# London skyscraper developments



## wjfox2007 (Jan 21, 2007)

Hi all

This is my first post here. Sorry if this seems rather long, but I feel it’s an important issue for London!  

As you may be aware, a number of stunning new landmarks are being planned for London – on a par with Foster’s Gherkin and perhaps even better. These new buildings include the “Shard of Glass", set to become the tallest building in Western Europe.

Others include the Bishopsgate Tower and the Leadenhall Building, and there are several others, all designed by some of the world’s top architects. You can see a comprehensive rundown in this thread - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=413465

Suffice to say, these towers will massively enhance London’s image, just as the Gherkin has done. The combined effect of this emerging cluster will be a skyline of truly world class architecture, hopefully built in time for the 2012 Olympics (when the eyes of the world will be focussed on London). Unlike places like Dubai and Shanghai, these towers won’t be insanely tall or over-the-top. They will be sensitive and considerate to the London skyline, yet at the same time beautiful and striking in appearance. In other words, they will “fit” into London very well. Also - they will have public viewing decks and restaurants offering stunning views from high up.

Having got through a decade of negotiations and planning hurdles, most of these towers are due to start construction any time now.

Unfortunately – and this is really the point of my thread – the heritage body UNESCO have recently visited London. They are concerned about the historic setting of the Tower of London, and are requesting these projects be cancelled. They also want the planning authorities to limit virtually all future highrise developments in the City. This, despite years of detailed planning, the incredibly strict guidelines already in place, the need for London’s financial sector to expand, and the dynamic mixture of “old and new” that London is already famous for! The skyscrapers won’t even be visible from most views... only from the east, and even then a considerable distance away. The Shard of Glass, for example, will be over a kilometre away on the other side of the river!

UNESCO are a valuable organization, but they are going way too far with London. They completely miss the point about this city and the way it has to evolve and develop. If you care about London’s future, then please support the Shard of Glass and the Bishopsgate Tower. You can do this by signing my petition which is going directly to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone:-

*>>> http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html <<<*

I’d appreciate your comments on these planned skyscrapers as well. Trust me - if you like the Gherkin, you’re going to LOVE these new towers.

Many thanks

Will Fox


----------



## untethered (Jan 21, 2007)

London doesn't have to develop this way, does it?

It's being developed this way because it makes the most money for the developers and generates the most "prestige" for the architects.

Interesting how you think that a building that will be the tallest in western Europe will be sensitive and not insanely over-tall. How does that work?

Sorry my friend, but you sound like a developer's press release.


----------



## wiskey (Jan 21, 2007)

i trust you get overtime for working on Sundays?


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2007)

I rather like 'em myself.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2007)

Do you have to cross-post this?


----------



## wjfox2007 (Jan 21, 2007)

I don't work for a developer and I have absolutely zero interest in the monetary side of these towers! I'm just an architecture enthusiast who's been following their progress, and I think they'll make a stunning addition to London. The Gherkin has already established itself as one of the most popular new buildings in the UK; these new towers will be even better (in my opinion).

The City most certainly needs these towers - if you read the (very logical) points in my petition then you'll see why.

And no, the Shard won't be "insanely tall". It's only going to be 300 metres or so - which is less than the Eiffel Tower, and only about 15 floors taller than Canary Wharf in the Docklands. By comparison, there are dozens of 500-800m towers being built all over Asia, including the world's tallest going up in Dubai (850m). Anyway, why shouldn't developers in London strive to make a profit?


----------



## wiskey (Jan 21, 2007)

i would much rather have non-uniform shapes and designs, but i worry that glass will look shit in 50 years (if it lasts that long) like concrete does now.


----------



## untethered (Jan 21, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> The City most certainly needs these towers - if you read the (very logical) points in my petition then you'll see why.



Your argument for the economic necessity of these towers is completely unsupported.

Firstly, there is no demonstrable imperative to intensify the City. There is considerable scope for expansion in Docklands and other parts of London, not to mention other parts of the UK.

Secondly, it's quite possible to achieve a similar increase in density without building these kinds of buildings should such a thing be required or desirable.

New ideas - good. New architecture - good. This is not good architecture and I don't see any evidence of particularly original thinking other than "let's make it bigger and wackier than the last one".




			
				wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> And no, the Shard won't be "insanely tall". It's only going to be 300 metres or so - which is less than the Eiffel Tower, and only about 15 floors taller than Canary Wharf in the Docklands. By comparison, there are dozens of 500-800m towers being built all over Asia, including the world's tallest going up in Dubai (850m). Anyway, why shouldn't developers in London strive to make a profit?



To me, that is insanely tall. Canary Wharf is enormous.

People in Asia can make their own decisions about how they develop their cities according to local conditions. This kind of thing is neither necessary or desirable in London right now.

I'm happy for developers to make a profit but not for every other consideration to be sacrificed to allow them to maximise their profits.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> The City most certainly needs these towers - if you read the (very logical) points in my petition then you'll see why.



Fuck the city.

I love the gherkin though.


----------



## lighterthief (Jan 22, 2007)

eta: sorry, Broadgate Tower is further north on Bishopsgate.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 22, 2007)

Love the shard, and the cheesegrater. not so sure about the curly-wurly though. Have you seen the base of it? ug-ly


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 22, 2007)

quite like it meself. more the merrier etc


----------



## beeboo (Jan 22, 2007)

I heard something the other day about how much the financial industry and specifically the City contributes to the national economy via tax etc (can't remember the figures but they were boggling).  

Which helps explain why the Govnt is so keen to court the City and ensure that financial business (which given it's increasingly global nature could be conducted anywhere, it doesn't have to in London or this country).  So ensuring that there are adequate and attractive offices in and around the City is quite a high priority.

Not saying 'that makes it all OK', but it's just a bit of context 

I rather like some of these new towers.  And I love the Gherkin (but doesn't everyone - it must be one of the most popular buildings in London!) - every time I see it I think 'ooh!'.  

I think the glass shard at London Bridge could be a bit of a 'stunner' as well


----------



## Belushi (Jan 22, 2007)

I love skyscrapers so no objection to them per se, although Im swayed by the case that they should be concentrated in the Docklands rather than the City, Im also concerned that views of the wonderful Gherkin are going to be compromised.


----------



## jæd (Jan 22, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Secondly, it's quite possible to achieve a similar increase in density without building these kinds of buildings should such a thing be required or desirable.



How...? The point of a skyscaper is that its a building that contains lots of people crammed into a small physical footprint. How are you going to do the same with a four-story building...?


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2007)

Tbh I have no desire for more glass penises, they often make for unpleasant work environments (the Gherkin, for example, may have become 'iconic' but apparently it's a shit place to work) and these ones aren't especially interesting in design terms. Aside from that there are the environmental issues presented by that amount of glass, as well as the fact that the systems for such high buildings are particularly uneconomical.


----------



## beeboo (Jan 22, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Tbh I have no desire for more glass penises, they often make for unpleasant work environments (the Gherkin, for example, may have become 'iconic' but apparently it's a shit place to work) and these ones aren't especially interesting in design terms. Aside from that there are the environmental issues presented by that amount of glass, as well as the fact that the systems for such high buildings are particularly uneconomical.



I agree the environmental credentials (both in building and maintainance) of new structures - be they glass shard or maisonette -should be scrutinised more and there should be higher standards against which they are assessed.

I thought people liked "workin' in the Gherkin" but I could be wrong


----------



## Dask (Jan 22, 2007)

Bring on the skyscrapers! London needs to move into the 21st century.


----------



## PacificOcean (Jan 22, 2007)

Dask said:
			
		

> Bring on the skyscrapers! London needs to move into the 21st century.



Seconded.  

Why is there always this almost luddite approach to tall buildings?

I have never understood the argument against tall buildings regarding them spoiling the view of St. Pauls.  Unless you are standing next to it, there are very few places in London you can see it anway.


----------



## Reno (Jan 22, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> (the Gherkin, for example, may have become 'iconic' but apparently it's a shit place to work)



I know someone who works there and loves it. I got to go and visit there once and loved the inside. I suppose the word "apparently" can be used to support any old opinion


----------



## dash (Jan 22, 2007)

The Bishopsgate Tower is an interesting shape, the other ones just look boring to me.


----------



## tim (Jan 22, 2007)

Dask said:
			
		

> Bring on the skyscrapers! London needs to move into the 21st century.



Hear, hear!


http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig1.gif


----------



## exosculate (Jan 22, 2007)

I hate property developers, they never ever have the holistic needs of the wider society at heart.


----------



## beeboo (Jan 22, 2007)

Do you think you could have made the point without the picture - it makes me go cold just to look at it 

(E2A - picture converted to a link  )

I think it's a fairly weak argument against tall buildings TBH - nobody suggested we should shut down the tube after 7/7.  

I think some of the current proposed builidings had to go back to the drawing board post-9/11 in order to ensure that evacuation was easier and that the structures were more robust.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 22, 2007)

wjfox2007  is really ken livingstone and i claim my five pounds


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 22, 2007)

beeboo said:
			
		

> Do you think you could have made the point without the picture - it makes me go cold just to look at it
> 
> I think it's a fairly weak argument against tall buildings TBH - nobody suggested we should shut down the tube after 7/7.


two excellent points


----------



## Tom A (Jan 22, 2007)

Apart from costing millions, what will these proposed "landmarks" going to do for the ORDINARY people of London, eh? (There are still a few of AFAIK, albeit as an endangered species being forced out by yuppies and gazillionaries.)


----------



## lighterthief (Jan 22, 2007)

I'd rather the city built upwards rather than outwards, tbh.


----------



## ELO (Jan 22, 2007)

beeboo said:
			
		

> I heard something the other day about how much the financial industry and specifically the City contributes to the national economy via tax etc (can't remember the figures but they were boggling).



You were proberbly watching the same thing as me-'excess in the city' wasn't it?

I would question, though, whether this is 'real' money. Obviously it is real in the sense you can count it at the end, but is it real in the sense of wealth generation or is it purely what has been syphoned off from other, more tangable aeras of the economy?




> Do you think you could have made the point without the picture - it makes me go cold just to look at it ...I think it's a fairly weak argument against tall buildings



Well obviously he could have made the point without, but the image certainly brought the risk home to us. It shouldn't be used as the main argument against tall buildings, but it is something to be considered.


----------



## ELO (Jan 22, 2007)

Dask said:
			
		

> Bring on the skyscrapers! London needs to move into the 21st century.



What, by further continuing the failed planning policies of the 20th??


----------



## beeboo (Jan 22, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> You were proberbly watching the same thing as me-'excess in the city' wasn't it?
> 
> I would question, though, whether this is 'real' money. Obviously it is real in the sense you can count it at the end, but is it real in the sense of wealth generation or is it purely what has been syphoned off from other, more tangable aeras of the economy?




The thing with the City twats lording it about on yachts and expensive holidays - yeah that was it  

Dunno - the impression I got (and yeah was hardly intellectual programming but...) was that it's a global industry which could take place anywhere but the fact it happens here means we get the benefit of being able to tax them.

Can't say I've got any really understanding of how that kind of finance works TBH! 




> Well obviously he could have made the point without, but the image certainly brought the risk home to us. It shouldn't be used as the main argument against tall buildings, but it is something to be considered.



I'm sure it IS taken into consideration in as much as any mistakes which made the WTC excessively vulnerable structurally etc will have had to be considered.  But you can't terrorist-proof a city.


----------



## ELO (Jan 22, 2007)

Tom A said:
			
		

> Apart from costing millions, what will these proposed "landmarks" going to do for the ORDINARY people of London, eh?



Higher house prices, more traffic, more pressure on the hideously overcrowded tube system.

All sounds good to me   

Oh, and I hope they have plans to generate more electric,there were already blackouts last summer in the heatwave.


----------



## ELO (Jan 22, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> quite like it meself. more the merrier etc





OK the Gerkin and Canary wharf are 'landmarks', but surely they will lose any 'wow' factor they may have, the more you build?


----------



## newcastle guy (Jan 22, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I'm happy for developers to make a profit but not for every other consideration to be sacrificed to allow them to maximise their profits.



So you ARE a fan of tall buildings as opposed to lowrise buildings then?





			
				Cid said:
			
		

> they often make for unpleasant work environments (the Gherkin, for example, may have become 'iconic' but apparently it's a shit place to work)



I've NEVER heard anyone say that, and I've been researching this stuff for nearly 2 years.




			
				dash said:
			
		

> The Bishopsgate Tower is an interesting shape, the other ones just look boring to me.



London skyscrapers are widely regarded as some of the best in the world. You say boring, someone else said wacky. I'd say unique, yet elegant and architecturally significant.




			
				ELO said:
			
		

> What, by further continuing the failed planning policies of the 20th??



This shows that you know VERY little about the propsed Skyscrapers in comparison with 1960s/1970s urban architecture. No one in the know would compare them (Other than English Heritage of course)


----------



## ELO (Jan 22, 2007)

newcastle guy said:
			
		

> This shows that you know VERY little about the propsed Skyscrapers in comparison with 1960s/1970s urban architecture. No one in the know would compare them (Other than English Heritage of course)



Well I must confess to being a bit of an English Heritage fan....<whispers very softly (and I'm in the National Trust as well    )


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 22, 2007)

The OP reads a bit like an advert for someone who sells skyscrapers 

Not at all sure what it has to do with direct action or protest, either? I note that there is a similar thread in London and South East, so I shall go and have a look there, too!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 22, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> I don't work for a developer and I have absolutely zero interest in the monetary side of these towers! I'm just an architecture enthusiast who's been following their progress, and I think they'll make a stunning addition to London. The Gherkin has already established itself as one of the most popular new buildings in the UK; these new towers will be even better (in my opinion).
> 
> The City most certainly needs these towers - if you read the (very logical) points in my petition then you'll see why.
> 
> And no, the Shard won't be "insanely tall". It's only going to be 300 metres or so - which is less than the Eiffel Tower, and only about 15 floors taller than Canary Wharf in the Docklands. By comparison, there are dozens of 500-800m towers being built all over Asia, including the world's tallest going up in Dubai (850m). Anyway, why shouldn't developers in London strive to make a profit?



Gosh, I didn't realise the gherkin was popular, other than as an eyesore for tourists to photograph. Weren't there problems letting, or did I imagine that?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 22, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> OK the Gerkin and Canary wharf are 'landmarks', but surely they will lose any 'wow' factor they may have, the more you build?


not necessarily, dependes on location and design standards. ain't happened in NYC or LA, as yet


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 22, 2007)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> Seconded.
> 
> Why is there always this almost luddite approach to tall buildings?
> 
> I have never understood the argument against tall buildings regarding them spoiling the view of St. Pauls.  Unless you are standing next to it, there are very few places in London you can see it anway.



Because London has many beautiful lowrise buildings, one of which is St Pauls


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 22, 2007)

There were problems letting it for about 5 seconds.

But the Gherkin is extremely popular - along with the Eye it's quickly become a genuine London landmark - much more so than Canary Wharf, which really does consist of 'bog standard' high rise office blocks.

Bring 'em on is what I say - while I can see why a body like UNESCO would be interested in preserving the heritage setting of the ToL (IIRC it's a WHS) but I think they are wrong here.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 22, 2007)

Tom A said:
			
		

> Apart from costing millions, what will these proposed "landmarks" going to do for the ORDINARY people of London, eh? (There are still a few of AFAIK, albeit as an endangered species being forced out by yuppies and gazillionaries.)



1. 'Ordinary people' do not pay for these buildings

2. Who exactly are these 'ordinary people'?


----------



## ELO (Jan 22, 2007)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> not necessarily, dependes on location and design standards. ain't happened in NYC or LA, as yet




But this isn't NY or LA, and I would hardly think either of them suitable examples to follow.

Still, it's your city. If a clone of New York is what you want, go for it........................


----------



## Crispy (Jan 22, 2007)

I think the gherkin is the most beautiful skyscraper of the last 20 years. It contains not one vertical line on its exterior, which is a first, I think.

It hasn;t sold particularly well, but that's the fickle nature of the City property market. Clients want very specific spaces, but that need changes with the size of companies and fashionable management strategies. When the gherkin was planned, the 'petals' on each floor were just what were selling well. When it was completed, big flat empty floorplates were more popular. Happens all the time - and also explains why there's always so many empty offices in the City.

And it is _totally_ a landmark of London. A tourist's london skyline goes Big Ben, Eye, St. Pauls, Gherkin.


----------



## newcastle guy (Jan 22, 2007)

> Gosh, I didn't realise the gherkin was popular, other than as an eyesore for tourists to photograph. Weren't there problems letting, or did I imagine that?



You didn't know the Gherkin was popular? You obviously don't have access to a very wide range of opinions then do you.

People who don't like something tend to be MUCH more vocal than people who do. But there is huge support for the Gherkin. It is known in mnay countries across the world, it is featured in most panoramas of London and has been featured in a number of films. I have heard hardly any bad words against it, but I have heard LOTS of positive words for it. It won the RIBA Stirling prize in 2004.

The fact that you yourself called it an 'eyesore' shows exactly where you stand. You can bet that if someone planned it demolished, there would be significantly more support against it's destruction than for it. I can prove this if you want.

And the Gherkin had some problems letting yes, but it is now full. It sold recently for more than double it's construction cost at £600,000,000.


----------



## ELO (Jan 22, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> 1. 'Ordinary people' do not pay for these buildings



Only in the most superficial sense. There is the house price inflation, pressure on roads/rail I outlined above.

Also, in a deeper sense,if these buildings are gonna be occupied by banks etc there is the issue of where the money *ultimately* comes from.......



(reflects on the fact that, for someone who intends to vote Cameron next election, I can be quite left wing sometimes )


----------



## newcastle guy (Jan 22, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Because London has many beautiful lowrise buildings, one of which is St Pauls



St Pauls isn't lowrise. It's 130m tall.


----------



## newcastle guy (Jan 22, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> Well I must confess to being a bit of an English Heritage fan....<whispers very softly (and I'm in the National Trust as well    )



Theres nothing wrong with being a fanin most cases. It's just when they blow all their money fighting high quality towers with no care for quality (only height) while old buildings are being knocked down in London and replaced with stupid little buildings that maxamize the floorspace they can get off the site.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2007)

*Duplicate threads merged.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 22, 2007)

newcastle guy said:
			
		

> St Pauls isn't lowrise. It's 130m tall.



Indeed, but it is lowrise compared to the proposed skyscrapers!


----------



## ELO (Jan 22, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> *Duplicate threads merged.



Thank you


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 22, 2007)

I'm torn. 

I fear change and welcome development.


----------



## beeboo (Jan 22, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> And it is _totally_ a landmark of London. A tourist's london skyline goes Big Ben, Eye, St. Pauls, Gherkin.



innit!  I think it is very cool that two of the current 'icons' of London have been built in this millenium.  

Although I guess it is fickle - the BT Tower used to an icon but it's status is somewhat faded these days.  Be interesting to see what remains iconic in 100yrs time.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 22, 2007)

Surely the Eye was built in the last millenium? Wasn't it to celebrate the end/beginning of such a millenium?

Or were you thinking of a different icon?


----------



## exosculate (Jan 22, 2007)

beeboo said:
			
		

> innit!  I think it is very cool that two of the current 'icons' of London have been built in this millenium.
> 
> Although I guess it is fickle - the BT Tower used to an icon but it's status is somewhat faded these days.  Be interesting to see what remains iconic in 100yrs time.




I think Tower Bridge has been overlooked there.


----------



## Reno (Jan 22, 2007)

Many people subscribe to the Prince Charles Little Englander mentality that London should stay in the past with new buildings ideally being pastiche architecture which copies what went before (usually incorperating hideous PVC double glazing  ). I feel that would be extremely embarrassing for a modern city like London and would turn it into some kind of Disneyland which doesn't reflect the present. 

Any decade should contribute its own best achitecture while preserving what is worth keeping of the past. I find the mixture of different styles of architecture in a large city exciting and I love the contrasts. These high rise buildings are part of this. I feel a little bit of pride about living here when I see an example of London architecure I enjoy and this includes anything from Big Ben, to the Barbican, to the Gherkin and I'm sure I'm going to feel like this about some new buildings in the future.


----------



## newcastle guy (Jan 22, 2007)

^^ Smartest thing I've heard in this thread


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> I know someone who works there and loves it. I got to go and visit there once and loved the inside. I suppose the word "apparently" can be used to support any old opinion



True enough, I heard that quite soon after it was finished, so there may have been early problems that are now sorted.


----------



## ELO (Jan 22, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> Many people subscribe to the Prince Charles Little Englander mentality that London should stay in the past with new buildings ideally being pastiche architecture which copies what went before (usually incorperating hideous PVC double glazing  ). I feel that would be extremely embarrassing for a city like London and would turn it into some kind of Disneyland which doesn't represent current times.
> 
> Any decade should contribute its own best achitecture while preserving what is worth keeping of the past.




Of course there is something in what you say. 

The question is whether we, or rather you, Londoners, need these type of new developments at all. Of course there is a need to make use of vacant land, but do you want to encourage thousands and thousands more workers into the city, given the pressures it already faces? The additonal road traffic alone would wipe out any questionable gains already achived by the Congestion Charge for example.

