financial issues plagued the tower for years, but were recently resolved. Four Qatari banks have taken an 80% stake in the project

*Pinnacle*
Demolition is almost finished, and site preparation is underway. It is confirmed that the tower will be built speculatively. Brookfield have been signed up as subcontractors for the steel and cladding, and are expected to take over the site from July 2009.

*Heron*
Under construction! According to Skanska, piling work is now underway on site. The core and superstructure are
expected to begin rising in late 2008/early 2009.

*Cheesegrater*
The core of the previous building on site is still being taken down. It will be gone by mid-September. Piling and foundation work has already started on the new tower. However, the above-ground steelwork is being delayed at least a year, due to the economic downturn.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2008)

PS: I wish the developers/designers would give these buildings proper names before the press gets to nickname them. "Cheesgrater" "Walkie Talkie" "Can of Ham"  Not exactly "Empire State" is it?


----------



## Yelkcub (Aug 28, 2008)

Crispy said:


> PS: I wish the developers/designers would give these buildings proper names before the press gets to nickname them. "Cheesgrater" "Walkie Talkie" "Can of Ham"  Not exactly "Empire State" is it?



Well New York has the 'Flat Iron' Building and that's it's official name!

Hmm....on second thoughts that's better than the Can of Ham isn't it.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 28, 2008)

There were plans to redevelop the site adjacent to Waterloo, next to the Shell Building, which were going to include three skyscrapers with a lower bit in the middle so one could still see the Eye. I understand these plans have now been shelved, following intervention from Not My Boris, and I am not sure what is going in their place.

I can kind of empathise with the notion of not blighting the London skyline yada yada, except that Not My Boris is shelving the social housing plans, and we desperately need more social housing in London! If going up is the only way to achieve that, then let's go up, I say!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 28, 2008)

Crispy said:


> PS: I wish the developers/designers would give these buildings proper names before the press gets to nickname them. "Cheesgrater" "Walkie Talkie" "Can of Ham"  Not exactly "Empire State" is it?



I don't think it would matter what they were officially called. If there is the opportunity to poke a bit of fun at their shape, the press and the public will do it. The Gherkin is sometimes referred to as the Cigar, but never by its proper name, whatever that is.

In Cambridge, there is a toastrack, which is simply known as a toastrack. I have no idea what it is supposed to be, but it is a bit of a landmark for people coming in on the ring road, so very handy


----------



## untethered (Aug 28, 2008)

scooter said:


> Seems to be some others being built too that are whacky shapes. I say bring it on.



Great idea. Let's make London a joke! How postmodern.

How long do you think it'll be before these buildings are about as cool as tie-dyed t-shirts?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 28, 2008)

Not forgetting the plans to rebuild the Skylon (the er...'Giant Spliff' perhaps?)


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 28, 2008)

untethered said:


> Great idea. Let's make London a joke! How postmodern.
> 
> How long do you think it'll be before these buildings are about as cool as tie-dyed t-shirts?




So, do you think all buildings in London should be Victorian in style, or 16th Century, or what? Perhaps you would like them all to match the monstrosities which are the Royal Festival Hall and the National Theatre, and be grey and dull?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2008)

Nothing going in for the waterloo site at the moment. A shame, because the public space outside the 'main' entrance to the station is really crap and this development would have improved it.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 28, 2008)

I saw a virtual animation of the proposals all alongside each other on the BBC iPlayer (Britain from Above). Kind of interesting. For example,  the cheese grater is thus because, without the grater side of it angling back, the proposal would have infringed on sightlines to St Pauls - and that's just not on.

'course the other side is that it was Ken who agreed to all this development - from what I understand the key factor being that it was deemed vital London should allow huge multinationals these dedicated buildings so they did actually base their headquarters here and not go elsewhere. That's what i understood . . . .

Personally, the town is big enough, or at least put all the new towers out east with the others.