Shouldn't this land be used in a way that benefits people already in the city? Leisure centres, independant shops (and not just upmarket bootiques either), possibly housing- are they possible uses? Are any of the buildings currently on the land worth saving? 

All questions I'd want answering if it was my hand on the rubberstamp.......................................


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> Many people subscribe to the Prince Charles Little Englander mentality that London should stay in the past with new buildings ideally being pastiche architecture which copies what went before (usually incorperating hideous PVC double glazing  ). I feel that would be extremely embarrassing for a city like London and would turn it into some kind of Disneyland which doesn't represent current times.
> 
> Any decade should contribute its own best achitecture while preserving what is worth keeping of the past. I find the mixture of different styles of architecture in a large city exciting and I love the contrasts. These high rise buildings are part of this. I feel a little bit of pride about living here when I see an example of London architecure I enjoy and this includes anything from Big Ben, to the Barbican to the Gherkin and I'm sure I'm going to feel like this about some new buildings in the future.



But our best architecture is really not found in skyscrapers, the age of the skyscraper climaxed with Mies et al, its now moved into the realms of giant status symbols with each city competing for the prestige of 'biggest in...' markers. 

If anything the skyscraper is innapropriate for the upcoming era, it's symbolic of vast capital investment with little regard to environment. Of course contemporary architecture is what we should be building, but these proposed skyscrapers are incredibally lacklustre. I'd like to see existing derelict office space (of which there's a hell of a lot) converted innovatively. A kind of realisation of the ideas of people like Lebbeus Woods, Eisenman, Morphosis etc.

And, along the lines of what ELO just said, we shouldn't really just be building new offices in the centre, I would much rather see London opening new galleries, parks etc and new offices being built either out in East London or in completely different cities where the investment is needed.


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

well there are indeed plenty of reasons why the city requires these buildings, and they go as follows
1. The City is one of the (if not thee) worlds biggest financial districts and in order to stay that way it needs huge multi-national corperations to be based there. 

2. No.1 wont happen if the city is full of groundscrapers, because if a huge american or asian company are setting up their european headquarters, they would rather pick a high-rise in la defense or frankfurt rather than a groundscraper in the middle of london. 
        Plus there simply is not enough room for groundscrapers in the city anyway hense one of the reasons these towers are proposed

3. London has an outstanding skyline and it needs to keep moving that way.  look at how the london eye has changed londons skyline internationaly.  the shard or bishopsgate could do for london what the empire state building and twin towers done for new york.  or the eifel tower for paris.  these designs belong in the city and not canary wharf because their designs are completley different and together these new proposels almost make one iconic structure.  if you look at future photos with bishopsgate, ledenhall, heron and willis in them it almost looks as if these buildings are as one and make an iconic monument that will boost londons skyline internationaly again.  and instead of hindering the tower of londons skyline,  it would boost it.  lets face it, they who live or have been to london know that london is excellent at merging old with new.

4. Financial reasons aside, these towers are of such quality that in years to come they themselves may be as iconic and prestigeous as say the tower of london, st pauls etc. the public have welcomed these towers more so than some of the other developments around london that have been built so that alone gives a pretty damn good reason to build them.


----------



## wjfox2007 (Jan 22, 2007)

These towers have been through some of the toughest, most rigorous, most detailed planning procedures in the world. The City is one of the most difficult places in the world to build a skyscraper. These days, only towers of absolutely top-notch quality are allowed to be built in the Square Mile, and they have to satisfy an incredibly long list of criteria. These proposed towers are certainly top quality - all issues relating to transport and overcrowding, the surrounding environment, overshadowing and downdrafts, historic conservation sites, the public realm, etc. have been dealt with in the fullest and most comprehensive ways possible. In addition, measures have recently been introduced for residential towers, whereby a significant percentage of the accommodation needs to be classed as "affordable housing". Developers are required to contribute to surrounding local improvements as well.

In addition, these new skyscrapers will be incredibly green and eco-friendly. The Shard at London Bridge, for example, will use around 40% less energy than a typical office building, while the Bishopsgate Tower will be almost entirely clad in solar panels! You can't get much greener than that.

To read a typical planning report, see this example on the Corporation of London website. Some of these towers even went through public inquiries, after English Heritage tried to stop them - wasting tens of millions of pounds in the process, which could have been spent on restoring beautiful old buildings and heritage sites elsewhere. These skyscrapers will stand together around the existing Natwest Tower, at the very centre of the Square Mile, literally next door to each other, forming an extremely tight cluster. It's not like they're going to be built anywhere near St Paul's or the Tower of London. The buildings they're replacing are completely forgettable, drab, 60's concrete carbuncles. Absolutely nothing historic will be demolished or harmed in any way.

It therefore has to be said that some of the posts I'm reading in this thread are - to put it bluntly - total and utter bollocks. Really, it's quite depressing for an architecture enthusiast like myself to read them. If you can't appreciate world class architecture like the Shard of Glass, Bishopsgate Tower or the Leadenhall Building, then frankly I pity you. I can't believe somebody actually called the Gherkin an "eyesore"... that's just flagrant nonsense. It's clearly a very popular and much-admired landmark.

London isn't a "museum city" like Rome or Cairo. It's a dynamic, vibrant, cutting edge metropolis that is constantly evolving and reinventing itself. The mixture of historic and modern architecture forms the very essence of this great city. In the last few decades we've seen the BT Tower, Lloyds Building, Tower 42, the London Eye, the Gherkin, Canary Wharf, Millenium Dome, Thames Flood Barrier, Wembley Stadium, City Hall, Millenium Bridge, Hungerford Bridge, Charing Cross station, Waterloo International, improvements to Piccadilly Circus, Tate Modern, the Great Court at the British Museum, etc...

Can you imagine London without these striking modern landmarks? I can't.

These skyscrapers are just another step forwards in this evolution, and they are coming at just the right time. Firstly, they will be completed in time for the Olympics, when the eyes of the world will be focussed on London. Secondly, our financial services industry is booming at the moment. It's a major asset to the UK economy, and it's widely acknowledged that the City is beginning to overtake New York to become the #1 centre of global finance. A few links which prove this -

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/r...9758-080CCE86A36C/0/BC_RS_compposition_FR.pdf
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-2378565.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2081283,00.html
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2081045,00.html
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/7186/print


Only last month, JP Morgan submitted a requirement for a new _1 million square foot_ headquarter office in the City. Several other massive requirements have also been announced recently by a variety of companies seeking office space in London.

Now, would you honestly prefer to see a hulking, fat, lowrise "groundscraper", with massive floorplates and a lack of public space, which completely dominates the street level environment and drowns out neighbouring church spires, etc...

...or would you prefer a slim, elegant, soaring tower that adds drama and verticality to the skyline, has plenty of space and permeability around its base, and a public observation deck on the top floor? I know which I'd prefer!

Please, try to accept that skyscrapers are a part of modern urban life. They don't have to be impersonal, corporate office blocks - they can also be eye-catching, inspiring landmarks... and symbols of progress. A huge city like London is easily capable of incorporating them into its urban fabric. If you read forums like SkyscraperCity.com, you'll see that London's proposed skyscrapers are amongst the most admired and talked about in the world right now.

Once again - please sign my petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> well there are indeed plenty of reasons why the city requires these buildings, and they go as follows
> 1. The City is one of the (if not thee) worlds biggest financial districts and in order to stay that way it needs huge multi-national corperations to be based there.



That's the best reason I've heard *not* to build them.


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> That's the best reason I've heard *not* to build them.



so you would rather london lost its economic and financial status then? seriously, where are you people from? it cant be the uk..


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> so you would rather london lost its economic and financial status then? seriously, where are you people from? it cant be the uk..



I'd like to see the dismantling of capitalism tbh.  However failing that, I'd rather see the city more regulated and the some of the wealth spread around and not pushing up property prices and generally fucking everyone else up the arse.


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'd like to see the dismantling of capitalism tbh.  However failing that, I'd rather see the city more regulated and the some of the wealth spread around and not pushing up property prices and generally fucking everyone else up the arse.



so when you say "fucking everyone else" who are you refering to?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> so when you say "fucking everyone else" who are you refering to?



People like me who are paying extortionate rents in London, rents driven up by the disproportionate wages earned in the city.


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> People like me who are paying extortionate rents in London, rents driven up by the disproportionate wages earned in the city.



well why dont you move out of the city centre or just move out of london if you hate it so much. with there being close to 10million people living there i fail to really see your point. i know london is expensive but if it were really that bad please explain the thousands who flock to live there every year and as iv said the close to 10million who already live there?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> People like me who are paying extortionate rents in London, rents driven up by the disproportionate wages earned in the city.



Go on then... how do the £££ wages of the Dulwich or Chelsea-dwelling banker affect the prices of a houseshare in... Brixton / Finsbury Pk / Bethnal Green / wherever?

Would also be interested in your views on us all paying more tax if Gordon can no longer lay his grubby mitts on 40% of all the £££s.

Perhaps a bit less of this...






...and a bit more of this...






...?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> well why dont you move out of the city centre



I don't live in the city centre.




			
				AXISPAW said:
			
		

> or just move out of london



Why should I?  I was born here, I live here, I work here, my family and friends are here.




			
				AXISPAW said:
			
		

> if you hate it so much.



Where did I say I hate it?




			
				AXISPAW said:
			
		

> with there being close to 10million people living there i fail to really see your point.



You fail to see my point that thousands of people are struggling to pay rent in London?  




			
				AXISPAW said:
			
		

> i know london is expensive but if it were really that bad please explain the thousands who flock to live there every year and as iv said the close to 10million who already live there?



Work.


Do you live in London btw?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Go on then... how do the £££ wages of the Dulwich or Chelsea-dwelling banker affect the prices of a houseshare in... Brixton / Finsbury Pk / Bethnal Green / wherever?



Do you really need me to explain to you how markets work?




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Would also be interested in your views on us all paying more tax if Gordon can no longer lay his grubby mitts on 40% of all the £££s.



You think that most city workers pay all the tax they should? 

How naive.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Oh, and I don't know why you assume I live in "a houseshare".


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Oh, and I don't know why you assume I live in "a houseshare".



Just presenting two ends of the market.

I really would be interested in your interpretation of how markets work.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Just presenting two ends of the market.
> 
> I really would be interested in your interpretation of how markets work.



You think that city workers investing in buying up houses to let doesn't drive prices up?


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't live in the city centre.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no i dont but i know 3 people ( who live apart) who tell me that it isnt as bad as people say it is and they can normaly live reasonably, yes they say sometimes it can be a struggle but thats just life everywhere. and they are students to top it off, not people who have full time jobs.  and indeed you didnt say you hated london but thats certainly the impression i got.


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2007)

Errr yes, but they do have student loans and, probably, large overdrafts.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You think that city workers investing in buying up houses to let doesn't drive prices up?



Not especially.

A) A relatively small proportion of property is owned by buy-to-let landlords.
B) Only a minority of landlords are City workers.
C) We have been talking about rents rather than selling prices. Rents have been relatively static for years now.
D) The reason for rents being static is possibly not unconnected with competition for tenants between buy-to-let landlords!

You can't really have it both ways. If you are going to argue that supply and demand causes rising selling prices then you have to entertain the idea that this may also have the effect of constraining rises in rent.


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> and indeed you didnt say you hated london but thats certainly the impression i got.



Which shows how little you understand the place... I love London, great parties, great culture, great food (when you know where to look) etc but it gets to you as well. When you're paying £100/week (not including bills) for a 3x3m room in a damp house 30-40 minutes commute (and more money, although I suppose I should get off my lazy arse and cycle) from the centre it can get frustrating. And I live in Brixton.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Which shows how little you understand the place... I love London, great parties, great culture, great food (when you know where to look) etc but it gets to you as well. When you're paying £100/week (not including bills) for a 3x3m room in a damp house 30-40 minutes commute (and more money, although I suppose I should get off my lazy arse and cycle) from the centre it can get frustrating. And I live in Brixton.



Sounds a bit steep. Brixton is closer to the centre too is it not?

Realistically, though - what do you expect? Average wages in London are quite high so rents will naturally follow when there is a shortage of accommodation.

I can afford to be smug though as i bought a flat years ago. Funnily enough this was because it was cheaper than renting and on my low salary I couldn't afford £100/wk for a room!


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

yes to the loans, no to the large overdrafts. even with a student loan, surely that cant help them that much against full time job workers.


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Sounds a bit steep. Brixton is closer to the centre too is it not?




Actually not bad for London, it's in a house with mates - nice bit of Brixton. Reason my commute takes a while is the walk to the tube (15/20 minutes), I could take the bus but that would be more lazy and more expensive. 



> Realistically, though - what do you expect? Average wages in London are quite high so rents will naturally follow when there is a shortage of accommodation.



An average pushed up by what do you think?



> I can afford to be smug though as i bought a flat years ago. Funnily enough this was because it was cheaper than renting and on my low salary I couldn't afford £100/wk for a room!



Um... Exactly. For me or Blags to buy a flat/house in London somewhere with decent access to the centre and not rough as fuck you're talking about spending £240k and up. People living here just do not have the capacity to buy property.


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> yes to the loans, no to the large overdrafts. even with a student loan, surely that cant help them that much against full time job workers.



Student loan in London is up to around £4.5k/annum so they must be getting their money somewhere. It's basically impossible to find accomodation for less than £70/week and that's either going to be subsidised (as in student halls) or in the arse end of nowhere.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> no i dont but i know 3 people ( who live apart) who tell me that it isnt as bad as people say it is and they can normaly live reasonably, yes they say sometimes it can be a struggle but thats just life everywhere. and they are students to top it off, not people who have full time jobs.  and indeed you didnt say you hated london but thats certainly the impression i got.



So someone who doesn't live in London is trying to tell me what its like?

I see.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> An average pushed up by what do you think?



Well, we had a big discussion before about averages, and means vs median etc. Obviously your mean is pushed up by some people who earn 2000 times what the rest of us do but the distribution of incomes and the median bear out the fact that actually most people in London get paid relatively high wages. That's not to say they are enough, because prices go up in response... but then if you increase wages, prices go up again...






			
				Cid said:
			
		

> Um... Exactly. For me or Blags to buy a flat/house in London somewhere with decent access to the centre and not rough as fuck you're talking about spending £240k and up. People living here just do not have the capacity to buy property.



Myth. My flat is worth much less than this and it takes me less time than you to get to the centre.

If you are going to turn your nose up and say this area isn't good enough for you... then in the nicest possible way, f***ing get over yourself! 

I'm not saying it's easy but neither is it as bad as people like to make out. I've always owned somewhere and bought it when I was earning £15k a year. Things have changed since then and you get nothing for less than £150k but it's always worth looking into shared ownership etc.

Something you have to live with or move N and take a pay cut.


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Which shows how little you understand the place... I love London, great parties, great culture, great food (when you know where to look) etc but it gets to you as well. When you're paying £100/week (not including bills) for a 3x3m room in a damp house 30-40 minutes commute (and more money, although I suppose I should get off my lazy arse and cycle) from the centre it can get frustrating. And I live in Brixton.



well to be honest i live in aberdeen and if you live west of city centre its high quality housing but very high taxes, but live east its poor to middle class housing  but is very cheap and they both have the same travel time to the centre, isnt that the same as london? you could definetly find somewhere cheaper than that. and just out of curiosity what is your job title? because i know plenty of people here that complain about taxes but with no critisism they dont really have high paying jobs. so i assume this problem plagues all cities and isnt unique to london


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Not especially.
> 
> A) A relatively small proportion of property is owned by buy-to-let landlords.



You're kidding, right?




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> B) Only a minority of landlords are City workers.



True.  But a small number of people with a disproportinately large amount of money, investing in property with a view to gaining a return in the form of rent, *is* going to drive up prices.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> C) We have been talking about rents rather than selling prices.



You think the two aren't connected?




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Rents have been relatively static for years now.



Have they?  People keep telling me this, yet they seem to be going up.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> D) The reason for rents being static is possibly not unconnected with competition for tenants between buy-to-let landlords!



Its not a free market though is it?  People need somewhere to live, they don't often get much choice in the matter.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> You can't really have it both ways. If you are going to argue that supply and demand causes rising selling prices then you have to entertain the idea that this may also have the effect of constraining rises in rent.



I'm arguing that some people with disproportionately high incomes, who invest it in property, drive prices up.  They want a return on that investment, which drives rents up.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Average wages in London are quite high so rents will naturally follow when there is a shortage of accommodation.



What is the median wage?  I'm not on too bad a wage, all things considered, but I spend over a 1/3 of my net income on rent a month.  We can't afford to buy.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I can afford to be smug though as i bought a flat years ago. Funnily enough this was because it was cheaper than renting and on my low salary I couldn't afford £100/wk for a room!



Yes, you can afford to be smug can't you?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Things have changed since then and you get nothing for less than £150k.



Which I can't afford.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Something you have to live with or move N and take a pay cut.



Why should I move?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> well to be honest i live in aberdeen and if you live west of city centre its high quality housing but very high taxes, but live east its poor to middle class housing  but is very cheap and they both have the same travel time to the centre, isnt that the same as london? you could definetly find somewhere cheaper than that. and just out of curiosity what is your job title? because i know plenty of people here that complain about taxes but with no critisism they dont really have high paying jobs. so i assume this problem plagues all cities and isnt unique to london



You don't actually know what you're on about do you?


----------



## newcastle guy (Jan 22, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> If anything the skyscraper is innapropriate for the upcoming era...



Umm... what? London city (One of the most important financial centres in the world) is ONE SQUARE MILE. there is only so much space. Better to build up and be able to provide public space/resteraunts galleries as well as plazas at the base, instead of huge bulking geoundscrapers that practically force pedestrians onto the roads and totally cut off to the public.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

newcastle guy said:
			
		

> Umm... what? London city (One of the most important financial centres in the world) is ONE SQUARE MILE. there is only so much space. Better to build up and be able to provide public space/resteraunts galleries as well as plazas at the base, instead of huge bulking geoundscrapers that practically force pedestrians onto the roads and totally cut off to the public.



Why are there all these people, who aren't from London, telling us what is good for London?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right?... a small number of people with a disproportinately large amount of money, investing in property with a view to gaining a return in the form of rent, *is* going to drive up prices. You think the two aren't connected?



7% of property is one figure I saw.

The two definitely are connected but I don't see how you can blame supply and demand for selling prices rising and simultaneously deny it has any effect on rents.




			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm arguing that some people with disproportionately high incomes, who invest it in property, drive prices up.  They want a return on that investment, which drives rents up.



No. Yields have fallen year on year and are now about the same as you'd get in a savings account.

This is because rents have gone up a bit whilst selling prices have between double and tripled.

My first flat cost sixty odd. The rent would have been £650-700. It wouold now cost something like £160k yet the rent would be about £750-800. Not much more than inflation - less? - over the time.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What is the median wage?  I'm not on too bad a wage, all things considered, but I spend over a 1/3 of my net income on rent a month.  We can't afford to buy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can afford to be smug can't you?



£572 a week.

Yes. Sorry.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Which I can't afford.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I move?



Look at shared ownership.

Get a partner and buy with them.

No reason to move but grumbling ain't going to change anything and you have a choice of 1) letting it bother you, 2) being philosophical about it / rsigned to it or 3) solving the problem by going somwhere else. Entirely your choice.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> 7% of property is one figure I saw.



Really?  That does surprise me.  Where did you see that?




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> The two definitely are connected but I don't see how you can blame supply and demand for selling prices rising and simultaneously deny it has any effect on rents.



I don't understand what you're saying here.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> No. Yields have fallen year on year and are now about the same as you'd get in a savings account.
> 
> This is because rents have gone up a bit whilst selling prices have between double and tripled.
> 
> My first flat cost sixty odd. The rent would have been £650-700. It wouold now cost something like £160k yet the rent would be about £750-800. Not much more than inflation - less? - over the time.



£750 - £800 is a lot of money to spend on rent.


I have to admit that I'm not too up on the ins and outs, but buy to let definitely has an effect on rents going up, for the reasons I've stated.
Its not the only reason rents are extortionate in London - immigration to supply the service economy that has grown up around the economic boom has an effect, as does the selling off of social housing - both linked to the political ideology that de-regulated the city.


----------



## wjfox2007 (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Why are there all these people, who aren't from London, telling us what is good for London?


Exactly the point of my thread and petition...

http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> £572 a week.



£29,744 is the mediamn wage?  I don't think I know anyone who earns that.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 22, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> There were problems letting it for about 5 seconds.



That will be the same Gherkin at 30 St Mary Axe with two floors still to let, and another two occupied by Abbey Business Centres as serviced accommodation.   
Not quite the one or two blue-chip sublets that Swiss Re were hoping for.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jan 22, 2007)

the evils of global captialism are documented elsewhere so let's not get bogged down in that issue. The city is a focus for such a force hence the J18 protest against it. (prior to Seattle, let's not forget.)

Back to the architecture.  The Shard is just too big for that area, it's out of proportion?  No wonder the Unesco ruling. The Gherkin fits in with it's surroundings and it's quality buoyed up by the dismal design of the Natwest tower nearby.  Can't we get a Orville to fly over london and drop a few bombs on the thistle hotel and the natwest tower?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Look at shared ownership.
> 
> Get a partner and buy with them.
> 
> No reason to move but grumbling ain't going to change anything and you have a choice of 1) letting it bother you, 2) being philosophical about it / rsigned to it or 3) solving the problem by going somwhere else. Entirely your choice.



I have a partner, thanks.  *We can't afford to buy.*

I'm also fully aware that there isn't a lot I can do about it - but it doesn't change the fact that the "economic miracle" of the city of London is screwing a lot of people over - and I'm actually paid not that badly.  My partner is on less than £20K, friends on less than £15K.


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> £29,744 is the mediamn wage?  I don't think I know anyone who earns that.



According to National statistics, yep... Weird.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> Exactly the point of my thread and petition...
> 
> http://www.petitiononline.com/ldntower/petition.html



Tbh, I haven't made my mind up about the buildings.  I love the gherkin, not sure about these new ones though.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Really?  That does surprise me.  Where did you see that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed on your last points. Also there are a lot more people living alone - both young people here for work and as a result of divorce, living longer etc.

I quite agree that £750 is a lot to spend on rent. What I was trying to say is that it was cheaper to buy back then. This is another reason why prices went up. But while the price to buy has more than doubled, _rents have only gone up by about 10%_.

This is because supply and emand ha had the following TWO effects:

1. More landlords chasing flats. Lots of money to be made for them because cheaper to buy than rent. Result: high demand for flats. Prices go up.

2. More landlords owning flats. More rented accommodation on the market. More supply of rented flats, in other words. Result: rents stay the same or go up relatively slowly.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Agreed on your last points. Also there are a lot more people living alone - both young people here for work and as a result of divorce, living longer etc.
> 
> I quite agree that £750 is a lot to spend on rent. What I was trying to say is that it was cheaper to buy back then. This is another reason why prices went up. But while the price to buy has more than doubled, _rents have only gone up by about 10%_.
> 
> ...



I'll take your word for it.

However, you can't deny that one of the reasons why rent is so high in the first place is because a small proportion of people earn a disproportinately large amount of money.


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2007)

When did you buy btw?


----------



## Dhimmi (Jan 22, 2007)

Interesting to see three new posters on this thread all madly pro, PR wheels a turning perhaps?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> £29,744 is the mediamn wage?  I don't think I know anyone who earns that.



Really?

You don't know ANY

Tube drivers
Coppers
Cabbies
Teachers
Senior nurses
Midwives
Engineers
Architects
Council bureaucrats
Civil servants beyond HEO
Skilled tradesmen

In other words any skilled or professional people?


----------



## wjfox2007 (Jan 22, 2007)

DJWrongspeed said:
			
		

> The Shard is just too big for that area, it's out of proportion?


No it isn't. By world standards it's really nothing special in terms of height. It's graceful and soaring, but without being over-dominant. The shape is meant to echo the church spires of London's past... yet at the same time, it's very futuristic in design and appearance. It's the perfect skyscraper in the perfect location. A great symbol of 21st century London.

Let me guess, you'd rather have a boring, stumpy groundscraper that's really "safe". Or better still, keep the existing 70's concrete drabness that stands there at the moment. How imaginative. How exciting!





			
				DJWrongspeed said:
			
		

> No wonder the Unesco ruling.


The Shard will be over a kilometre away, and on the other side of the river! The impact on the Tower of London will be negligible; this has already been determined through years of planning appplications AND a full-blown public inquiry which ruled in its favour. And when you consider the regenerative benefits of the Shard plus it's world class design, UNESCO's ruling is both illogical and unfair.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'll take your word for it.
> 
> However, you can't deny that one of the reasons why rent is so high in the first place is because a small proportion of people earn a disproportinately large amount of money.



More to do with there not being enough accommodation IMO - mainly because those with o much money don't want to live where I do


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> When did you buy btw?



End 1999. Sold and moved to current place 2001.


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You don't actually know what you're on about do you?



well obviously i do, hense how i know about aberdeen, and i know that its the same in other cities and please dont tell me london is different.  as someone else said there is no point in complaining about it, i hate people like that. if you have a problem sort it out and change your life and if you dont want to do that then learn to live with it. and if telling you that these new skyscrapers will benefit london is telling you whats best for london then yes i am telling you whats best for london!!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> You don't know ANY
> 
> ...



Nope, don't think so.  I'm a substance misuse worker, my partner is a therapeutic care worker, soon to be a student nurse.

Actually thinking about it, I know a senior substance misuse worker in the NHS who may be around the median wage and I know someone who recruits in the city who must be earning OK.  However the majority of people I know socially don't earn that much afaik - although tbh, I don't often discuss earnings with people.  I certainly don't ever expect to earn over the median.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Dhimmi said:
			
		

> Interesting to see three new posters on this thread all madly pro, PR wheels a turning perhaps?



Its pretty blatant innit.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> well obviously i do, hense how i know about aberdeen, and i know that its the same in other cities and please dont tell me london is different.  as someone else said there is no point in complaining about it, i hate people like that. if you have a problem sort it out and change your life and if you dont want to do that then learn to live with it. and if telling you that these new skyscrapers will benefit london is telling you whats best for london then yes i am telling you whats best for london!!



Come back when you know what you're on about eh?


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> The Shard will be over a kilometre away, and on the other side of the river! The impact on the Tower of London will be negligible; this has already been determined through years of planning appplications AND a full-blown public inquiry which ruled in its favour. And when you consider the regenerative benefits of the Shard plus it's world class design, UNESCO's ruling is both illogical and unfair.


 id also like to stress the regeneration of the tube station underneath the shard that will enable far more people to travel there hense solving the travel issues some people questioned earlier. also the revamp has been widely applaused by the surrounding public!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> id also like to stress the regeneration of the tube station underneath the shard that will enable far more people to travel there hense solving the travel issues some people questioned earlier. also the revamp has been widely applaused by the surrounding public!



Why do you care so much, living in Aberdeen an'all?


----------



## exosculate (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Its pretty blatant innit.




I was thinking this a while back too, why would they be interested in convincing people on this site though?

Apparently these same types of people are pushing through the re-development(read demolition) of The Hammersmith Palais and The Astoria (and other stuff besides). Thats what property development means - not giving a shit about anything other than market economics.


----------



## wjfox2007 (Jan 22, 2007)

We're all from SkyscraperCity.com, so yes we're pretty pro-skyscraper.

But we care passionately about saving and preserving historic lowrise architecture as well. You can carry on thinking we're a bunch of developers if you want, it's quite amusing!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> I was thinking this a while back too, why would they be interested in convincing people on this site though?
> 
> Apparently these same types of people are pushing through the re-development(read demolition) of The Hammersmith Palais and The Astoria (and other stuff besides). Thats what property development means - not giving a shit about anything other than market economics.



Innit.  Then they wonder why people get angry.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 22, 2007)

Aren't the thread starting posters usually banned on threads like this with comments like spam fuckspuddery written over the opening post?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> We're all from SkyscraperCity.com, so yes we're pretty pro-skyscraper. You can carry on thinking we're a bunch of developers if you want, it's quite amusing



I think you're spammer if that's any help to you.

I also think you don't give a shit what most people in London think.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Aren't the thread starting posters usually banned on threads like this with comments like spam fuckspuddery written over the opening post?



Usually.  Maybe I'll use the report button.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Nope, don't think so.  I'm a substance misuse worker, my partner is a therapeutic care worker, soon to be a student nurse.
> 
> Actually thinking about it, I know a senior substance misuse worker in the NHS who may be around the median wage and I know someone who recruits in the city who must be earning OK.  However the majority of people I know socially don't earn that much afaik - although tbh, I don't often discuss earnings with people.  I certainly don't ever expect to earn over the median.



Don't take it the wrong way as if I am lecturing you or something, but you are going to have to reconcile your various life choices. It's (obviously) always going to be hard if you are on less than average pay. Full credit to you if you stick with it, as you are doing something very socially worthwhile; I know what it is like to some extent as I gave up the career I enjoyed because of getting frustated with the pay and the fact it wouldn't get me anywhere but that is a choice I made. But like I say, you're going to have to reconcile yourself to your choices.

I'm a bit surprised that there aren't jobs in your line at the council or wherever for £30k-odd, though.


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Come back when you know what you're on about eh?



obviously you cant accept people telling you the truth and what you dont want to hear hense your limited answers.  myself and others have gave good reasons why these towers should be built and if all you can say in offense to these point s is "oh the taxes, oh the taxes" then you really should learn to just live with it!


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Why do you care so much, living in Aberdeen an'all?



because i want to move to london


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> id also like to stress the regeneration of the tube station underneath the shard that will enable far more people to travel there hense solving the travel issues some people questioned earlier. also the revamp has been widely applaused by the surrounding public!



There's already a tube station underneath you fuckwit, and it got redone only a few years ago


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Don't take it the wrong way as if I am lecturing you or something, but you are going to have to reconcile your various life choices. It's (obviously) always going to be hard if you are on less than average pay. Full credit to you if you stick with it, as you are doing something very socially worthwhile; I know what it is like to some extent as I gave up the career I enjoyed because of getting frustated with the pay and the fact it wouldn't get me anywhere but that is a choice I made. But like I say, you're going to have to reconcile yourself to your choices.



Yes, thanks for the patronising lecture.

I guess if it was up to you, we'd all be living in caves.  




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I'm a bit surprised that there aren't jobs in your line at the council or wherever for £30k-odd, though.



Yes, there are jobs at DAT's, but I'm not sure if I want a paper pushing job.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> obviously you cant accept people telling you the truth and what you dont want to hear hense your limited answers.  myself and others have gave good reasons why these towers should be built and if all you can say in offense to these point s is "oh the taxes, oh the taxes" then you really should learn to just live with it!



Errrr...I haven't mentioned anything about taxes you plonker.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> because i want to move to london



I'd rather you stayed in Aberdeen tbh.


----------



## wjfox2007 (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I think you're spammer if that's any help to you.
> 
> I also think you don't give a shit what most people in London think.


Jesus...

This is the last time I'm coming on this forum!  

I've never met such a bunch of aggressive, unwelcoming, boring, paranoid, angry, backwards, depressing, conservative luddites in my life! You really don't have the slightest clue. You've obviously completely misinterpreted everything I've said.

Oh well, I shall go back to the safety of SSC now, where I'm treated with a little more respect.

Adios Amigos!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> Jesus...
> 
> This is the last time I'm coming on this forum!
> 
> ...



See ya.

Close the door on your way out.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 22, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> Jesus...
> 
> This is the last time I'm coming on this forum!
> 
> ...




You are an apologist for the destruction of all for the motive of profit. It is people with your attitude who are fucking this world up.

You don't deserve respect and you don't afford any respect to others.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, thanks for the patronising lecture.
> 
> I guess if it was up to you, we'd all be living in caves.
> 
> ...



1. Sorry - not my intention though was aware how it would look. But I gues you know it's true, and I have been in that position myself (combined earnings me + GF < £30k until we both thought "f*** this")

2. Why the f*** do you think people should live in caves? Like I said, I believe there sin't enough accommodation. Obviously people should be able to live somewhere decent  

What do you suggest though? It's a market economy. Would you like East Berlin style workers' dormitories? Rent control like in NYC or Portugal? Because all those systems work(ed) really well 

3. Fair enough. But don't complain. A job is for supporting yourself. If you can do something worthwhile then great but it's just a modern substitute for going out with your spear after a few mammoth or taking the plough out for a spin at the end of the day. Work to live...


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> There's already a tube station underneath you fuckwit, and it got redone only a few years ago


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_station   please read future expansion in this link


----------



## wjfox2007 (Jan 22, 2007)

Yeah yeah, whatever...

Btw, I would encourage you to re-read the explanation I made here -

*http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5551144&postcount=61*


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 22, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> We're all from SkyscraperCity.com, so yes we're pretty pro-skyscraper.


Hm. Yes. We don't really appreciate board invasions here, particularly when they involve people who seem determined to be rude, patronising and dismissive of the opinions of people who actually live in the city concerned.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

AXISPAW said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_station   please read future expansion in this link



Erm yeah I know rather more about it than you do... if only you knew how much!

Redevelopment of the OVERGROUND station (that's not the same as the Tube ) has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Shard. Should either ever happen.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> 1. Sorry - not my intention though was aware how it would look. But I gues you know it's true, and I have been in that position myself (combined earnings me + GF < £30k until we both thought "f*** this")



What I find most irritating about your attitude is that you don't seem to understand that a lot of people don't have the choices that you have or that I have.  A lot of people in London are struggling on minimum wage.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> 2. Why the f*** do you think people should live in caves? Like I said, I believe there sin't enough accommodation. Obviously people should be able to live somewhere decent



It was a comment about your passive acceptance of the situation and unwillingess to think it could be any different.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> What do you suggest though? It's a market economy.



It's only a "market economy" because political decisions have been taken to make it that way.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Would you like East Berlin style workers' dormitories? Rent control like in NYC or Portugal? Because all those systems work(ed) really well



I think rent control wouldn't be such a bad idea actually.  There certainly used to be a Fair Rent Act.  More social housing would be an idea too.  Taxing city bonuses and putting the money into housing.  Lots of things could be done.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> 3. Fair enough. But don't complain. A job is for supporting yourself. If you can do something worthwhile then great but it's just a modern substitute for going out with your spear after a few mammoth or taking the plough out for a spin at the end of the day. Work to live...



As long as you're alright, fuck everyone else, yeah?


----------



## AXISPAW (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Erm yeah I know rather more about it than you do... if only you knew how much!
> 
> Redevelopment of the OVERGROUND station (that's not the same as the Tube ) has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Shard. Should either ever happen.



ok indeed my mistake, im man enough to admit when im wrong. but either way does that not back up my claim of answering transport problems anyway?


----------



## Dhimmi (Jan 22, 2007)

*Ivory Towers replaced by Glass Towers...*




			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> Its pretty blatant innit.



It's more interesting a development than the buildings. 

You're right to point out the lack of interest for people who might have to live with it and it's effects. 

The aesthetic form is the most important thing to them, so long as it's their chosen aesthetic. Anyone who doesn't agree is an ignorant peasant who simply doesn't understand. 

The funniest part is how a call for signatories quickly descended into serving up insults, and generated more reasons for opposition than support.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 22, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> We're all from




A Whois search tells me that this site is registered to
Stichting Wolkenkrabbers
Jan Klerks
P.O. Box 5045 
Rotterdam, ZH 3008AA
NL

Now my Dutch is non-existent, but Stichting Wolkenkrabbers seems to mean "Foundation Skyscrapers" and appears to be an organisation promoting property development and skyscraper building.

http://www.wolkenkrabbersfestival.nl/?id=39

Text translates using Babel to "Foundation skyscrapers Rotterdam sets objectives enthusiasm and of organising knowledge concerning the skyscraper as urban expression in Rotterdam. Main point is the wish good stedelijkheid where the presence of several functions is at each other of added value reach without them each other sits in the way. The torens in Rotterdam imagine themselves not only to this pursuit, but express tevens the ambitions of the city. To form these doelselling foundation spends to skyscrapers regular publucaties, grants collaboration to initiatives of third parties, looks after readings, presentations and Article and organises it meetings."


Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What I find most irritating about your attitude is that you don't seem to understand that a lot of people don't have the choices that you have or that I have.  A lot of people in London are struggling on minimum wage.



Well, we were mainly talking about us, to be fair.

If you are on the minimum wage I think you should be entitled to social housing. What I'm not sure how would work is how the support tapers off as you earn more. More social housing would help - I don't know, perhaps rents could be related to what you could afford to pay?




			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> It was a comment about your passive acceptance of the situation and unwillingess to think it could be any different.



I'm not sure I can _imagine_ something different. I'm more than willing to hope it could be.




			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> It's only a "market economy" because political decisions have been taken to make it that way.



Alternatives?




			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> I think rent control wouldn't be such a bad idea actually.  There certainly used to be a Fair Rent Act.  More social housing would be an idea too.  Taxing city bonuses and putting the money into housing.  Lots of things could be done.



Rent control doesn't work.

More social housing is a must.

City bonuses do get taxed. Also if you look into taxation you will see that it already works such that (need to check figures but for purposes of illustration) something like 90% of tax revenue comes from 10% of people.




			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> As long as you're alright, fuck everyone else, yeah?



You obviously have to look out for yourself and your own first. Doesn't mean I shit on anyone else or don't wish things could be better.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Agreed on your last points. Also there are a lot more people living alone - both young people here for work and as a result of divorce, living longer etc.
> 
> I quite agree that £750 is a lot to spend on rent. What I was trying to say is that it was cheaper to buy back then. This is another reason why prices went up. But while the price to buy has more than doubled, _rents have only gone up by about 10%_.
> 
> ...



This is not my experience of the housing market in London. In 1992 when my parents divorced their rather dilapidated house was valued at 60k and me, my mum and brother were living in a four bedroom flat which she rented for £130PW. Last year, my mum sold the house, with added central heating and 2 room extensions for 220k. The same house we were renting 15 years previously was being rented by four of my friend for £320pw. Admittedly the house price went up considerably more than the rent but the house had been improved greatly (including substantial redecoration, it was tatty as fuck when my dad was living there alone) but the difference is nothing like as great as you claimed. 

I think you've plucked your figures from thin air. Rents in London have incrased noticeably (from my own experience flat hunting) _in the past three years_. Either quote something solid or admit that you are bullshitting please.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 22, 2007)

You can't make this stuff up.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> This is not my experience of the housing market in London. In 1992 when my parents divorced their rather dilapidated,house was valued at 60k and me, my mum and brother were living in a four bedroom flat which she rented for £130PW. Last year, my mum sold the house, with added central heating and 2 room extensions for 220k. The same house we were renting 15 years previously was being rented by four of my friend for £320pw. Admittedly the house price went up considerably more than the rent but the house had been improved greatly (including substantial redecoration, it was tatty as fuck when my dad was living there alone) but the difference is nothing like as great as you claimed.
> 
> I think you've plucked your figures from thin air. Rents in London have incrased noticeably (from my own experience flat hunting) _in the past three years_. Either quote something solid or admit that you are bullshitting please.



£130 a week would always have been cheap. Back in 1995 the going rate for a room was £50+.

Quote something solid?

Your figures: increase in rent = 320-130 / 130 =  146% (unusual given extraordinarily cheap rent. You can hardly say this was gong rate or remotely typical)

Increase in house price = 220-60 / 60 = 267% - so more than treble - proving my point even more.

My figures: increase in rent = 800 (current for 1 bed, E3 - check for yourself) - 650 (lowish for 2001 so as to be a conservative calc) / 650 = 23%

Increase in house price = 150 (low) - 65 / 65 = 131%, so between double and treble as I originally said.

Obviously it's going to vary from place to place.


----------



## maomao (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> £130 a week would always have been cheap. Back in 1995 the going rate for a room was £50+.
> 
> Quote something solid?
> 
> ...



You haven't accounted in the slightest for the addition of two rooms, central heating and decent interior decor in the house. The rent on the house could have been 140, one of the four bedrooms was tiny. I know for a fact it was cheaper than the one bedroom shithole I now pay 606.66 (the rent of the devil surely) monthly for.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> You haven't accounted in the slightest for the addition of two rooms, central heating and decent interior decor in the house. The rent on the house could have been 140, one of the four bedrooms was tiny. I know for a fact it was cheaper than the one bedroom shithole I now pay 606.66 (the rent of the devil surely) monthly for.




I get the feeling old silly nuts doesn't give a monkeys.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Rent control doesn't work.
> 
> More social housing is a must.




Please explain this comment?

It worked until 1989 in the UK. And works very well in many places in the world still.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 23, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> These towers have been through some of the toughest, most rigorous, most detailed planning procedures in the world. The City is one of the most difficult places in the world to build a skyscraper. These days, only towers of absolutely top-notch quality are allowed to be built in the Square Mile, and they have to satisfy an incredibly long list of criteria. These proposed towers are certainly top quality - all issues relating to transport and overcrowding, the surrounding environment, overshadowing and downdrafts, historic conservation sites, the public realm, etc. have been dealt with in the fullest and most comprehensive ways possible. In addition, measures have recently been introduced for residential towers, whereby a significant percentage of the accommodation needs to be classed as "affordable housing". Developers are required to contribute to surrounding local improvements as well.
> 
> In addition, these new skyscrapers will be incredibly green and eco-friendly. The Shard at London Bridge, for example, will use around 40% less energy than a typical office building, while the Bishopsgate Tower will be almost entirely clad in solar panels! You can't get much greener than that.
> 
> ...


You are sounding even more like an advert, and clearly not interested in debate with people who are not, as you clearly believe yourself to be, "experts" in architecture, but just ordinary people on a bulletin board which you have invaded to try and get support for your petition, but without any interest in us or in the board or in anything other than getting support for your petition. Why are you on this board? Will you stay, once your petition is done?

Incidentally, I don't accept that it is automatically a waste of money to challenge the people who are designing these buildings, to ensure that they really have thought through all the many implications of building them. 

And I don't much like being patronised.

So, I won't be signing your petition.

But I am now going to unsubscribe from this thread - I can't be bothered with you, to be frank!