----------



## g force (Aug 28, 2008)

Crispy said:


> skyscrapercity has a good 'current status' thread here:
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=650391
> 
> Here's the relevant bits:
> ...




I work in the Aviva tower so can see the foundation work on the Pinnacle, Cheesegrater and Heron Tower...it's interesting stuff...the Pinnacle in particular is on a very odd shaped site.

Surprised its being built speculatively mind - I suppose they're hoping that by the time its completed the economy will have recovered and one of the big banks currently looking at a move to Canary Wharf will want this prime space instead. Anyone know if it's the same deal with the Heron tower? Or is one of the law firms going to move in as I heard?

I know the developers of the building on the former stock exchange site are pretty worried because they've created a building with very little useable space (for a large corporate) and cannot find a single tennant.

Interestingly, the building at the end of Bishopsgate (the tall tower near the Light Bar) has a location problem as one prospective tennat didn't consider that site as being "the city"...despite it being all of 2 mins walk from Liverpool Street.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 28, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Nothing going in for the waterloo site at the moment. A shame, because the public space outside the 'main' entrance to the station is really crap and this development would have improved it.



Apparently, they are still going to develop it, just not to the plans which were in place. 

They have desperately got to do something about the public access to the station, but I think that ties in with the development of the former international terminal, which is going to be dropped to street level and incorporate a shopping arcade, a bit like St Pancras, apparently.


----------



## untethered (Aug 28, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> So, do you think all buildings in London should be Victorian in style, or 16th Century, or what? Perhaps you would like them all to match the monstrosities which are the Royal Festival Hall and the National Theatre, and be grey and dull?



I think that the city's buildings should be harmonious, not discordant. RFH etc. are dreadful buildings because they embody the same ideas as these newer buildings: make it different, make it weird, get noticed.


----------



## untethered (Aug 28, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> 'course the other side is that it was Ken who agreed to all this development - from what I understand the key factor being that it was deemed vital London should allow huge multinationals these dedicated buildings so they did actually base their headquarters here and not go elsewhere. That's what i understood . . . .



I'd rather they went elsewhere, if that's what it comes down to.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 28, 2008)

untethered said:


> Great idea. Let's make London a joke! How postmodern.
> 
> How long do you think it'll be before these buildings are about as cool as tie-dyed t-shirts?



"To comprehend what we are arguing one only needs                  to imagine for a moment a tower of ridiculous vertiginous height                  dominating Paris, just like a gigantic black factory chimney, its                  barbarous mass overwhelming and humiliating all our monuments                  and belittling our works of architecture, which will just disappear                  before this stupefying folly. And for twenty years we shall see                  spreading across the whole city, a city shimmering with the genius                  of so many centuries, we shall see spreading like an ink stain,                  the odious shadow of this odious column of bolted metal."

- Statement from the Protest against the Tower                of Monsieur Eiffel, 1887


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 28, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> So, do you think all buildings in London should be Victorian in style, or 16th Century, or what? Perhaps you would like them all to match the monstrosities which are the Royal Festival Hall and the National Theatre, and be grey and dull?


For me it's about scale, about views, and the low rise tradition -  corporate cock waving belongs in Docklands or elsewhere.

If they can afford London, they can afford two sensible sized towers.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 28, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think that the city's buildings should be harmonious, not discordant. RFH etc. are dreadful buildings because they embody the same ideas as these newer buildings: make it different, make it weird, get noticed.



So, in order to be harmonious, which of the many architectural styles already in London, do you think should be adopted? Should we demolish all buildings not in that style? 