----------



## johnnypd (Jan 23, 2007)

some of the hostility shown towards wjfox2007 in this thread is unbelievable. he's a guy with a genuine interest in architecture and tall buildings, not some secret agent sent on behalf of a property development company. and SSC is not an organisation intended to promote skyscrapers, it is a forum for fans of architecture & urban planning (and primarily skyscrapers) to come together and dicuss their interests. i have been a member there for over 4 years and i'm not even a big fan of tall buildings. if you actually took a look at the UK and Ireland forums on SSC you'd probably see that half the discussion isn't related to tall buildings but the development of urban centres in general. posters aren't " apologists for the destruction of all for the motive of profit. It is people with your attitude who are fucking this world up." as one paranoid forumer here suggests, in fact on balance i'd say Conservationist attitudes are just as well represented as those who favour newer forms of architecture.

a read through this 15 page thread (about Jean Nouvel's One New Change) might help you realise the variety of views and the kinds of discussions we have about architecture and urban development. 

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=221131&page=2

Not exactly brimming over with apologists for developers and wanton destruction at any cost is it?

to get back to the original point of the post, if you don't like skyscrapers, don't sign the petition, it's that simple. there's no need to personally attack the guy who posted it up, especially as he was nothing but reasonable. it is also worth pointing out that the petition is not FOR unrestrained skyscraper development, but AGAINST an unreasonable blanket ban on tall buildings in the city. Wjfox2007 and other SSC forumers tend to judge skyscrapers on the same merits as anyone else out there (only a bit more obsessively), and rather than supporting any tall building simply because it is tall, new proposals are scrutinised and debated endlessly. issues that are often raised are aesthetics, materials used, shapes, how it works at street level, green issues, transport issues, location, sightlines, shadowing, bulkiness, how it fits into the environment, how it effects historic structures nearby such as tower bridge or st pauls cathedral and so on.

back onto the suitability of tall buildings, i'll respond to this:

"Secondly, it's quite possible to achieve a similar increase in density without building these kinds of buildings should such a thing be required or desirable."

that poster is right, it is possible to achieve a similar increase in density without resorting to slender, high-rise buildings. but you have to build ungainly, bulky groundscrapers. tall buildings can offer the same or more amount of space with a much smaller footprint, enabling more historic buildings to be retained, and maintaining the integrity of historic street patterns.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 23, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> These towers have been through some of the toughest, most rigorous, most detailed planning procedures in the world. The City is one of the most difficult places in the world to build a skyscraper. These days, only towers of absolutely top-notch quality are allowed to be built in the Square Mile, and they have to satisfy an incredibly long list of criteria. These proposed towers are certainly top quality - all issues relating to transport and overcrowding, the surrounding environment, overshadowing and downdrafts, historic conservation sites, the public realm, etc. have been dealt with in the fullest and most comprehensive ways possible. In addition, measures have recently been introduced for residential towers, whereby a significant percentage of the accommodation needs to be classed as "affordable housing". Developers are required to contribute to surrounding local improvements as well.
> 
> In addition, these new skyscrapers will be incredibly green and eco-friendly. The Shard at London Bridge, for example, will use around 40% less energy than a typical office building, while the Bishopsgate Tower will be almost entirely clad in solar panels! You can't get much greener than that.
> 
> ...


You are sounding even more like an advert, and clearly not interested in debate with people who are not, as you clearly believe yourself to be, "experts" in architecture, but just ordinary people on a bulletin board which you have invaded to try and get support for your petition, but without any interest in us or in the board or in anything other than getting support for your petition. Why are you on this board? Will you stay, once your petition is done?

Incidentally, I don't accept that it is automatically a waste of money to challenge the people who are designing these buildings, to ensure that they really have thought through all the many implications of building them. 

And I don't much like being patronised.

So, I won't be signing your petition.

But I am now going to unsubscribe from this thread - I can't be bothered with you, to be frank!


----------



## maomao (Jan 23, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> And I don't much like being patronised.
> 
> So, I won't be signing your petition.
> 
> But I am now going to unsubscribe from this thread - I can't be bothered with you, to be frank!



Is there a counter petition? I'd like to sign that.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 23, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> Jesus...
> 
> This is the last time I'm coming on this forum!
> 
> ...



You have to earn respect, mate, and your aggressive style and unwillingness to engage didn't do that for me.

I am so glad you are going back to your cronies now!

Bye!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 23, 2007)

johnnypd said:
			
		

> <snip>



Go away!


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> Go away!




Its like a small board invasion.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 23, 2007)

I wonder how they would react if we went to their bulletin board and started talking about drugs, drink and politics (and kittens, of course) 

I am SO tempted. And then, when they started being stroppy and bewildered and stuff, we could be patronising about how shallow their lives are and stuff.


----------



## maomao (Jan 23, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I wonder how they would react if we went to their bulletin board and started talking about drugs, drink and politics (and kittens, of course)
> 
> I am SO tempted. And then, when they started being stroppy and bewildered and stuff, we could be patronising about how shallow their lives are and stuff.



If it wasn't so late I'd be well up for that.

Not so much a board war as a board minor skirmish.


----------



## johnnypd (Jan 23, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I wonder how they would react if we went to their bulletin board and started talking about drugs, drink and politics (and kittens, of course)
> 
> I am SO tempted. And then, when they started being stroppy and bewildered and stuff, we could be patronising about how shallow their lives are and stuff.



you are more than welcome to come and chat on the SSC skybar! surely this is a thread about london and as valid as a thread about cafes or borough market disappearing. anyway i thought this was a public forum, at least it has been since i started reading it over a year ago.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

I have to point out you aren't really promoting this that well, what with coming across a bit like a bizzare skyscraper cult.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

johnnypd said:
			
		

> and SSC is not an organisation intended to promote skyscrapers, it is a forum for fans of architecture & urban planning (and primarily skyscrapers) to come together and dicuss their interests.



Who owns and runs it?


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 23, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> I have to point out you aren't really promoting this that well, what with coming across a bit like a bizzare skyscraper cult.



Like this one... 












I'm now haunted by an alarming vision of Will and friends re-enacting some of the most gruesome surgical bits  in Matthew Barney's Cremaster 3 on poor unsuspecting heritage lobbyists.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Why are there all these people, who aren't from London, telling us what is good for London?



Funnily enouigh the thread is actually about an international organisation that's trying to tell London what's good for it...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Dhimmi said:
			
		

> Interesting to see three new posters on this thread all madly pro, PR wheels a turning perhaps?



Why the fuck would a PR company working for a property developer bother trying to seed this site? It might be well know and have a high profile, but it's about as representative of mainstream public opinion as a dried fig and is about as equally influential in terms of the planning process.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 23, 2007)

johnnypd said:
			
		

> you are more than welcome to come and chat on the SSC skybar! surely this is a thread about london and as valid as a thread about cafes or borough market disappearing. anyway i thought this was a public forum, at least it has been since i started reading it over a year ago.



So why was the original post also put in the direct action forum?

The discussion/debate is relevant. The tone and refusal to discuss/debate is not.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Why the fuck would a PR company working for a property developer bother trying to seed this site? It might be well know and have a high profile, but it's about as representative of mainstream public opinion as a dried fig and is about as equally influential in terms of the planning process.



I guess they are desperate, and didn't do their research very well


----------



## johnnypd (Jan 23, 2007)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> So why was the original post also put in the direct action forum?



cos it is asking people to sign a petition? obvious innit?



> The discussion/debate is relevant. The tone and refusal to discuss/debate is not.



i havent refused to debate the issue though plenty of well established members have. still, the repeated personal attacks and wild fantasies about us being secret PR agents is quite funny.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 23, 2007)

johnnypd said:
			
		

> cos it is asking people to sign a petition? obvious innit?
> 
> 
> 
> i havent refused to debate the issue though plenty of well established members have. still, the repeated personal attacks and wild fantasies about us being secret PR agents is quite funny.



I lost interest in the debate very early on, when my contribution was stated to be "bollocks", and the OP attempted to patronise me.



Give it up, mate.


----------



## Dhimmi (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Why the fuck would a PR company working for a property developer bother trying to seed this site?



Don't know that they would.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

johnnypd said:
			
		

> cos it is asking people to sign a petition? obvious innit?
> 
> 
> 
> i havent refused to debate the issue though plenty of well established members have. still, the repeated personal attacks and wild fantasies about us being secret PR agents is quite funny.



Personal attacks?  Blimey mate, how do you cope in the real world?


----------



## johnnypd (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Personal attacks?  Blimey mate, how do you cope in the real world?



didn't i say that was quite funny? was such a short post, i'm not sure how you missed it tbh.


----------



## Dhimmi (Jan 23, 2007)

johnnypd said:
			
		

> i havent refused to debate the issue though plenty of well established members have. still, the repeated personal attacks and wild fantasies about us being secret PR agents is quite funny.



Could you quote these? Just I don't see any in this thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

johnnypd said:
			
		

> didn't i say that was quite funny? was such a short post, i'm not sure how you missed it tbh.




What personal attacks?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2007)

Skyscraper city is mostly just a forum and community etc. for people to talk about skyscrapers - I'v read there before quite a bit. PR conspiracies  ROFL.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

You must admit though that 4 or 5 people suddenly joining Urban, just to push a petition about building skyscrapers in London, "for the good of the city", looks a little suss...


----------



## johnnypd (Jan 23, 2007)

come on, the thread is chok-full of ad hominem arguments. 

back onto the topic, what do people think the effect of a blanket ban on tall buildings in the City would be? I think it would have an effect opposite to the one UNESCO are aiming for - protection and conservation of key historic structures like the tower, tower bridge and st pauls. If one can't build upwards to increase office space one will build outwards. instead of 122 Leadenhalls or Swiss Re's we will have more bulky buildings like Plantation Place. not only do these buildings harm the streetscape, they also lead to the demolition of beautiful old buildings. skyscrapers offer the same amount of office space but take up less land, allowing more historic structures to be kept.

the precedent for this has to be the protected sightline of St Pauls dome from the river. The area south of St Pauls used to be a warren of streets and lanes and warehouses. Since height restrictions have been introduced the area has been filled with bland boxes with large floorplates. this has damaged the feel of the area at street level. furthermore, most buildings try to use all of their allocated airspace for office usage and as a result there is no articulation or variation in roof heights - rather than the view of manifold rooftops you see in paris (or even upstream), london gets a homogenous, flat, utilitarian scene. while views to st pauls dome need to be protected, the rigid way these protections have been enforced has led to poor urban design. ironically this ends up harming the setting of the thing you've been trying to protect. i predict the same will happen if UNESCO's plan goes ahead.

and again, just because i object to international hyper-quango UNESCO's recommendations, that doesn't mean i automatically promote skyscrapers. i think a lot of the current proposals are wank, Beetham in particular is a fat, ungainly monstrosity, Heron is bland and Bishopsgate is too wide from certain angles (this is a result of reduced height due to planning concerns!) 20 FC is another tower that shouldn't be built - i like the design, but it is too close to the river and apart from the existing cluster of talls.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Actually it was initially one person who probably called back to his homestead for support when met with accusations of being a PR person. 

Didn't look remotely sus - the OP says there's a UNESCO report about these buildings, and that they think it's wrong and are looking for some support. I understood that from the OP, so not sure why some people went into full on screaming paranoia mode...


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2007)

Whether or not extra skyscrapers will visually benefit London is academic. Expanding the City isn't my idea of progress, be it upwards or outwards.

As for what someone said many pages ago about how I defined the "ordinary people" I was meaning those not "fortunate" enough to be in the elite group of stockbrokers and yuppies who will be almost the sole benefactors of such a scheme.

There are much better things for taxpayers money to be spent on. Social housing, renewable energy, the NHS, need I go on?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

johnnypd said:
			
		

> come on, the thread is chok-full of ad hominem arguments.



So you can't quote any?  Thought so.




			
				johnnypd said:
			
		

> back onto the topic, what do people think the effect of a blanket ban on tall buildings in the City would be? I think it would have an effect opposite to the one UNESCO are aiming for - protection and conservation of key historic structures like the tower, tower bridge and st pauls. If one can't build upwards to increase office space one will build outwards. instead of 122 Leadenhalls or Swiss Re's we will have more bulky buildings like Plantation Place. not only do these buildings harm the streetscape, they also lead to the demolition of beautiful old buildings. skyscrapers offer the same amount of office space but take up less land, allowing more historic structures to be kept.
> 
> the precedent for this has to be the protected sightline of St Pauls dome from the river. The area south of St Pauls used to be a warren of streets and lanes and warehouses. Since height restrictions have been introduced the area has been filled with bland boxes with large floorplates. this has damaged the feel of the area at street level. furthermore, most buildings try to use all of their allocated airspace for office usage and as a result there is no articulation or variation in roof heights - rather than the view of manifold rooftops you see in paris (or even upstream), london gets a homogenous, flat, utilitarian scene. while views to st pauls dome need to be protected, the rigid way these protections have been enforced has led to poor urban design. ironically this ends up harming the setting of the thing you've been trying to protect. i predict the same will happen if UNESCO's plan goes ahead.



As I've already said - I haven't made my mind up about these proposed buildings.  I love the gherkin for example and the Nat West tower is also kind of cool.

The reason why I'm irritated with you guys is because (a) you invade our board with spam, (b) some of you who don't live in London feel the need to tell those of us who do what is good for us and (c) arguing for these buildings because "the city" needs them is just offensive, quite frankly.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Tom A said:
			
		

> Whether or not extra skyscrapers will visually benefit London is academic. Expanding the City isn't my idea of progress, be it upwards or outwards.
> 
> As for what someone said many pages ago about how I defined the "ordinary people" I was meaning those not "fortunate" enough to be in the elite group of stockbrokers and yuppies who will be almost the sole benefactors of such a scheme.
> 
> *There are much better things for taxpayers money to be spent on. Social housing, renewable energy, the NHS, need I go on?*



Where exactly do taxpayers contrinute to private developments? Who do you think funds these developments?


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2007)

> If one can't build upwards to increase office space one will build outwards. instead of 122 Leadenhalls or Swiss Re's we will have more bulky buildings like Plantation Place.


There are loads of derelict buildings and land that could be used for office space (although maybe not in London, or the right parts of London). Also there are many cties where there is load of vacant office space, Stoke-on-Trent is one example, I also recall I medium sized office block that has been lying half empty in my hometown of Plymouth for the past decade and a half, so why can't busniesses move there, in the era of electronic communication there isn't a physical need to be in the City, it's solely a prestige thing.

And as I and many others have said: something that benefits the City does not necessarily benefit the people as a whole, often it's the exact opposite.


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Where exactly do taxpayers contrinute to private developments? Who do you think funds these developments?


Oh come off it, there are loads of cases where these mega developments would never have gotten off the ground if the Govt wasn't subsidising them.

Either way, social housing would be a much better use of the land than having some megacorp build its swanky offices there, to give one example.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

> in the era of electronic communication there isn't a physical need to be in the City, it's solely a prestige thing



True, there isn't a physical need but as with any other specialism 'clusters' actually work better. While the dog work might be done by machine, ultimately the type of finance the City is involved in is still a human enterprise, and there are human benefits to clustering.

It's been recognised in the sciences for ages - look at silicon valley for example. The benefits come in the form of having a lot of people who are expert at the same things and interested/motivated to develop those things, and having them all in a small geographical area so that human interaction can really fly.

It's happened throughout history - hell, most of the street names in the City testify to earlier forms of clustering - and will continue to do so.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Tom A said:
			
		

> Oh come off it, there are loads of cases where these mega developments would never have gotten off the ground if the Govt wasn't subsidising them.
> 
> Either way, social housing would be a much better use of the land than having some megacorp build its swanky offices there, to give one example.



Examples?


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2007)

Canary Warf, as part of the Docklands regeneration. That needed Government money. But even though this proposal may not need a single penny from the taxpayer, it still doesn't mean it should be welcomed with open arms, and in the day it's the Government that decideds whether or not this gets off the ground or not, and there are much better things that could be done.



> True, there isn't a physical need but as with any other specialism 'clusters' actually work better. While the dog work might be done by machine, ultimately the type of finance the City is involved in is still a human enterprise, and there are human benefits to clustering.
> 
> It's been recognised in the sciences for ages - look at silicon valley for example. The benefits come in the form of having a lot of people who are expert at the same things and interested/motivated to develop those things, and having them all in a small geographical area so that human interaction can really fly.


Ok, they may have a part to do with it, but there are still many desirable places (maybe not Stoke-on-Trent mind you) which are relatively much cheaper than the City of London.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

The LDDC was set up to provide the legisilative backing for planning permission etc, but Canary Wharf was wholly funded by O&Y, which is how one of New York's largest property developers almost went under when the UK and US property markets went wobbly.

If you define 'needed govt money' as 'needed a new transport infrastructure and got the DLR' then you'd be half right - but arguably the DLR and Jubilee line have benefitted all London, not just O&Y.

What the LDDC did was enact things like CPOs (compulsory purchase orders) and act as an administrative/sales hub for the Docklands regeneration...but trying to say that Canary Wharf was built on UK taxes...way off beam mate.


----------



## johnnypd (Jan 23, 2007)

"There are loads of derelict buildings and land that could be used for office space (although maybe not in London, or the right parts of London). Also there are many cties where there is load of vacant office space, Stoke-on-Trent is one example, I also recall I medium sized office block that has been lying half empty in my hometown of Plymouth for the past decade and a half, so why can't busniesses move there, in the era of electronic communication there isn't a physical need to be in the City, it's solely a prestige thing.

And as I and many others have said: something that benefits the City does not necessarily benefit the people as a whole, often it's the exact opposite."

that is fair enough Tom A, though i'm not exactly arguing from the viewpoint of wanting to benefit the City. 

I do however think expansion of the City is inevitable and would prefer it build upwards (saving historic buildings and ancient street patterns) rather than expand into areas like brick lane or shoreditch.


----------



## beeboo (Jan 23, 2007)

johnnypd said:
			
		

> I do however think expansion of the City is inevitable and would prefer it build upwards (saving historic buildings and ancient street patterns) rather than expand into areas like brick lane or shoreditch.



Sadly a bit too late for half of Spitalfields


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> You haven't accounted in the slightest for the addition of two rooms, central heating and decent interior decor in the house. The rent on the house could have been 140, one of the four bedrooms was tiny. I know for a fact it was cheaper than the one bedroom shithole I now pay 606.66 (the rent of the devil surely) monthly for.



Oh FFS - OK, let's take off £40k for the improvements (being generous here as the £180k house is a rare beast):

180-60 / 60 = 200%

I.e...the house price tripled. Like I said.

How much would the rent for your "one bedroom shithole" have been? £400? £450? Again I'll be generous and use the values most favourable to your fact-free arguments.

606.66-400 / 400 = 52%

So your rent has not gone up by as much as house prices. Like I said.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

> Ok, they may have a part to do with it, but there are still many desirable places (maybe not Stoke-on-Trent mind you) which are relatively much cheaper than the City of London.



It's already happened - many of the big banks already have their back office (eg reconciliation operations) activities in offices in the outer London suburbs as well as further afield (where ironically they often DO receive favourable incentives to build from local councils as they are often employng 2-3000 people per office), but for yer actual trading centres, as well as for prestige siting in the City is where the banks want to be.

Same applies to TV and Film - basically latched around Soho and White City where the BBC are. Advertising - Soho, Fitzrovia and Clerkenwell (related to the old printworks and college of arts there), law is Mansion House and the Temple and Holborn etc.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

Tom A said:
			
		

> Oh come off it, there are loads of cases where these mega developments would never have gotten off the ground if the Govt wasn't subsidising them.
> 
> Either way, social housing would be a much better use of the land than having some megacorp build its swanky offices there, to give one example.



Coming soon to a cinema near you... INVASION OF THE IDEALIST ABSURDISTS!

The idea that land in the City is better used as social housing is absurd. It wouldn't even be any use for its handiness for places of employment if you are suggesting that these places of employment should instead be in Plymouth or the suburbs or wherever,

You don't seem to have grasped the concept of residential areas, areas for shopping, areas for offices etc or of land values.

But then again engaging with the issues of the world is so much easier if you can reduce to a one line mantra.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Coming soon to a cinema near you... INVASION OF THE IDEALIST ABSURDISTS!
> 
> The idea that land in the City is better used as social housing is absurd. It wouldn't even be any use for its handiness for places of employment if you are suggesting that these places of employment should instead be in Plymouth or the suburbs or wherever,
> 
> ...




You on the other hand have an obsession with supporting the needs of big business. That and not answering questions. Still awaiting the reasons why rent regulation fails?


----------



## PacificOcean (Jan 23, 2007)

Tom A said:
			
		

> Whether or not extra skyscrapers will visually benefit London is academic. Expanding the City isn't my idea of progress, be it upwards or outwards.
> 
> As for what someone said many pages ago about how I defined the "ordinary people" I was meaning those not "fortunate" enough to be in the elite group of stockbrokers and yuppies who will be almost the sole benefactors of such a scheme.



What about the thousands of support workers, cleaners, caterers, admin staff and so on that work in these places?


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

Hello everyone!  I know most of you are Londoners and that this is a British forum etc. But I´m an architecture enthusiast and the future London skyscrapers have come to interest me in particular. I hope I wont be looked down on just because I´m Finnish (I live in Helsinki) as it seems some forumers here even got problems with people that are not from London.

I couldn´t help joining this discussion after reading some of the replies wjfox got. I would hope for all these personal attacks to stop so that we could discuss skyscrapers like adults. 

Firstly I would like to clearify a couple of things:

1. Do you guys hate skyscrapers or just object to them being built in London?

2. If building skyscrapers isn´t the way to the future, what is? How should our cities evolve? 


It´s pretty obvious that Victorian London will not be rebuilt so we have to look forward for new ideas. Personally I would kill to have some of these towers in Helsinki (and I´m not alone). You people don´t know what you´re missing. 

Because of my love for these skyscrapers I have read quite a lot about London. You have much more serious things to worry about than this. St Paul´s Cathedral and The Tower are surrounded by architectural dross not to mention the North Bank. Still you worry about a skyscraper that will lighten up  Southwark and make a fantastic new landmark. Let´s not dance arround the obvious here, you are afraid to move on and to embrace that London no longer is what it was 60 years ago. When shown a panorama of London one of my friends said "Wow! Look how they mix old and new!" This is the way outlanders look at today´s London.

Much of the crap built after the war is now being demolished, but what should you replace them with? Basically there are two options for London right now:

Option 1 (aka "Bring the 60s back")









Option 2










The choice is yours and I think it´s an easy one. These skyscrapers will enrich London greatly. If organisations like UNESCO or English Heritage would have existed in the 18th and 19th centuries St Paul´s and Tower Bridge would most likely never have been built. Did you know that many parisians never wanted the Eiffel Tower to be built? Comon! A 325 m iron tower in central Paris? That´s madness!! Well, today it´s the world´s most visited landmark.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

You haven't actually read the thread have you?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

> Still awaiting the reasons why rent regulation fails?



Look at any studies on how rent control in New York fucked the people it was supposed to help the most, easy peasy. Rent controls only work if all the rental stock is publicly owned because they are then not subject to market pressure; as soon as you introduce price controls into private rental markets the amount of available stock will drop as landlords realise the capital investment by selling property, thus leading to a decrease in privately available housing, which pushes it's price up which then has to be reflected in the prices for other private rent controlled property.

At least I think that's how it works - it was eons ago that someone explained the siuation in New York for me...


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> You on the other hand have an obsession with supporting the needs of big business. That and not answering questions. Still awaiting the reasons why rent regulation fails?



OK. Check out Manhattan and Porto as case studies.

In the former there is a chronic undersupply of apartments, far worse than London. Rent control means that once you get a rent-controlled one you *never* let go and so they are "occupied" by dead people and passed from person to person. Result is a complete lack of liquidity and a two-tier society as the lack of supply forces prices ever higher for everyone else who is unlucky to be competing for the non rent-controlled apartments.

Rents are higher there than in London BTW.

Porto. Much of the city centre under rent control. Ageing housing stock. Rents insufficient to allow proper maintenance of the buildings. Result is squalid accommodation and dilapidation. Slums. All very picturesque when on holiday of course but somewhat less agreeable to live in.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Look at any studies on how rent control in New York fucked the people it was supposed to help the most, easy peasy. Rent controls only work if all the rental stock is publicly owned because they are then not subject to market pressure; as soon as you introduce price controls into private rental markets the amount of available stock will drop as landlords realise the capital investment by selling property, thus leading to a decrease in privately available housing, which pushes it's price up which then has to be reflected in the prices for other private rent controlled property.
> 
> At least I think that's how it works - it was eons ago that someone explained the siuation in New York for me...



Firstly this could be counter-acted, secondly the British experience is different. When rent restrictions were lifted in the UK in 1989 the amount of private rented stock actually went down. Not following what one would expect. So one cant generalise. Also it works well in various parts of Europe.

If the approach isn't holistic of course it has more chance of failing, doesn't mean its a bad idea.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

@ The Martian - you need to get a better handle on Urban as a site mate - while not being a 'left wing' site, there are lots of people here who are generally opposed to capitalism, and as such skyscraper developments for private banks are something they are opposed to in principle, irrespective of the merits, aesthetic, engineering etc, of the buildngs in question.

Hence, use of the 'but the City needs them to expand' argument gets short shrift here where in many places, especially those who deploy the 'heritage' argument, it would carry more weight. 

Personally I think they look amazing, and welcome the build upwards philosophy within specific districts of London. However, as with the other Londoners, I _do_ take issue with someone telling me what is good for London (especially someone who doesn't live here/work here/visit regularly), hence the somewhat sceptical response. Altho the accusations of PR subterfuge were fucking embarassing quite frankly.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> OK. Check out Manhattan and Porto as case studies.
> 
> In the former there is a chronic undersupply of apartments, far worse than London. Rent control means that once you get a rent-controlled one you *never* let go and so they are "occupied" by dead people and passed from person to person. Result is a complete lack of liquidity and a two-tier society as the lack of supply forces prices ever higher for everyone else who is unlucky to be competing for the non rent-controlled apartments.
> 
> ...



These problems appear to be more to with how fair rents are implemented, rather than fair rent _per se_.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> OK. Check out Manhattan and Porto as case studies.
> 
> In the former there is a chronic undersupply of apartments, far worse than London. Rent control means that once you get a rent-controlled one you *never* let go and so they are "occupied" by dead people and passed from person to person. Result is a complete lack of liquidity and a two-tier society as the lack of supply forces prices ever higher for everyone else who is unlucky to be competing for the non rent-controlled apartments.
> 
> ...




See my other post.

A new approach could be made to resolve any of these issues. I agree that rents may have been kept too low. But to say the alternative is ridiculously high free market rents and there is no middle ground really is a very inhumane position.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> @ The Martian - you need to get a better handle on Urban as a site mate - while not being a 'left wing' site, there are lots of people here who are generally opposed to capitalism, and as such skyscraper developments for private banks are something they are opposed to in principle, irrespective of the merits, aesthetic, engineering etc, of the buildngs in question.
> 
> Hence, use of the 'but the City needs them to expand' argument gets short shrift here where in many places, especially those who deploy the 'heritage' argument, it would carry more weight.
> 
> Personally I think they look amazing, and welcome the build upwards philosophy within specific districts of London. However, as with the other Londoners, I _do_ take issue with someone telling me what is good for London (especially someone who doesn't live here/work here/visit regularly), hence the somewhat sceptical response. Altho the accusations of PR subterfuge were fucking embarassing quite frankly.



Please note kyser speaks for himself here.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

> If organisations like UNESCO or English Heritage would have existed in the 18th and 19th centuries St Paul´s and Tower Bridge would most likely never have been built.



Dude, you REALLY need to get your dates correct - St Pauls was built in the late C17th after the great fire of 1666, and in many respects the reason that London, especially the City, is a riot of small roads as opposed to grand boulevard, is precisely because of the inherent conservatism in London's taste in architecture - Wren had a masterplan for London that would have seen it rebuilt in a similar way to Paris, Rome etc on a hub and spoke grid (same happened after WW2 as well).

As for Tower Bridge...well it might be a global landmark, but personally I think it's a gothic pastiche monstrosity which fails in all the ways that the Palace of Westminster (Parliament) succeeds in conveying it's purpose. Again, the result of a combination of fudge and conservative ideas about planning and design.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Wren had a masterplan for London that would have seen it rebuilt in a similar way to Paris, Rome etc on a hub and spoke grid (same happened after WW2 as well).


And thank fuck _that_ didn't go ahead!


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> These problems appear to be more to with how fair rents are implemented, rather than fair rent _per se_.




Thats exactly right.

The real reason for de-regulation is political ideology. We can understand this when we realise that housing benefit for the poorest people no longer meets private sector rents in many places.

 Do they restrict the rent for the landlord to what Local Governement think the property is actually worth - no. They instead make the person on benefits make up the shortfall from their benefits. It is therefore the poor tenants fault. 

For the government to decide a property is worth X yet allow the landlord to charge X+Y, and make the tenant pay the Y, is nothing short of criminal to me.

If thats not ideological i don't know what is.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Please note kyser speaks for himself here.



Which bit? The stuff about the site having lots of AC people who are opposed to this kind of development on principle? Or the comment about the raving paranoiac comments about these guys being 'PR people for property developers'?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Also it works well in various parts of Europe.



Such as? Not Germany or Portugal.




			
				F.G. Pennance said:
			
		

> In every country examined, the introduction and continuance of rent control/restriction has done much more harm than good in rental housing markets – let alone the economy at large – by perpetuating shortages, encouraging immobility, swamping consumer preferences, fostering dilapidation of housing stocks and eroding production incentives, distorting land use patterns and the allocation of scarce resources … and all in the name of distributive justice it has manifestly failed to achieve because at best it has been related only randomly to the needs and individual circumstances of households.



More for those who are interested:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/bresiger/bresiger20.html

I agree that rents are not affordable but not sure I see an answer apart from expansion of social housing on means-tested rents so as to fill a scale from subsidised up to market rates.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Heh, show me any market where price controls do work...


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Such as? Not Germany or Portugal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your just quoting right wing ideology, thats not evidence?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Thats exactly right.
> 
> The real reason for de-regulation is political ideology. We can understand this when we realise that housing benefit for the poorest people no longer meets private sector rents in many places.
> 
> ...



The alternative view is that rents in shitty areas like Kings Cross were entirely sustained by the housing benefits racket, in the government's wllingness to pay whatever was demanded, in the process causing rents to rise and exclude those "in the middle" who did not qualify but could not afford it themselves either.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Which bit? The stuff about the site having lots of AC people who are opposed to this kind of development on principle? Or the comment about the raving paranoiac comments about these guys being 'PR people for property developers'?




The second part.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Your just quoting right wing ideology, thats not evidence?



I could make the precise counter accusation.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Come on, it was a bit fucking silly wasn't it?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> For the government to decide a property is worth X yet allow the landlord to charge X+Y, and make the tenant pay the Y, is nothing short of criminal to me.
> 
> If thats not ideological i don't know what is.



So the gov should just pay whatever landlords want to charge then?

Surprised to see this argument from you!


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2007)

A more perfect example of the inherent incompatability of socialism and the market you couldn't hope to find


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> The alternative view is that rents in shitty areas like Kings Cross were entirely sustained by the housing benefits racket, in the government's wllingness to pay whatever was demanded, in the process causing rents to rise and exclude those "in the middle" who did not qualify but could not afford it themselves either.




You don't understand it - do you? I am saying that rent officers should determine a rent level. This could be set at a reasonable rather than high or low level. Then all parties are bound by it. You seem to think its either really low and dilapilated or really high market set. You have no between on your dial!


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Come on, it was a bit fucking silly wasn't it?



Me? Link may be dubious but does seem to have a few valid points.


----------



## Meltingpot (Jan 23, 2007)

Tom A said:
			
		

> There are loads of derelict buildings and land that could be used for office space (although maybe not in London, or the right parts of London). Also there are many cties where there is load of vacant office space, Stoke-on-Trent is one example,* I also recall I medium sized office block that has been lying half empty in my hometown of Plymouth for the past decade and a half,* so why can't businesses move there, in the era of electronic communication there isn't a physical need to be in the City, it's solely a prestige thing.
> 
> And as I and many others have said: something that benefits the City does not necessarily benefit the people as a whole, often it's the exact opposite.



Do you mean the Moneycentre Tom?

I agree with what you're saying here btw; though on an emotional level I am impressed by these buildings (the London Bridge Tower in particular) in the same way as I was when I saw Concorde fly overhead once, intellectually I think the lowrise "collegiate" style of buildings of maybe four storeys built around a central courtyard is more suitable for the world of energy scarcity I believe we're heading towards. I suspect that skyscrapers such as these belong to a world which is passing and will seem archaic by the end of the century.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Me? Link may be dubious but does seem to have a few valid points.



Nah, @ Exo re: 'We've being spammed by propety developer PR people!!!'


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> So the gov should just pay whatever landlords want to charge then?
> 
> Surprised to see this argument from you!




Thats because its not my argument, if you had any idea how rent regs worked in the past in the UK, you would know that it was all connected to the _rent officer_ of the Local Government in question. 

I think the rents were too low then, I agree with you there.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> You don't understand it - do you? I am saying that rent officers should determine a rent level. This could be set at a reasonable rather than high or low level. Then all parties are bound by it. You seem to think its either really low and dilapilated or really high market set. You have no between on your dial!



What, set all rents? For everyone, everywhere, at a fair rate? Would at leastbe fair I suppose. You accuse me of having no between but what I'm trying to point out is that the gap in provision we have is for those who don't qualify for social housing and are not rich enough to pay market rates. You have to be very careful not to make that worse. I think housing benefit may have had that effect.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Heh, show me any market where price controls do work...



Should something as vital as shelter be subject to "market forces"?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Should something as vital as shelter be subject to "market forces"?


No, it shouldn't. But trying to maintain a mixture of the two systems will always have a very messy edge between them.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I could make the precise counter accusation.




Ive stated factual stuff from knowledge so far, I haven't posted any links, you are just making it up as you google it. My knowledge of housing is better than yours, clearly. Your just better than me on skyscrapers.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Nah, @ Exo re: 'We've being spammed by propety developer PR people!!!'



I've known PR people to do daft things.  I know a board aimed at students where PR people for record companies pretend to be students who've just discovered a new band.  Its pretty blatant.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Should something as vital as shelter be subject to "market forces"?



Fair point but food is to some extent.

Crispy makes a point in line with what I'm saying, in that we have a problem between those who are provided for and those who can afford to pay. Hesitant to speak for you but isn't this the situation you find yourself in that we were talking about before?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Ive stated factual stuff from knowledge so far, I haven't posted any links, you are just making it up as you google it. My knowledge of housing is better than yours, clearly. Your just better than me on skyscrapers.



 

Did actually have some pre-Googling views on rent control!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Fair point but food is to some extent.
> 
> Crispy makes a point in line with what I'm saying, in that we have a problem between those who are provided for and those who can afford to pay. Hesitant to speak for you but isn't this the situation you find yourself in that we were talking about before?



If you think people less well off than me are always provided for, come and do my job for a bit!  That'll learn ya!


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> What, set all rents? For everyone, everywhere, at a fair rate? Would at leastbe fair I suppose. You accuse me of having no between but what I'm trying to point out is that the gap in provision we have is for those who don't qualify for social housing and are not rich enough to pay market rates. You have to be very careful not to make that worse. I think housing benefit may have had that effect.



In the old days it counted up to a certain rateable value, again your lack of knowledge restricts you understanding it.

You are just an apologist, who is clearly trying to argue about something you have a lack of knowledge on because it fits the rest of your ideology. 

Your general ideology is evidenced by your support for very rich property developers who wish to get ever more rich. Your general ideology is clear from this in my view.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If you think people less well off than me are always provided for, come and do my job for a bit!  That'll learn ya!




Fair point.

I guess there is a system but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if you told me it didn't always work.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Should something as vital as shelter be subject to "market forces"?




This is really the heart of the matter.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> In the old days it counted up to a certain rateable value, again your lack of knowledge restricts you understanding it.
> 
> You are just an apologist, who is clearly trying to argue about something you have a lack of knowledge on because it fits the rest of your ideology.
> 
> Your general ideology is evidenced by your support for very rich property developers who wish to get ever more rich. Your general ideology is clear from this in my view.



Well, I'm happy to be educated.

Not sure I have "supported very rich property developers". I don't think the current situation in London is healthy but I hope that I try and take a realistic view of how tings work and what could work. Perhaps I should be more idealistic if "realistic" just comes across as Thatcherite Capitalist Exhibit A, because I don't think that's the case.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Fair point.
> 
> I guess there is a system but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if you told me it didn't always work.



There isn't even a system in some cases.  For example, the service I work for isn't allowed to do street outreach anymore as it is seen as enabling people to stay on the streets.

But I digress.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Should something as vital as shelter be subject to "market forces"?



Did I, or have I ever, said that it should be? I've long been an advocate of a massive re-building of public housing stock to the point that it becomes MORE desirable to live in than owning your own home (which is do-able) because the quality of the housing stock could be so much higher, so don't even think about putting _that_ argument in my mouth.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Well, I'm happy to be educated.
> 
> Not sure I have "supported very rich property developers". I don't think the current situation in London is healthy but I hope that I try and take a realistic view of how tings work and what could work. Perhaps I should be more idealistic if "realistic" just comes across as Thatcherite Capitalist Exhibit A, because I don't think that's the case.



OK serious questions.

1) Why are you here? Why this board?

2) What is your genuine motivation in promoting skyscrapers?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Did I, or have I ever, said that it should be? I've long been an advocate of a massive re-building of public housing stock to the point that it becomes MORE desirable to live in than owning your own home (which is do-able) because the quality of the housing stock could be so much higher, so don't even think about putting _that_ argument in my mouth.



Blimey, cool yer jets!  All I did was ask a question!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I've known PR people to do daft things.  I know a board aimed at students where PR people for record companies pretend to be students who've just discovered a new band.  Its pretty blatant.



I know what community seeding is and unless you're a halfwit PR you only seed communities that you can actually get something out of - for example, students buy lots of records from indie labels.

The OP was pretty obvious that they were looking for people to sign up against this UNESCO report about the ToL, just because a bunch of non-urban (i.e. mainstream/normal) types don't quite get the site doesn't make them PR people...

@ Cool yer jets - sorry mate!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> OK serious questions.
> 
> 1) Why are you here? Why this board?
> 
> 2) What is your genuine motivation in promoting skyscrapers?



Monkeynuts was here long before the people from the skyscraper boards.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I know what community seeding is and unless you're a halfwit PR you only seed communities that you can actually get something out of - for example, students buy lots of records from indie labels.
> 
> The OP was pretty obvious that they were looking for people to sign up against this UNESCO report about the ToL, just because a bunch of non-urban (i.e. mainstream/normal) types don't quite get the site doesn't make them PR people...



Most PR's seem to be halfwits IME.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Dude, you REALLY need to get your dates correct - St Pauls was built in the late C17th after the great fire of 1666.



Er...St Paul´s topped out in 1710 i.e. in the 18th century. Not very surprisingly most peole here ignored all points I made in my previous post. And what does being left-wing has to do with skyscrapers?? I´m what people would call left-wing and to me many of you sound like hard-core communists, not that communists are against skyscrapers though. Just look at China 

What´s so bad about skyscrapers?? Are they "evil symbols of capitalism"??


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Monkeynuts was here long before the people from the skyscraper boards.




Oops. 

If any of the recent arrivals want to have a go at those questions.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Er...St Paul´s topped out in 1710 i.e. in the 18th century. Not completely surprising most peole here ignored all points I made in my previous post. And what does being left-wing has to do with skyscrapers?? I´m what people would call left-wing and to me many of you sound like hard-core communists, not that communists are against skyscrapers though. Just look at China
> 
> What´s so bad about skyscrapers?? Are they "evil symbols of capitalism"??



OK, I'll explain this again:

Skyscraper development in the City is carried out by capitalist corporations
All these buildings will simply serve as icons to the companies that inhabit them; they fulfil little or no positive social role for the local communities they are built in.
People who are left wing generally oppose capitalism - the issue isn't that peeps are opposed to skyscrapers, they are opposed to _these_ ones specifically because of what they represent.

You see the difference? Not opposed to tall buildings, opposed to these specific tall buildings because of who is building them and why they are being built.



> I´m what people would call left-wing and to me many of you sound like hard-core communists,



A better description would probably be a wide ranging spectrum of people from social democrats through to anarchists/socialists/communists of differeing levels of hardcore-ness...


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Er...St Paul´s topped out in 1710 i.e. in the 18th century. Not completely surprising most peole here ignored all points I made in my previous post. And what does being left-wing has to do with skyscrapers?? I´m what people would call left-wing and to me many of you sound like hard-core communists, not that communists are against skyscrapers though. Just look at China
> 
> What´s so bad about skyscrapers?? Are they "evil symbols of capitalism"??



China has a capitalist enshrined constitution, it has done for sometime.

Property developers are fairly evil. I would never blame an inanimate object.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> OK, I'll explain this again:
> 
> Skyscraper development in the City is carried out by capitalist corporations
> All these buildings will simply serve as icons to the companies that inhabit them; they fulfil little or no positive social role for the local communities they are built in.
> ...



Indeed.

p.s I like the Gherkin and some other modern architecture. The best modern architecture I see as an art form. Alot of it is very ugly these days, very little flair for most projects it seems, sadly.


----------



## PacificOcean (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> OK, I'll explain this again:
> 
> Skyscraper development in the City is carried out by capitalist corporations
> All these buildings will simply serve as icons to the companies that inhabit them; they fulfil little or no positive social role *for the local communities they are built in.*People who are left wing generally oppose capitalism - the issue isn't that peeps are opposed to skyscrapers, they are opposed to _these_ ones specifically because of what they represent.
> ...



What local communities are there in the square mile?

For the wider community of London they provide jobs and not just at the top of the chain.  These places need support staff too.

How does moving jobs to other cities (which is what these big companines would do) benefit Londoners?


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

Ok...Westminster Palace represents imperialism and slavery. Why not pull it down?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Er...St Paul´s topped out in 1710 i.e. in the 18th century. Not very surprisingly most peole here ignored all points I made in my previous post. And what does being left-wing has to do with skyscrapers?? I´m what people would call left-wing and to me many of you sound like hard-core communists, not that communists are against skyscrapers though. Just look at China
> 
> What´s so bad about skyscrapers?? Are they "evil symbols of capitalism"??