That's my point, really - there are buildings in the centre of London going back centuries, and ever since, all in the architectural style of the time.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 28, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> "To comprehend what we are arguing one only needs                  to imagine for a moment a tower of ridiculous vertiginous height                  dominating Paris, just like a gigantic black factory chimney, its                  barbarous mass overwhelming and humiliating all our monuments                  and belittling our works of architecture, which will just disappear                  before this stupefying folly. And for twenty years we shall see                  spreading across the whole city, a city shimmering with the genius                  of so many centuries, we shall see spreading like an ink stain,                  the odious shadow of this odious column of bolted metal."
> 
> - Statement from the Protest against the Tower                of Monsieur Eiffel, 1887



Well, they did have a point, really, didn't they?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 28, 2008)

Tbf, the Eiffel Tower is a sack of shite, almost without a redeeming quality  - it's like an electricity pylon.


----------



## untethered (Aug 28, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> Statement from the Protest against the Tower                of Monsieur Eiffel, 1887



There's a difference between being opposed to the occasional bold experiment or even all development, and being able to spot when greedy developers are seeking to fill the city with third-rate junk.

It's easy to be wise in retrospect but I very much doubt whether any of these new buildings will be considered to be tomorrow's design classics.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 28, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> For me it's about scale, about views, and the low rise tradition -  corporate cock waving belongs in Docklands or elsewhere.
> 
> If they can afford London, they can afford two sensible sized towers.




So, what should we do about the people who need somewhere to live and work? Just spread out some more, and take in more of our "green and pleasant land"? I think I would rather we went up, although I don't really want us to get into the idea of huge towerblocks like in the States.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 28, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> Tbf, the Eiffel Tower is a sack of shite, almost without a redeeming quality  - it's like an electricity pylon.



Exactly. Crystal Palace park has two Eiffel Towers, in fact


----------



## untethered (Aug 28, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> So, in order to be harmonious, which of the many architectural styles already in London, do you think should be adopted? Should we demolish all buildings not in that style?
> 
> That's my point, really - there are buildings in the centre of London going back centuries, and ever since, all in the architectural style of the time.



I don't advocate any one particular style, but I think new buildings should be stylistically sober and modest in scale so as to fit in with their neighbours.

From a planning perspective I really don't see how we can justify or even support increased office capacity in central London. It's time to start dispersing more of these activities outwards. That means building up the suburbs, but not erecting 40-storey glass pinnacles in the centre of Richmond.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 28, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> So, what should we do about the people who need somewhere to live and work? Just spread out some more, and take in more of our "green and pleasant land"? I think I would rather we went up, although I don't really want us to get into the idea of huge towerblocks like in the States.


It's like the preoccupation with 'national growth' or the argument we need more immigrants so their children will - in 20-30 years time -  pay our pensions: Where does it all stop what is the logical conclusion of all this? Who pays the pensions of the immigrants further down the road?

It doesn't take very long to realise it's a barking mad mindset - we really need to get off the merry-go-round before it's too late.


----------



## untethered (Aug 28, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> So, what should we do about the people who need somewhere to live and work? Just spread out some more, and take in more of our "green and pleasant land"? I think I would rather we went up, although I don't really want us to get into the idea of huge towerblocks like in the States.



The outer London boroughs are around half the density of inner London. There's plenty of scope for intensifying them without building on the green belt or relocating outside London.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 1, 2010)

Looks like the 'Walkie Talkie' is back on...

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/...el-violys-walkie-talkie-tower/5213537.article



> Britain’s largest developer, Land Securities, is understood to have pressed the go button on its mothballed Walkie Talkie tower – the clearest signal yet of returning confidence among the property big hitters
> 
> Sources said Land Securities had been active on the 155m-tall Fenchurch Street project in the City of London, designed by Rafael Viñoly, which has been on the drawing board since 2005.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2010)

Oh christ I hate that design 

Why why why must this go ahead when 122 Leadenhall (the cheesegrater) remains on hold


----------



## ovaltina (Feb 1, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Oh christ I hate that design



It's fugly innit


----------



## IMR (Feb 1, 2010)

Can't stand those kind of buildings and don't understand the enthusiasm that some have for them. Great, more big glass-covered office blocks with branches of Thomas Pink and Yo Sushi clustered around them, London is so short of that kind of thing.