You haven't actually read the thread have you?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Ok...Westminster Palace represents imperialism and slavery. Why not pull it down?



Sounds like a plan to me!


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Ok...Westminster Palace represents imperialism and slavery. Why not pull it down?



Why would we pull down a beautiful building that has cultural and historical significance. Its your lot that will pull things down all over London and elsewhere for a quick buck, regardless of historical/cultural significance.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> What local communities are there in the square mile?
> 
> For the wider community of London they provide jobs and not just at the top of the chain.  These places need support staff too.
> 
> How does moving jobs to other cities (which is what these big companines would do) benefit Londoners?



PO - I'm simply attempting to explain WHY some of the objections on this thread have been raised in a desparate and foolhardy attempt to get the discussion going again...



> Ok...Westminster Palace represents imperialism and slavery. Why not pull it down?



Is that ALL it represents tho? Does it not represent the long history of the English Parliamentary tradition? Doesn't it have more of an historical context than being a symbol of imperialism and slavery? If that's the case you might as well consign ALL of Paris to the wrecking ball, as well as many other European capitals! Silly argument really and not one that's related to these buildings.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Why would we pull down a beautiful building that has cultural and historical significance. Its your lot that will pull things down all over London and elsewhere for a quick buck, regardless of historical/cultural significance.



I give up...Martian is from Finland so where you get 'your lot' from is beyond me...


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Sounds like a plan to me!



It's quite a nice building though. The occupants are the problem.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> It's quite a nice building though. The occupants are the problem.



Yes, I wasn't being entirely serious.  I quite like it as a building.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

TBH I'm more with Blag than my post might indicate - while it's OK, the PoW is not really fit for purpose anymore, and I'm not a big fan of that whole Victorian Gothic revivalist look full stop - too fussy, too much detailing. Why it couldn't have been something Hellenic in the high Georgian style I don't know...but having said that we'd have probably ended up with another Buck Pal if that had happened...


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> TBH I'm more with Blag than my post might indicate - while it's OK, the PoW is not really fit for purpose anymore, and I'm not a big fan of that whole Victorian Gothic revivalist look full stop - too fussy, too much detailing. Why it couldn't have been something Hellenic in the high Georgian style I don't know...but having said that we'd have probably ended up with another Buck Pal if that had happened...



I believe it was something to do with Gothic being seen as more "correct" than Classical at the time.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Arts & crafts movement wasn't it? Inigo Jones and all that...


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2007)

Only just, mind. Check out the british museum - not much older, but classical as they come.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I give up...Martian is from Finland so where you get 'your lot' from is beyond me...




_Your lot_ in this context, means property developers and their supoorters. I have just heard that The Hammersmith Palais is coming down for offices as is The Astoria. These people don't care about this or anything but a fast buck, so sorry if it offends you, but I find property developers and their supporters the most potent symbol of offensiveness in UK society today.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

"One of", surely? Slightly down the league table but still in the Top 10.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

> I have just heard that The Hammersmith Palais is coming down for offices as is The Astoria.



You're getting upset about this? BTW, The Astoia demolition is part of a wider redevelopment of the messy mess around TCR/Centrepoint...place is a shit pit with wanker security. Fucks sakes, it's not like London has a dearth of live music venues is it?


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

It should be pointed out that the same planning departments pushing forward corporate icons like these are the ones that have consistently supressed innovative architecture in the past. Britain has been _terrible_ for that - we do have some architectural gems of course, but largely our best architects are forced out.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You're getting upset about this? BTW, The Astoia demolition is part of a wider redevelopment of the messy mess around TCR/Centrepoint...place is a shit pit with wanker security. Fucks sakes, it's not like London has a dearth of live music venues is it?




I find it very upsetting, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Loads of significant buildings are demolished all the time. Even listed buildings seem to catch fire when developers are sniffing around.

Its a nasty, non-society centred business. And I detest it.


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2007)

Meltingpot said:
			
		

> Do you mean the Moneycentre Tom?


That's the one!  Also formely known as Weston Savings and Trust, my mum worked there in the mid 70s. Plymouth Uni ended up having some of its classes there when mum studies there some 30 years later. Strangely enough the Council were at one point trying to build loads of additonal office space, even though there was already a large sluplus as it is.



> I agree with what you're saying here btw; though on an emotional level I am impressed by these buildings (the London Bridge Tower in particular) in the same way as I was when I saw Concorde fly overhead once, intellectually I think the lowrise "collegiate" style of buildings of maybe four storeys built around a central courtyard is more suitable for the world of energy scarcity I believe we're heading towards. I suspect that skyscrapers such as these belong to a world which is passing and will seem archaic by the end of the century.


Even I quite like the Gherkin. I am against the new skyscrapers primarly because as kyser says, these are symbols of major capitalist corporations whilch "fulfil little or no positive social role for the local communities they are built in", their sole purpose is for additional profit for the companies that build, rent out, and/or inhabit them.

Also the talk of many of the "pro-skyscraper" people on here, particularly the OP, smacks of blatant astroturfing. Architects for such grand projects tend to make a fair buck on flogging their proposals.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Even listed buildings seem to catch fire when developers are sniffing around.



Brighton's West Pier springs to mind.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Brighton's West Pier springs to mind.




Yep.

The fourth spa at Bath was demolished in a fire, making way for a shopping mall, owned by Oxford University - no less.

There are quite a few examples I think. I'll have a think about it.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2007)

The thing is, that unless you succeed in winning the battle against the capitalist corporations, they are going to build buildngs _somewhere_. So the only argument that's actually bearly in our current power to win is what sort of buildings they build (through lobbying the planning process etc.)

Personally, I'd rather the capitalist pigs built beautiful towers than squat sprawls.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> The thing is, that unless you succeed in winning the battle against the capitalist corporations, they are going to build buildngs _somewhere_. So the only argument that's actually bearly in our current power to win is what sort of buildings they build (through lobbying the planning process etc.)
> 
> Personally, I'd rather the capitalist pigs built beautiful towers than squat sprawls.




I suspect these will get built regardless, so its the issues around them that are interesting to discuss. Plus I'm still curious why Urbanland has been chosen for a _micro board invasion_.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Why would we pull down a beautiful building that has cultural and historical significance. Its your lot that will pull things down all over London and elsewhere for a quick buck, regardless of historical/cultural significance.



Then why the heck should LBT (London Bridge Tower) not be built?? The developers don´t want to build this tower to upset socialists. LBT also represents 21th century London, world class architecture etc...Frankly I haven´t even thought about it representing capitalism. Still (in a way) all the City of London represents capitalism as it is the world´s financial centre. If you don´t like capitalism you are living in the wrong country not to mention the wrong city...


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> LBT also represents 21th century London,



Says someone from Finland...


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> If you don´t like capitalism you are living in the wrong country not to mention the wrong city...



Oh dear.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Oh dear.



Wonders what city is appropriate to live in if you don't like capitalism?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2007)

To be fair, the shard will be replacing a couple of truly hideous concrete buildings.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> To be fair, the shard will be replacing a couple of truly hideous concrete buildings.



I'm certainly not advocating all buildings should be preserved, The Shard building does look quite interesting too. The general points still stand though.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

Tom A said:
			
		

> I am against the new skyscrapers primarly because as kyser says, these are symbols of major capitalist corporations whilch "fulfil little or no positive social role for the local communities they are built in", their sole purpose is for additional profit for the companies that build, rent out, and/or inhabit them.



Well... employment, albeit no more than a low building of the same size I suppose. And _if _they look nice then I guess we can enjoy looking at them - they could be said to enhance our environment in that respect.

Note that this is just a general point rather than an opinion about these particular towers or indeed of siting towers in the middle of London.

I do think the Manhattan skyline looks good and that there are some great buildings in Chicago. My mental jury is out on the various London proposals; I haven't really studied them enough yet.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Wonders what city is appropriate to live in if you don't like capitalism?



Havana? Pyongyang?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2007)

Trick question - you;d live in the countryside


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

Double post deleted


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Says someone from Finland...



Yes. And? Do I have to live in London to say that?? I live in a city too.

I see your points, I´m no all-hail-capitalism guy, I´m far from it. But to take out your hate on truly fantstic skyscrapers is pathetic.

And yes, London is a major global financial centre. Not a place for capitalism haters.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Yes. And? Do I have to live in London to say that?? I live in a city too.



You presume to tell Londoners what is good for them, but you don't actually live here.




			
				The_Martian said:
			
		

> I see your points, I´m no all-hail-capitalism guy, I´m far from it. But to take out your hate on truly fantstic skyscrapers is pathetic.



Hate on skyscrapers?  Whose done that?  Maybe you should read the thread?  It might save you from further embarrasment.




			
				The_Martian said:
			
		

> And yes, London is a major global financial centre. Not a place for capitalism haters.



Oh dear.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Double post deleted




You must like those places if you have trouble with free market brutality? Is it a simple duality?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

OK, let's get a little perspective here:

From Google:

Finland population: 5,231,372 (July 2006 est.)
Finnish GDP: $184.2 Billion 
London population: 7.5mn estimated.
London GDP: £219bn ($435bn at the current £/$ exchange rate)

London on it's own is a larger economic entity than Finland.


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> And yes, London is a major global financial centre. Not a place for capitalism haters.


Actually, it's *just* the place for capitalism haters, if you want to smash the system then no better place to be then where one of its most blackest hearts is beating, just waiting for it to be destroyed!

(raises fist in revolutionary manner)


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

OK, I've remembered why I was quoting those stats...

You say 'I live in a City'...well yes you do, but one that is smaller than the UKs 2 and 3rd cities. Your experience of living in Helsinki is a far cry from the experience of living somewhere with 7 times the population, a far less ethnically homogenous population, a far greater division between rich and poor etc etc and your attempts to compare living in the two is comparing chalk and cheese - London is a city-state and for someone who lives in what many Londoners would regard as a hamlet in terms of population to try and tell Londoners what is an isn't good for them, as a new poster, is a bit fucking silly really.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> You must like those places if you have trouble with free market brutality? Is it a simple duality?



No, but they are fairly capitalism-free!

Not sure if there is somewhere between the extremes. Apparently Canada isn't too bad, and they do things differently in Bhutan...


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> No, but they are fairly capitalism-free!



I'm sure a fairly convincing argument could be made that they are state capitalist.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> OK, let's get a little perspective here:
> 
> From Google:
> 
> ...



Trying to boast are you? Finland´s welfare system is something you Brits could only dream of.




			
				kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You say 'I live in a City'...well yes you do, but one that is smaller than the UKs 2 and 3rd cities.



True. But I still think a city of 1.3 million is big enough. Furthermore Helsinki is superior to Manchester and Birmingham when it comes to architecture. I know enough about London to say that the Shard would fit it well. You people make it sound like this is some very complicated situation when its´not. Building this skyscraper would only result in one thing - a new skyscraper.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm sure a fairly convincing argument could be made that they are state capitalist.



I defer to you on that one


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> No, but they are fairly capitalism-free!
> 
> Not sure if there is somewhere between the extremes. Apparently Canada isn't too bad, and they do things differently in Bhutan...



As Blagsta says they are state capitalist states without a doubt. With elites and inequal distributions of resources etc etc etc and so forth.

There is no such thing as a truly free market economy in the world either. As a result some states redistribute more resources than others. Canada isn't too bad, but the best models in the world are Scandinavian in my view.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

> Finland´s welfare system is something you Brits could only dream of.



We'd have one of those as well if the British were prepared to put up with the same level of taxation as you guys! BTW, if I'd included the Greater London Area (which includes it's commuter belt) as you've done with Helsinki

My point was you're attempting to compare two cities which aren't remotely comparable in terms of their living experience, and you're attempting to tell a bunch of Londoners what is and isn't good for them. You've clearly never been to or lived in London, so how on earth you think you can make recommendations as to what the city does and does not need in terms of it's architecture is beyond me.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Trying to boast are you? Finland´s welfare system is something you Brits could only dream of.
> 
> 
> 
> True. But I still think a city of 1.3 million is big enough. Furthermore Helsinki is superior to Manchester and Birmingham when it comes to architecture. I know enough about London to say that the Shard would fit it well. You people make it sound like this is some very complicated situation when its´not. Building this skyscraper would only result in one thing - a new skyscraper.



1. It's a wee bit easier to administrate your country.
2. Well, I would hope Helsinki wuld have better architecture. It is, after all, a capital city.
3. Clearly you know relatively little, or you would know that the Shard is to be built at what is already one of London's most overloaded transport nodes.
4. Your chance to prove us wrong - your views please on its effect on the wind environment at ground level and on sight lines of St Pauls, etc.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> ... but the best models in the world are Scandinavian in my view.



I would agree but it seems that the wheels may have come off in Sweden in recent years. Certainly it's not so great with regard to youth employment and starting your own business (assuming you don't have a problem with small businesses per se)


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Well.....




			
				The_Martian said:
			
		

> Trying to boast are you? Finland´s welfare system is something you Brits could only dream of.
> 
> *I'd love a Scandinavian model in the UK.*
> 
> ...


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I would agree but it seems that the wheels may have come off in Sweden in recent years. Certainly it's not so great with regard to youth employment and starting your own business (assuming you don't have a problem with small businesses per se)




If we had minimum standards worldwide, we could improve things. Small business is irrelevant - its the major multi-nationals that run the show and set the agenda, with the complicity of state governments.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I would agree but it seems that the wheels may have come off in Sweden in recent years. Certainly it's not so great with regard to youth employment and starting your own business (assuming you don't have a problem with small businesses per se)



...and the previously high levels of homogeneity and tolerance are starting to fray, as they are in Holland, with a centre-right coalition winning the last election IIRC. I heard a few peeps being interviewed, and one dude who voted for the conservative group said something along the lines of 'I'm sick of paying for people to sit on their arses for a year on what amounts to full pay'.

Higher levels of immigration into the Scandinavian countries will also put pressure on the 'Scandinavian model' - pressures that the welfare states of the UK, France etc have had to deal with for 3 or 4 decades now.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

You are probably correct, but I do like the idea of an environment in which you can start your own small business and make something of your ideas.


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2007)

> Furthermore Helsinki is superior to Manchester and Birmingham when it comes to architecture. I know enough about London to say that the Shard would fit it well.



Your arrogance is almost enough in itself to oppose the (fuck)Shard. I also quite like Manchester, as cities go, both culturally and visually. You would probably not know, cause you have probably never been there. I'll hazard a guess that you have never been to the UK, period.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

> Small business is irrelevant



The vast majority of the world's businesses, and most people employed in them, are SMEs so to say they are 'irrelevant' is a bit sweeping!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Tom A said:
			
		

> Your arrogance is almost enough in itself to oppose the (fuck)Shard. I also quite like Manchester, as cities go, both culturally and visually. You would probably not know, cause you have probably never been there. I'll hazard a guess that you have never been to the UK, period.



It's a finnish troll I think - I've attempted to explain the difference between people not liking the economy behind something like the Shard as opposed to being against tall buildings per se, and to point out that a city that's bigger than a country will make it a slightly different proposition, and now it's just resorting to insults.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> The vast majority of the world's businesses, and most people employed in them, are SMEs so to say they are 'irrelevant' is a bit sweeping!



In the UK, it is something like 99% of businesses... although on the other hand it isn't 99% of people.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> You are probably correct, but I do like the idea of an environment in which you can start your own small business and make something of your ideas.




Well, its a very interesting question underneath that. Getting the balance of individual autonomy right, within the framework of the wider community.

I think the history of ideological clashes thus far has been.

Right wing - Individual is all - screw the community
Left Wing - Community is all - screw the individual

How to get beyond that is a very interesting question I think.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> The vast majority of the world's businesses, and most people employed in them, are SMEs so to say they are 'irrelevant' is a bit sweeping!




Its not where power and influence is though. They are not part of the Bilderberg groupings.


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

Gosh, this one has been fun.

I was the first to respond to the OP and mention that it sounded like PR. I didn't say that it _was_ PR - just that the OP had swallowed the developers' arguments and language whole and regurgitated them intact.

So what do we get? Lots of flannel about "world-class architecture", "progress", the "21st century" and all that.

By contrast, anyone and everyone opposed on any grounds whatsoever is a luddite, reactionary conservative - and what's more - a philistine, without the sophisticated grounding in architecture to appreciate a really good building when they see one. Patronising rubbish, of course.

Well, we can take this apart in various ways by asking some pertinent questions:

1. Does the City of London, or any part of London, actually need more office space? From the perspective of property developers and potential tenants, the answer is obvious. How about from other perspectives? Environmental? Social? Conservationist?

2. Even assuming such development were necessary, there are numerous ways of going about it. They all have their own benefits and drawbacks. Even within the broad general approaches, there are better and worse ways of implementing schemes. Rather than accepting the consensus that "signature" new buildings must be as tall as possible, as shiny as possible and as "quirky" as possible, how else could we do it?

We get the wonderful false dichotomy that if you're not in favour of skyscrapers, you're in favour of "sprawling" groundscrapers. This rather supposes, at the very least, that you want to build more, anyway.

Anyone over the age of 20 or with a modicum of historical perspective knows that just as every new generation of teenagers believes that they've invented sex and misbehaviour, so every new generation of corporate architects issues a paen to "progress" and all must follow in their wake towards the decade's latest fashions for fear of being branded "reactionary".

Go and take a look at some architectural journals from the 1950s and 1960s and see the kind of dross that was being hailed as the future. I see no evidence that this isn't what's happening now.

So, far from being "unimaginative" as I'm sure the proponents of supersized archiporn like to characterise everyone else, maybe consider some of the following revolutionary ideas:

1. All your company's staff don't have to be in the same building.
2. Stairs use less energy than lifts.
3. Shallow buildings allow people to work in natural light, rather than expensive, wasteful artificial light.
4. Stairs keep your staff fitter and healthier.
5. A cluster of small, low-rise buildings in a neighbourhood that integrates with other uses (retail, residential, light industrial) creates a better working and living environment than a city of towers punctuated by franchise sandwich shops.
6. It's great to be able to open the window.
7. Clusters of small buildings provide flexible accommodation that skyscrapers can never hope to emulate.
8. Very few people with a choice choose to live in skyscrapers.
9. The pursuit of maximal profit isn't the highest civic virtue.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

All good stuff but I'll pick up on 5 & 8.

5. As long as you don't mean office park-type accommodation, unsustainbaly accessible only by car and not in an urban setting

8. Depends where. Very desirable in the States and - straying outside my knowledge - perhaps HK and Australia to some extent too?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

@ exos:

Hmmm...the Bilderberg group are kinda like the currency speculators really - they're a bogeyman really. Do they exert some form of dominance? Maybe, but anyone who looks at the way the world is today can see that any influence they do have is severely limited by reality, and also if you do subscribe to that kind of power elite idea, they are one of many ideologically and commercially competing groups - do you seriously think that the Russian oligarchs or Chinese and Indian billionaires who don't get invited to Bilderberg don't have similar country clubs? Hell, do you even think that within the West the Bilderbergs are the be all and end all of clubs for the ultra rich?

I'd agree with you that they exert influence - but actual power? I don't think that there is a single entity on earth that can exert actual power for an extended period of time or over any large part of the planet without running up against a wall, and a set of cascading events that take any kind of 'power' they thought they had outside their control - Iraq is a great example of this.


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Well, its a very interesting question underneath that. Getting the balance of individual autonomy right, within the framework of the wider community.
> 
> I think the history of ideological clashes thus far has been.
> 
> ...



It is an interesting question, but I expect that many people on both the right and left would argue with your characterisations of their politics.

From a right-wing perspective, I'd argue against equating the community with the state. I know you didn't explicitly do that, but that's where it's going.

Family values, religion, nationalism, voluntary associations are all collective structures that have broad right-wing support. The theory at least is that one's allegiance to these things is generally voluntary, thus the individual can contribute a sufficient amount to the collective organisations they choose and in return are able to be more free than if they were purely individualist with no networks of mutual support.

The question is one of choice and appropriateness of scale, not just individual vs. collective.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> It is an interesting question, but I expect that many people on both the right and left would argue with your characterisations of their politics.
> 
> From a right-wing perspective, I'd argue against equating the community with the state. I know you didn't explicitly do that, but that's where it's going.
> 
> ...



Clearly I'm simplifying it, just trying to set the basic idea up, but the connection between individual and community is fundamental to politics.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> @ exos:
> 
> Hmmm...the Bilderberg group are kinda like the currency speculators really - they're a bogeyman really. Do they exert some form of dominance? Maybe, but anyone who looks at the way the world is today can see that any influence they do have is severely limited by reality, and also if you do subscribe to that kind of power elite idea, they are one of many ideologically and commercially competing groups - do you seriously think that the Russian oligarchs or Chinese and Indian billionaires who don't get invited to Bilderberg don't have similar country clubs? Hell, do you even think that within the West the Bilderbergs are the be all and end all of clubs for the ultra rich?
> 
> I'd agree with you that they exert influence - but actual power? I don't think that there is a single entity on earth that can exert actual power for an extended period of time or over any large part of the planet without running up against a wall, and a set of cascading events that take any kind of 'power' they thought they had outside their control - Iraq is a great example of this.