Let them 'enhance' somewhere else, some fifty-year-old city with lots to prove.


----------



## samk (Feb 1, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> It's like the preoccupation with 'national growth' or the argument we need more immigrants so their children will - in 20-30 years time -  pay our pensions: Where does it all stop what is the logical conclusion of all this?



Build a replica of the london streetplan in the scottishhighlands, and another leicester on salisbury plain. The topography won't quite match, but I'm sure augmented reality goggles and peaceful use of h bombs can sort that adequately. Assigning land title and funding building could be done in many ways, all of which will drive most of the people in britain mad, but this still seems the most sensible plan


----------



## bromley (Feb 2, 2010)

I'm a big fan of modern (post-Brutalist?!) Sky Scrappers. Personally I think the walkie talky is a great shape, superior to the Heron Tower, but I have an issue with the width of it, it just looks too big and clumsy. The Helter Skelter looks fantastic and I can architects in 100 years time admiring the vintage early 21st century glasswork! 

As long as architects realise the responsibility of building within the city and the standards remain high with sight lines and the actual need for the building to be there being high on the agenda then I don't see a problem.


----------



## gamma globulins (Feb 2, 2010)

Does anyone know when the last large ('skyline-level') modern building in London was demolished? I'm curious as to how long these things are expected to last?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 2, 2010)

The site for the 'walkie-talkie' used to have a pretty tall building on it






This one near London Bridge is about to come down


----------



## gamma globulins (Feb 3, 2010)

That's interesting. So do these new developments also have a <60ish year lifespan? And how easy is it to demolish something bigger than canary wharf without damaging surrounding buildings? Or is it a case of "the technology will be better then/that's someone else's problem"?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 3, 2010)

The lifespan is indeterminate. They don't knock them down because they're old/broken (although sometimes buildings become damaged or have structural flaws), but when they're not profitable. There are skyscrapers in Chicago and New York that are over 100 years old and are still profitable today.

The property market in The City changes all the time, so that floorplates in 60s buildings are no longer attractive to tennants and the rent crashes. Knocking the building down and building something that matches the market in terms of floor size, facilites etc. is often a sound economic prospect. In other parts of London or the country, the market pressures are much less so buildings last longer.


----------



## JDM (Feb 3, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> corporate cock waving



That's the phrase I was looking for!


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2010)

Here's the Heron Tower, near Liverpool Street. 






http://www.urban75.org/blog/heron-tower-skyscraper-110-bishopsgate-london/


----------



## Crispy (Nov 4, 2010)

Still got the construction hoist bolted to the side. Should look sleeker when it's gone


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Still got the construction hoist bolted to the side. Should look sleeker when it's gone


I rather like it but it wasn't as tall as I expected.


----------



## bromley (Nov 4, 2010)

Could someone please upload a photo from Nunhead station? That's the best public viewing spot on the London skyline that I know of, does anyone know of a better one?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 4, 2010)

Yeah, Dawson's Hill in East Dulwich, on Dunstan's Road. There's a completely uninterruped view from Battersea to Canary Wharf.


----------



## editor (Nov 4, 2010)

bromley said:


> Could someone please upload a photo from Nunhead station? That's the best public viewing spot on the London skyline that I know of, does anyone know of a better one?


From One Tree Hill near Nunhead:


----------



## Crispy (Nov 4, 2010)

It's all the same hill along there anyway


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 4, 2010)

Dawons' Hill, One Tree Hill...do you think the producers of two US teen tellyshows were ever hanging around SE London?


----------



## bromley (Nov 4, 2010)

editor said:


> From One Tree Hill near Nunhead:


Cheers! Shame about the weather though! That will look very good next summer when the skyline chances further, perhaps with the pinnacle rising up and the Shard at full height.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 6, 2010)

not into skyscrapers - all just a load of corporate erections -  bankers should have to work underground - i liked living on the 8th floor though


----------