I just used Bilderberg as an example, there are loads of groups, probably loads of secret groups. Formal groups too IMF/World Bank etc as well as informal groups. They collectively exert enormous influence. 

I think business interests control governments these days. 

I think Iraq is an unusual situation, so I wouldn't want to draw conclusions from that. Most power is exerted economically and not militarily these days.


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> All good stuff but I'll pick up on 5 & 8.
> 
> 5. As long as you don't mean office park-type accommodation, unsustainbaly accessible only by car and not in an urban setting



Not at all. I'm utterly opposed to zoning. The City has de facto zoning. IIRC, it has only around 5000 residents and is practically dead on weekends.

Integrated neighbourhoods where people at least have the option of walking to work are where it's at for quality of life.

You know, quality for people that have to live and work there. People too often seem to get written out of the picture when buildings are talked about.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> 8. Depends where. Very desirable in the States and - straying outside my knowledge - perhaps HK and Australia to some extent too?



Relatively few people do it. Tall buildings are useless for families, where you want to allow your children to play in the garden and come and go in the neighbourhood without having to specifically take them out or keep an eye on them.

Many of the richest people have a city flat and a country or suburban house for the family. Very nice if you can afford it. Most can't.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Family values, religion, nationalism, voluntary associations are all collective structures that have broad right-wing support.


I would doubt that is true since thatcher was in power (apart from nationalism).


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> I would doubt that is true since thatcher was in power (apart from nationalism).



Thatcherites seem to have a strange blind-spot when it comes to the effects of hypercapitalism and individualism on these other things they hold dear.

You don't need to be a Thatcherite to be ring-wing/conservative, however.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> 1. All your company's staff don't have to be in the same building.
> 2. Stairs use less energy than lifts.
> 3. Shallow buildings allow people to work in natural light, rather than expensive, wasteful artificial light.
> 4. Stairs keep your staff fitter and healthier.
> ...


Being able to open the window is a reason for not building skyscrapers?. Are you for real?


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Being able to open the window is a reason for not building skyscrapers?. Are you for real?



Yes, proving for the comfort, delight and connection to the world outside of a building's occupants is an important part of architecture.

The opening of windows isn't sufficient reason for not building skyscrapers, but these things do matter.

At least, they matter to me. They obviously don't matter to the kind of people that advocate and build skyscrapers.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Thatcherites seem to have a strange blind-spot when it comes to the effects of hypercapitalism and individualism on these other things they hold dear.
> 
> You don't need to be a Thatcherite to be ring-wing/conservative, however.


Nowadays, the two are synonymous.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> The opening of windows isn't sufficient reason for not building skyscrapers.


Ok, how many of your points were actually serious?


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Nowadays, the two are synonymous.



More's the pity. There's a whole world of conservatism that has little interest in or little time for neoliberalism. I'd say that such an idea isn't conservative at all, given that it means destroying long-established social structures such as the family, religion, nation etc. as previously mentioned.


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Ok, how many of your points were actually serious?



The whole lot.

It's possible to design buildings and cities for people, not for magazine covers. You just have to set aside profit maximalisation and spurious notions of "prestige".


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> More's the pity. There's a whole world of conservatism that has little interest in or little time for neoliberalism. I'd say that such an idea isn't conservative at all, given that it means destroying long-established social structures such as the family, religion, nation etc. as previously mentioned.




Are you one of those _High-Torys?_


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Are you one of those _High-Torys?_



I have very little interest in the Conservative Party other than alternately being amused by its contortions and longing for its demise.

I regard myself as small-c conservative. "Traditionalist" is generally a better and less loaded label.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Just getting a hang here...you're a fan of Burke rather than the post-70s monetarist forms of 'conservatism' (which I agree are nothing of the sort)


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Yes, proving for the comfort, delight and connection to the world outside of a building's occupants is an important part of architecture.
> 
> The opening of windows isn't sufficient reason for not building skyscrapers, but these things do matter.
> 
> At least, they matter to me. They obviously don't matter to the kind of people that advocate and build skyscrapers.



You can have opening windows in a skyscraper. In certain N American cities opening windows are the norm. Openable windows has more to do with the  building environmental strategy.

As for the debate on desirability of high rises, there is many a luxury high rise in the US. Obviously they do not appeal to people with kids, but then nor do flats in general. In England we are quite fixated on houses, though - in Scotland and on the continent many families live in flats. Personally I prefer houses but there are cultural aspects to take into account.


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Just getting a hang here...you're a fan of Burke rather than the post-70s monetarist forms of 'conservatism' (which I agree are nothing of the sort)



Something like that. Money is necessary, business is good. Worshipping money is wrong, enslaving oneself to business is deadly.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

Change should happen slowly and gradually and the value of ancient institutions should be properly evaluated before doing away with them?


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> You can have opening windows in a skyscraper. In certain N American cities opening windows are the norm. Openable windows has more to do with the  building environmental strategy.
> 
> As for the debate on desirability of high rises, there is many a luxury high rise in the US. Obviously they do not appeal to people with kids, but then nor do flats in general. In England we are quite fixated on houses, though - in Scotland and on the continent many families live in flats. Personally I prefer houses but there are cultural aspects to take into account.



I love flats, just not in tall buildings. I'd be more than happy to see higher-density urban living with probably around a 4/5 storey limit for most buildings. Flats are Ok for families but preferably on or near the ground, not on the fifteenth floor.

Yes, some skyscrapers allow you to open the windows. That's a good thing, where possible. They're still generally a bad idea.


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Change should happen slowly and gradually and the value of ancient institutions should be properly evaluated before doing away with them?



Any institution that has survived long enough to be classed as "ancient" both neither needs to be done away with and also most likely contains sufficient imagination to adapt to changing times without drastic change and/or external interference.

Things that are stuck in the past tend to stay in the past. If they survived long enough to be of any significance, you can read about their follies and demise in history books.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I love flats, just not in tall buildings. I'd be more than happy to see higher-density urban living with probably around a 4/5 storey limit for most buildings. Flats are Ok for families but preferably on or near the ground, not on the fifteenth floor.
> 
> Yes, some skyscrapers allow you to open the windows. That's a good thing, where possible. They're still generally a bad idea.



Not sure. I lived in one and the view was great. Plus dropping bottles down the rubbish chute was quite exciting.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 23, 2007)

OMG its like suddenly discovering a living Dodo


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 23, 2007)

> Any institution that has survived long enough to be classed as "ancient" both neither needs to be done away with and also most likely contains sufficient imagination to adapt to changing times without drastic change and/or external interference.



The House of Lords. Qualifies as ancient, needs fundamental reform.



> OMG its like suddenly discovering a living Dodo



You mean finding a 'Reflections...' tory? Probably more akin to finding a ceolocanth (ancient fish) or something previously thought extinct...


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> The House of Lords. Qualifies as ancient, needs fundamental reform.



Bring back the hereditaries, let the life peers die out.

No need to worry about democratic legitimacy (there isn't any), cash for coronets or any of that nonsense. It wasn't perfect, but it worked.

New appointments to the peerage would need to be extremely rare and very well scrutinised.

Keep the focus on the primacy of the Commons, quite rightly.

The current mess is the worst possible solution and I for one will be tickled pink should Blair come a cropper over his dodgy peerages. Serves him right for such a gratuitous act of constitutional vandalism.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

This is unbeliveable! After all personal attacks I and other architecture enthusiasts have had to put up with I´m concidered a troll when I attempt to defend myself.

I do know that the LBT is going to be built on a major trasport hub, so?

There is nothing negative about this skyscraper. And it isn´t anywhere near St Paul´s.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> After all personal attacks I and other architecture enthusiasts



Which personal attacks are they?


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> There is nothing negative about this skyscraper.



So, not one single criticism that you consider might at least be plausible?

It's not detrimental in any way to anyone in any sense?

Surely you can do better than that.

Criticise it. Point out its flaws. Talk about the compromises and problems it causes that are worth it for its benefits, if you like.

But please - try to think critically.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Being able to open the window is a reason for not building skyscrapers?. Are you for real?



It's a factor, yeah, it usually means incorporating extensive mechanical ventilation, which is costly both environmentally and financially.

To be fair to The Martian Finland does have quite good architectural pedigree, even if most of it is by Alvar Aalto. These are mainly low buildings though, not skyscrapers.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Any institution that has survived long enough to be classed as "ancient" both neither needs to be done away with and also most likely contains sufficient imagination to adapt to changing times without drastic change and/or external interference.


That's a big and unsupported assumption, I'm afraid. Because it survived long enough is not an argument at all, things have to be evaluated according to their merits - or you never get progress.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Go and take a look at some architectural journals from the 1950s and 1960s and see the kind of dross that was being hailed as the future. I see no evidence that this isn't what's happening now.



Sorry but that's a load of crap, many of todays most iconic buildings were designed in the earlier half of the century. Corbusier, Frank Lloyd-Wright, Aalto, Scahroun, Scarpa, Mies, Louis Kahn (to name a few) were all practising then. There's very little work _in England_ of note but that's because, as I mentioned earlier, our planning departments are often either very conservative or very corporate.


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> That's a big and unsupported assumption, I'm afraid. Because it survived long enough is not an argument at all, things have to be evaluated according to their merits - or you never get progress.



If you read a bit more carefully, I'm not saying "if it's old it must be good".

I'm saying, "If it's old, it's likely be flexible".

Everything does indeed have to be evaluated according to its merits. However, building on past experience rather than betting everything on starting from near-scratch is a better way to progress, IMO.

The most ardent advocates of progress tend to make the mistake that if it's new, it must be good. Uncritical neophilia is just as bad as nostalgia. Probably worse, because it tends to mean destroying things.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> This is unbeliveable! After all personal attacks I and other architecture enthusiasts have had to put up with I´m concidered a troll when I attempt to defend myself.
> 
> I do know that the LBT is going to be built on a major trasport hub, so?
> 
> There is nothing negative about this skyscraper. And it isn´t anywhere near St Paul´s.



You are missing the point. How many people does this tower hold? They will all need to travel there, no? The transport hub on which this is situated is already straining at the seams, operating at the very limits of capacity and beyond. Often it is impossible to get into the Tube station; it gets so overcrowded they need to close it. How is this infrastructure supposed to support another ??,000 people trying to use it?

As for nowhere near St Pauls... you are just digging yourself into a hole. Go bone up on Strategic Views before you come back. You are just embarassing yourself with your lack of knowledge, which you are touchingly and naively keen to share.

To make it easier for you, here's a starting point for you to go and do your homework.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/docs/spg-views-hires/02_parliament_hill.pdf


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> If you read a bit more carefully, I'm not saying "if it's old it must be good".
> 
> I'm saying, "If it's old, it's likely be flexible".


But that's a meaningless assumption, if it's new it could just as easily be flexible.


> Everything does indeed have to be evaluated according to its merits. However, building on past experience rather than betting everything on starting from near-scratch is a better way to progress, IMO.


So if something is old it must be good...


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Sorry but that's a load of crap, many of todays most iconic buildings were designed in the earlier half of the century. Corbusier, Frank Lloyd-Wright, Aalto, Scahroun, Scarpa, Mies, Louis Kahn (to name a few) were all practising then. There's very little work _in England_ of note but that's because, as I mentioned earlier, our planning departments are often either very conservative or very corporate.



I'm sure we could agree on which buildings are iconic but we wouldn't necessarily agree on which ones are good.

Planning departments in Britain were hardly conservative in the 20th Century, being quite happy to approve all kinds of monstrous new developments that were often lousy interpretations of many of the architects you mentioned. Those are the ones that are now regarded as eyesores and many are in such a poor state of repair that they're either literally falling down or of so little economic value and so unloved that no-one objects to their demolition.

Take Corbu's Unite d'Habitation, for example:







Yes, it's "iconic", significant and hugely influential.

However, it's also complete junk and it's only still standing because of its "significance", not because of its intrinsic value.

So too shall the current fashions pass.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> If you read a bit more carefully, I'm not saying "if it's old it must be good".
> 
> I'm saying, "If it's old, it's likely be flexible".
> 
> ...



Fairly ridiculous assumption tbh, engineering has advanced in huge ways since the advent of computers. We have thermal models, structural models, ways of modelling light and ventilation, the travel of fire through a building etc. Older building techniques for larger buildings are increasingly outdated as requirements for U-values, energy consumption etc become more strict. On the other hand it's important to keep perspective - the houses of Parliament actually had a decent passive ventillation system (the elaborate tower kinda in the middle is actually for ventilation) but when it was rennovated these were blocked and replaced with air conditioning units. 

Basically what I'm trying to say is that contemporary architecture isn't starting from scratch, it's applying new technologies and understandings to principles that have been built up over the centuries. If it's old, it's likely to be _inflexible_, it won't have adequate insulation, the light requirements won't be there, there'll be little or no provision for wiring, plant and modern venitalltion systems. It is still possible to adapt old buildings though, or you can just take a deconstructivist approach and build through/on them... 






Btw half the reason the Gherkin works is that it's not actually that tall (180m). This made it easier to incorporate passive ventilation measures, services etc. The higher you get, the harder it is to work these things in without significantly increasing the cost (environmental and financial).


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 23, 2007)

I haven't read all the thread because it wandered off into the dismantling of capitalism in the UK somewhere in the middle, but I really don't like those towers except maybe the Bishopsgate Tower - and the picture shown for this was a distance view so I can't say for certain on that.

The pointy ones were awful.

I've seen a few twisting skyscrapers that have been built in other cities which are far more striking and elegant that these.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> You are missing the point. How many people does this tower hold? They will all need to travel there, no? The transport hub on which this is situated is already straining at the seams, operating at the very limits of capacity and beyond. Often it is impossible to get into the Tube station; it gets so overcrowded they need to close it. How is this infrastructure supposed to support another ??,000 people trying to use it?
> 
> As for nowhere near St Pauls... you are just digging yourself into a hole. Go bone up on Strategic Views before you come back. You are just embarassing yourself with your lack of knowledge, which you are touchingly and naively keen to share.
> 
> ...




Parliament Hill! OMG! Viewed from British Museum or Centre Point Tower Bridge might actually be blocked by St Paul´s Cathedral. This kind of thinking makes sure no more landmarks stand even the slightest chance of getting built. Good luck with the future boring bulky pedestrian unfriendly low/mid-rise London!

If you would care to do even some little research you would know that the construction of LBT involves major improvments to London Bridge Station.

I can´t really see any faults with this development although you esperately are trying to find some. You are so ridiculously consevative that´s it! It´s year 2007 for God´s sake, not 1907!


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> I'm sure we could agree on which buildings are iconic but we wouldn't necessarily agree on which ones are good.
> 
> Planning departments in Britain were hardly conservative in the 20th Century, being quite happy to approve all kinds of monstrous new developments that were often lousy interpretations of many of the architects you mentioned. Those are the ones that are now regarded as eyesores and many are in such a poor state of repair that they're either literally falling down or of so little economic value and so unloved that no-one objects to their demolition.
> 
> ...



Oh I'm not saying Corbu was infallible by any means, he was an arse too... But he did produce some great buildings which will remain both iconic and great for a very long time. Enduring icons I suppose you could say. Notre Dame de Ronchamps is a good example. Think about Mies too, his Barcelona pavillion was meant to last a couple of years (and the original did), but its become an enduring icon because it's great. 

Corbu's Unite d'Habitation I think will be percieved as a failed experiment, much as brutalism is in England. It shows the inherent problems with designing cheap residential buildings. You can't make a structure long lasting and low maintenance on that kind of budget. And the estates were never _meant_ to last, that was one of their failings because they didn't recognise that no government is going to take the responsibility for rehousing hundreds of thousands of people when the estates were getting old. In an ideal society such a project would be well maintained and staffed with community projects etc around it. Of course instead they weant through the Thatcherite years where basically all the staff were removed, maintenance rarely occured etc.

A lot of people think estates failed because of the architects (ok, so quite a few of the cheap built ones did, but that's another story) but really rehousing on that scale failed because no-one commited to it in the long term. There are actually some great social housing projects out there, had a lot of potential but became unmitigated disasters when they were just left to rot. Sink estate philiosophy didn't help either.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Parliament Hill! OMG! Viewed from British Museum or Centre Point Tower Bridge might actually be blocked by St Paul´s Cathedral. This kind of thinking makes sure no more landmarks stand even the slightest chance of getting built. Good luck with the future boring bulky pedestrian unfriendly low/mid-rise London!
> 
> If you would care to do even some little research you would know that the construction of LBT involves major improvments to London Bridge Station.
> 
> I can´t really see any faults with this development although you esperately are trying to find some. You are so ridiculously consevative that´s it! It´s year 2007 for God´s sake, not 1907!



The view from Parliament hill is one of London's 'icons', the view from centrepoint (which is closed to the public without appointment) and the British Museum (which doesn't actually have any views) are not. In many ways the Parliament hill view is _the_ view, coupled with the view along the river. Parliament hill is very much a Londoner's icon, everyone remembers going up their as a kid and looking out over the city, it represents another side of London which is far more appealing than the corporate image of city views.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

^^ Nevertheless LBT is on the South Bank and will only add to the London skyline.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> ^^ Nevertheless LBT is on the South Bank and will only add to the London skyline.



Meh, the shard is probably the best of the lot and I quite like it. The south bank is a more credible place for development than the city anyway.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> If you would care to do even some little research you would know that the construction of LBT involves major improvments to London Bridge Station.



Go fuck yourself, you cheeky c*nt - I'm not going to show my hand here but I know more than you could ever possibly hope to about the project - which knowledge, as you have shown, would currently fit on the back of a postcard.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

^^@Blagsta "Which personal attacks are they?"

Never before stumbled over such an unfriendly forum...


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Go fuck yourself, you cheeky c*nt - I'm not going to show my hand here but I know more than you could ever possibly hope to about the project - which knowledge, as you have shown, would currently fit on the back of a postcard.



Well, you haven´t gotten very far have you? You still find it to be a piece of shit.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

I think monkeynuts is trying to point out to you that only the most narrow-minded of people will simply endorse something as having 'no problems'. There are arguments for and against skyscrapers in any location and all have to be taken into account by councils, developers and architects. I can tell you with absolute certainty that no-one involved with the project will ever have considered it 'infallible'.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Well, you haven´t gotten very far have you? You still find it to be a piece of shit.



I haven't declared an opinion on it either way. What I have done is repeatedly tried to discuss with you that there are some practical problems in siting a large tower here, to which your response has - unbelievably - been to suggest I "do a little research"... so that I come round to your view that "there is nothing negative about this skyscraper".

If there have been any more personal attacks on you - I haven't seen any yet - it is because they think you are a dick too.

Now stop dismissing the opinions of others and insisting you know best somehow - in fact, why don't you just fuck off back to http://iwankaboutbigphallicshapedtowers.com


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

^^ True (refering to Cid´s post). But the reason why this tower is having problems going ahead is not ecause economic, technical etc problems but because people are afraid to change. Ruth Kelly and UNESCO are trying to make London into a stagnating city crowded with bulky glass boxes. Was this happening in Helsinki I would do everything in my power to fight back.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> ^^ True (refering to Cid´s post). But the reason why this tower is having problems going ahead is not ecause economic, technical etc problems but because people are afraid to change. Ruth Kelly and UNESCO are trying to make London into a stagnating city crowded with bulky glass boxes. Was this happening in Helsinki I would do everything in my power to fight back.



The expert speaks again..._it's got planning permission_


----------



## Crispy (Jan 23, 2007)

There is a delay with the Shard, because the current tennants of the buildings on site decided to see out their tennancies, rather than move out, so that's another few years I think.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Parliament Hill! OMG!



Have you ever been up Parliament Hill?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> ^^@Blagsta "Which personal attacks are they?"
> 
> Never before stumbled over such an unfriendly forum...



That appears to be the first on the thread...in response to you writing utter shit.


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Have you ever been up Parliament Hill?



You don't understand. It's not a big shiny building, therefore it has no value.

Remember:

Uncritical skyscraper fanboys = "architecture enthusiasts"
Anyone with even the slightest reservations or cognizance of the wider context = "reactionary luddites".

Do not oppose these people. They are building the future whether you like it or not.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> The expert speaks again..._it's got planning permission_



I know bloody well it´s got planning permission!




			
				untethered said:
			
		

> You don't understand. It's not a big shiny building, therefore it has no value.



What utter nonsense. I love old architecture parks etc above all but they don´t build things like that anymore.


----------



## untethered (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> I love old architecture parks etc above all but they don´t build things like that anymore.



You're not paying enough attention.

Most contemporary architecture is in one sense or another, traditional.

It's only big public/corporate buildings in the main that have this mania for verticality and "progressive" aesthetics.

The drivers of skyscraperism are land speculation, corporate snobbery and architectural egocentrism.

Most other people are happy to commission, live/work in and design things much closer to the ground. They are fitted to the needs of the people that inhabit them rather than the needs of the landlowner and architect.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 23, 2007)

One thing I would very much like to know: What kind of architecture do you think they should build in London in the future?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> I know bloody well it´s got planning permission!



So why, then, did you attribute 




			
				The_Martian said:
			
		

> The reason why this tower is having problems going ahead



not to 




			
				The_Martian said:
			
		

> economic, technical etc problems



but




			
				The_Martian said:
			
		

> ...because people are afraid to change. Ruth Kelly and UNESCO are trying to make London into a stagnating city crowded with bulky glass boxes.



.. if you knew that? Eh? Why do you insinuate it is because of "reactionary" or "backward" tendencies when, in fact, permission has been granted and what is holding it back it is nothing external to the project but, in fact, *wrangling between the various unsavoury parties involved and the failure of the tenants to vacate the building*?

Because you are a tool.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> One thing I would very much like to know: What kind of architecture do you think they should build in London in the future?



Hadid, Coop Himmelblau, Eisenman, Libeskind, Tado Ando, Toyo Ito maybe Tschumi. I'd like to see CJ Lim and/or Peter Cook doing something here, but that would be silly. Other than that there are plenty of good small practices that I'd like to see more of. 

I'd like to see conversion, rennovation or demolition of empty office blocks plus conversion of warehouses and empty space in the south. It would be good if rampant financial growth in the city was curtailed and moved out to bring investment to our 2nd/3rd cities and the north in general. Development of new housing and cultural centres in Southwark/borough etc would be great, would also like more development of the east.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

Intelligence returns...


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> There is a delay with the Shard, *because the current tennants of the buildings on site decided to see out their tennancies, rather than move out*, so that's another few years I think.


Hmm... they means when they move out, these building can be squatted en masse, provding a home and community network for many of London's underclass. The huge skyscraper project won't seem so benign if it means kicking people onto the streets now, would it? 

E2A: Give me a bit of good old fashioned 60s brutalism over some of the shite stuff currently being built in the country anyday.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> Hadid, Coop Himmelblau, Eisenman, Libeskind, Tado Ando, Toyo Ito maybe Tschumi. I'd like to see CJ Lim and/or Peter Cook doing something here, but that would be silly. Other than that there are plenty of good small practices that I'd like to see more of.
> 
> I'd like to see conversion, rennovation or demolition of empty office blocks plus conversion of warehouses and empty space in the south. It would be good if rampant financial growth in the city was curtailed and moved out to bring investment to our 2nd/3rd cities and the north in general. Development of new housing and cultural centres in Southwark/borough etc would be great, would also like more development of the east.




Nice post Cid

How about some Hundertwasser


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> How about some Hundertwasser


Ooh that looks nice. Where is it?


----------



## exosculate (Jan 23, 2007)

Tom A said:
			
		

> Ooh that looks nice. Where is it?




That ones in Vienna. Theres a bit of it on the continent, but nothing here as far as I am aware. It combines nature with art with architecture. Nice I think.


----------



## Cid (Jan 23, 2007)

Bit too unashamedly post modern, but good in small doses where it's appreciated. Vienna has some nice little bits of architecture dotted around.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 23, 2007)

That's interesting. I've never been and have little knowledge of the place. Recently someone was telling me it was even more of a museum piece than Paris  but the building above is certainly interesting.

I quite like a spot of Moneo...













But for colour schemes, Tirana is your place:


----------



## Tom A (Jan 23, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

>


That looks a bit like some of the newbuild I have seen in Manchester, particuarly between Hulme and Oxford Road.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Jan 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I rather like 'em myself.



[bombs the Prince AlBert].


----------



## Crispy (Jan 24, 2007)

looks like a Mondrian with windows


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 24, 2007)

There are estates in Battersea that have been painted 'cheery' colours to break up the fact they are monsters...


----------



## dash (Jan 24, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> There are estates in Battersea that have been painted 'cheery' colours to break up the fact they are monsters...



I've seen them. The bright colours lend them a rather remedial look, presumably this was not the intention.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 24, 2007)

That building in Tirana looks 10X worse than any of the proposed skyscrapers for the city.

Those others looks quite nice but as I already said, that kind of architecture belongs to the past (NOT MY OPINION) and the day London gets anything that is even close to Hundertwasser is the day they build 500m skyscrapers in  Helsinki.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 24, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Those others looks quite nice but as I already said, that kind of architecture belongs to the past (NOT MY OPINION)




If its not your opinion, why post it?


----------



## PacificOcean (Jan 24, 2007)

Eww. Eww. Ewwwwwwww NO! to those multi-coloured buildings.

They look awful.


----------



## tim (Jan 24, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> What utter nonsense. I love old architecture parks etc above all but they don´t build things like that anymore.





Build parks?

And anyway, "they" do still build things "like that" as is seen in all those neo-Georgian and neo-Victorian Barrat homes, or in  Terry Quinlan's neo-neo-classical Rchmond Riverside office block from the late 80's. Or in that half and half Paternoster Square mish-mash. Big and with shiny glass and silly shapes, or big with dinky Georgian sash windows and Ionian pillars, it's all a matter of developer taste.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 24, 2007)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> Eww. Eww. Ewwwwwwww NO! to those multi-coloured buildings.
> 
> They look awful.



Well, Tirana is... interesting - wouldn't necessarily recommend the same thing in London


----------



## PacificOcean (Jan 24, 2007)

It looks like the aftermath from the Sony Bravia ad.


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 24, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> If its not your opinion, why post it?



Because that´s what people generally think.

And overall old school stone buildings aren´t built anymore, it´s shame really. Paternoster Square looks quite nice.

Why London did not rebuild the East End after WW2 (like they did in Poland, Germany etc..) instead of tearing it down is beyond me. Also 1/3 of the City was destroyed and 80% damaged. There are plenty of ugly 60s blocks to replace. I think 4 new skyscrapers are very welcome, they will be replacing post-war crap not Victorian building plus they enhance the streets greatly (new squares, passages, trees etc).


----------



## exosculate (Jan 24, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> And overall old school stone buildings aren´t built anymore, it´s shame really. Paternoster Square looks quite nice.
> 
> Why London did not rebuild the East End after WW2 (like they did in Poland, Germany etc..) instead of tearing it down is beyond me. Also 1/3 of the City was destroyed and 80% damaged.



Wow I agree with the Martian.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 24, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Why London did not rebuild the East End after WW2 (like they did in Poland, Germany etc..) instead of tearing it down is beyond me.



It's a bit more complicated than that.

You have the relative merits of Lend Lease vs the Marshall Plan, population growth, the standard of existing housing stock and the political imperative to provide decent housing, contemporary attitudes...

I agree with the sentiment though, it is always a bit disconcerting to be in Stepney or wherever and come across a jewel of a Georgian or early Victorian terrace in the midst of decaying 1960s shit.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 24, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I agree with the sentiment though, it is always a bit disconcerting to be in Stepney or wherever and come across a jewel of a Georgian or early Victorian terrace in the midst of decaying 1960s shit.



Indeed they could have saved much more.

I have a book somewhere that makes clear that more old buildings were lost post war than during WW2. Just after the war a house with only 3 roof tiles missing could be classed as bomb damaged and could be demolished on that basis. Its a horrible history. They could have saved much more.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jan 25, 2007)

I'd just like to point out that 'skyscrapers' are not necessarily synonymous with 'office blocks' and being against those boring and unsustainable new City developments does not make one a luddite.

The Barbican, Trellick Tower and Balfron Tower are amazing skyscrapers builts as social or quasi social housing.

The new Paternoster Square, meanwhile, is a low-rise mixed-metaphor Barret developer naff-hole.

So why the obsession with plugging commercial office blocks??


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Jan 25, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> There is a delay with the Shard, because the current tennants of the buildings on site decided to see out their tennancies, rather than move out, so that's another few years I think.



what I keep reading in the Southwark News is that they swear it is "about to start", "problems to iron out", etc. so it is definitely a few years, if at all.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Jan 25, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Bring 'em on is what I say - while I can see why a body like UNESCO would be interested in preserving the heritage setting of the ToL (IIRC it's a WHS) but I think they are wrong here.



what is being planned next to Tower Bridge is not a massive skyscraper but 8 residential towers, the highest being 18 storey, 386 privately owned flats, some being officially "affordable", and 11000 Sq meter of "public and cultural space", whatever that means. or at least that was the original plans. there is a big battle betwee the council and the local MP on one side and ken livingstone and john prescott who approved of the plans on the other side. but berkeley homes only one some of the land so they can't build it all as it stands. the full story is in today's Southwark news (8 january).







they're the towers to the left of the image


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 25, 2007)

I Hate the Potters Fields towers. I hope they don´t get built.

Also I don´t get it how Trellick Tower and Barbican are "Amazing" and the Shard is not?!?!? You guys only look at what they represent.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 25, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> I Hate the Potters Fields towers. I hope they don´t get built.
> 
> Also I don´t get it how Trellick Tower and Barbican are "Amazing" and the Shard is not?!?!? You guys only look at what they represent.


Careful with the 'you guys' there. There's a wider range of opinion on here than you think.

Besides, what things represent is important, no? In some cases more important than the thing itself.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2007)

> Also I don´t get it how Trellick Tower and Barbican are "Amazing" and the Shard is not?!?!?



You will find that opinion on both those buildings is extremely divided, and both have only really become popular in recent years - Trellick with affluent West Londoners who bought the council places for the views (an almost identical tower in Bow that's still inhabited by council tenants is despised), and opinion on the Barbican by people who haven't been in and seen the inside of the flats (externally it's awful, and a complete warren to walk around and get lost in) is generally negative as well.

And if you'd bothered reading people's posts, quite a few here like the Shard - just not in your credulously uncritical fashion that because it's tall and new it's therefore great.

But then coming from a country that spends half it's time in the dark and from a capital city that's smaller than Manchester and Birmingham it's not surpising really...


----------



## lighterthief (Jan 25, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Why London did not rebuild the East End after WW2 (like they did in Poland, Germany etc..) instead of tearing it down is beyond me.


A lot of the housing in the east end of London was pretty shocking though - small, overcrowded, outdoor toilets etc.  I think that's the main reason given for tearing it down.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 25, 2007)

> Why London did not rebuild the East End after WW2 (like they did in Poland, Germany etc..) instead of tearing it down is beyond me.



Well there are PLENTY of history books on post-war planning and re-building in London, so maybe you should start there so that the thinking wouldn't be so 'beyond' you?


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 25, 2007)

lighterthief said:
			
		

> A lot of the housing in the east end of London was pretty shocking though - small, overcrowded, outdoor toilets etc.  I think that's the main reason given for tearing it down.



Indeed, but today that all would have disappeared anyway.




			
				kyser_soze said:
			
		

> But then coming from a country that spends half it's time in the dark and from a capital city that's smaller than Manchester and Birmingham it's not surpising really...



Way to go! You really have some issues man.

And stop comparing Finland with Britain. Your country spends half it´s time under showers of rain and the other half in overcast so I think we´re pretty even.





			
				kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Well there are PLENTY of history books on post-war planning and re-building in London, so maybe you should start there so that the thinking wouldn't be so 'beyond' you?



Ok. What was rebuilt after the war?


And btw. I don´t like the Shard because it´s modern and tall. I like it because it´s beatiful.


----------



## Tom A (Jan 25, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> And btw. I don´t like the Shard because it´s modern and tall. I like it because it´s beatiful(sic).


That is a matter of personal opinion. I don't consider phallic monuments to rabid capitalism to be "beautiful".


----------



## The_Martian (Jan 25, 2007)

Just cut the capitalism bullshit! Capitalsim has it faults yes but to see it in everything is ridiculous! Paranoia anyone?


----------



## Tom A (Jan 25, 2007)

Well what do you think is going to be in this building? Farmers? Also your architect cronies are due to be making a pretty penny if this goes ahead, aren't they now?

The_Martian... apt name, considering your ill-informed comments up to now.


----------



## untethered (Jan 25, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Just cut the capitalism bullshit! Capitalsim has it faults yes but to see it in everything is ridiculous! Paranoia anyone?



Property development is a business, not a charity.

Business isn't inherently wrong, but business devoid of all other restraining social and moral values is.

Much modern development falls into that category.


----------



## jd (Jan 25, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Property development is a business, not a charity.
> 
> Business isn't inherently wrong, but business devoid of all other restraining social and moral values is.
> 
> Much modern development falls into that category.



The love of money is indeed the root of all evil?  

See you in church brother!


----------



## BenL (Jan 25, 2007)

This is my first post here. To get a hurdle out of the way, I am a regular member of Skyscrapercity and the discussion on London high rises proved to be the catalyst for my joining here - although I've been a lurker here for a while. I'm a member there because it is probably the best website to find out about the developments taking place in London at the moment - architecturally and otherwise - and if anyone could care to look you can see there is a genuine love for this city amongst many of the London members, (sometimes bordering on nationalist obsession) and topics on London's urbanity very far afield from height are discussed.

But, I digress. I'm not here as a missionary - I was just interested in rationally discussing the benefits of the specific buildings which would be left unbuilt if UNESCO have their way, as they have already done in several cities, blackmailing cities into stopping prominent modern architecture in historically significant areas.

As a social democrat, I have no great love for the City and certainly will not attempt to argue because of the benefit these towers will provide for London's financial sector. Aesthetically, the Shard and the Bishopsgate tower are arguably the finest buildings of significant height (along with the Gherkin) which could be built in this first decade of the twenty-first century in Europe. 

Although I cannot speak for the other threatened proposal, 20 Fenchurch Street, which is quite revolting, these two towers are designed to taper off - along with other design considerations this will stop the wind tunnels common in more traditionally designed towers and they will not dominate the landscape in the oppressive way some of the Canary Wharf towers. 

The architects are world class - with Pompidou Centre designer Renzo Piano envisioning the Shard to be his epitaph to the world. To my mind, and I recognise this has been stated before; London should not remain architecturally stagnant. As a city, we have built some truly outstanding landmarks, with St. Paul's and the Palace of Westminster amongst the most prominent but it is wrong for a city to be so complacent as to rest on its laurels and the Gherkin and particularly the London Eye are becoming considered in the same postcard view of London. I do believe that the Shard would be too.

I am not a religious person but I can accept St. Paul's as a beautiful building. I understand, and respect socialists on this board who may be unable to accept these towers, regardless of aesthetic quality, purely because of where the money comes from. If we can accept that it will be mainly private businesses (although TFL will place its headquarters in the Shard) will occupy these buildings then we can come to discuss their individual merits. The Shard will not be a fully closed off building: It will have two public viewing galleries and was closely linked with the redevelopment and restructuring of London Bridge station. 

Britain has had bad experiences with high rise buildings. The urban planners of the 60s destroyed working class community life across the country with identikit, soulless towers with few amenities and incorporated into awful city models.

There is a difference, in that these are commercial towers, but it is wrong to consider high rise architecture to be "all the same", as a result of the mistakes of the previous generation's follies. Such prominent towers must be judged on an individual basis and should not interfere with Livingstone's designated viewing corridors. 

I do believe that if they are built, the Shard and the Bishopsgate tower will be appreciated by Londoners for time to come and can serve as modern symbols for the city.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Just cut the capitalism bullshit! Capitalsim has it faults yes but to see it in everything is ridiculous! Paranoia anyone?



How is it *not* in everything?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2007)

BenL said:
			
		

> I understand, and respect socialists on this board who may be unable to accept these towers, regardless of aesthetic quality, purely because of where the money comes from.



That's rather a charicature of the positions stated on this thread.


----------



## BenL (Jan 25, 2007)

It's hardly a caricature. Whilst reading topics on this board I've noticed the political slant is to the left, with many anti-capitalist members. Of course I can see that not everyone is a socialist which is why I stated that there may be some socialists who for political reasons object to these skyscrapers. 

I'd be interested if you have any points on what was a lengthy post other than sniping at one sentence?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2007)

BenL said:
			
		

> It's hardly a caricature



Well, yes it is.  There is a variety of views from a variety of people with various socialist views.  To charicature them all as being against the buildings because of "where the money comes from" is rather dishonest.  Its not my position for a start.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 25, 2007)

BenL said:
			
		

> and the discussion on London high rises proved to be the catalyst for my joining here - although I've been a lurker here for a while.




Hi BenL - how long have you been a lurker here?


----------



## BenL (Jan 25, 2007)

Not a huge length of time if I'm honest. Perhaps 4-6 weeks?

I would believe that most on the "far left", for want of a better term, would be against buildings financed by insurance companies and banks, on ideological rather than aesthetic grounds. I do take offence at being labelled dishonest Blagsta. Presuming from your statement that you are a socialist, what is your position?


----------



## exosculate (Jan 25, 2007)

BenL said:
			
		

> Not a huge length of time if I'm honest. Perhaps 4-6 weeks?




I only ask because it isn't possible to lurk on these boards without registering, and you only registered yesterday.


----------



## Dhimmi (Jan 25, 2007)

Careful! BenL takes offence at being labelled dishonest.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2007)

BenL said:
			
		

> Not a huge length of time if I'm honest. Perhaps 4-6 weeks?
> 
> I would believe that most on the "far left", for want of a better term, would be against buildings financed by insurance companies and banks, on ideological rather than aesthetic grounds. I do take offence at being labelled dishonest Blagsta. Presuming from your statement that you are a socialist, what is your position?



Maybe if you read the thread you would find out eh?


----------



## BenL (Jan 25, 2007)

Then I'm confused as I was able to read topics without being registered. I read the entire thread Blagsta but with the ignorant, highly nationalistic Axispaw posting diatribes any serious points you had to make were rather lost on me.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2007)

You can indeed read without being logged in.  I just tried it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 25, 2007)

Anyway, my position is that I'm undecided about whether I like these proposed developments or not.  I love the gherkin.  My main argument on this thread was taking issue with people arguing that things had to be built "for the good of the city".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> One thing I would very much like to know: What kind of architecture do you think they should build in London in the future?



That would depend on the function the architecture is to perform, so simply stating a preference for a particular style of building design would be arbitrary and foolish.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2007)

The_Martian said:
			
		

> Because that´s what people generally think.
> 
> And overall old school stone buildings aren´t built anymore, it´s shame really. Paternoster Square looks quite nice.
> 
> Why London did not rebuild the East End after WW2 (like they did in Poland, Germany etc..) instead of tearing it down is beyond me. Also 1/3 of the City was destroyed and 80% damaged. There are plenty of ugly 60s blocks to replace. I think 4 new skyscrapers are very welcome, they will be replacing post-war crap not Victorian building plus they enhance the streets greatly (new squares, passages, trees etc).



Given that the east end of London suffered some of the heaviest bombing, and also (according to extant London County Council archives) still has a heavy tonnage of unexploded Luftwaffe ordnance at depths that make it uneconomic to render safe, it was more convenient to tear down or leave derelict than it was to develop.


----------



## Cid (Jan 27, 2007)

In berlin at the moment, today we... Ahem <waits for cybertect to turn up> Got shown around the Berlin Philharmonie by Scharoun's partner (amazing guy) then saw the philharmonike playing. We need more buildings like that - it's fucking amazing. Will start a thread with pics etc when I get back on monday.

<gloats>


----------



## exosculate (Jan 27, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You can indeed read without being logged in.  I just tried it.



Fair enough. I thought it wasn't possible. Must have changed it at some point.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 27, 2007)

BenL said:
			
		

> Then I'm confused as I was able to read topics without being registered. I read the entire thread Blagsta but with the ignorant, highly nationalistic Axispaw posting diatribes any serious points you had to make were rather lost on me.




Fair enough.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 27, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> In berlin at the moment, today we... Ahem <waits for cybertect to turn up> Got shown around the Berlin Philharmonie by Scharoun's partner (amazing guy) then saw the philharmonike playing. We need more buildings like that - it's fucking amazing. Will start a thread with pics etc when I get back on monday.
> 
> <gloats>



Berlin is


----------



## Cid (Jan 27, 2007)

Have you been to the Philharmonie? The acoustics are  (I could think of no other adequate description ).


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jan 29, 2007)

Ciddy - not only have I been to the Philharmonie, I've had the honour, nay the privilige, of listenging to a concert there attended by Her Maj and Prince Philip.

Me and my mates all sat down through the God Save The Queen bit, but the hardest thing is when the concert ends, you're all literally locked in the auditorium for nearly 10 mins so Brenda and Philip can presumably have a dump undisturbed.

I was SCREAMING for a piss by the end of that gig, I'd drunk so much free champers, and was almost forced to assassinate the royal family simply to get to the Gents.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jan 29, 2007)

PS - to reply to Martian and his ilk further up, the Gherkin is groovy. Doesn't make the Shard or any others so.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 29, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> In berlin at the moment, today we... Ahem <waits for cybertect to turn up> Got shown around the Berlin Philharmonie by Scharoun's partner (amazing guy) then saw the philharmonike playing. We need more buildings like that - it's fucking amazing. Will start a thread with pics etc when I get back on monday.
> 
> <gloats>


You bastard 

Friend of mine was at the topping out ceremony of the gherkin when they winched the 'lens' on the top.


----------



## Meltingpot (Feb 9, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Friend of mine was at the topping out ceremony of the gherkin when they winched the 'lens' on the top.



Great,didn't know they had ceremonies for things like that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2007)

Meltingpot said:
			
		

> Great,didn't know they had ceremonies for things like that.


Bit of a ritual for most large buildings.

No virgin sacrifices anymore though. Pity really.


----------



## Truepioneer (Feb 10, 2007)

All these new skyscrapers are in very good taste imo. The current skyline in The City does look incomplete. Plus, most of the highrises, aside from Tower 42 and The Gerkin, Aren't really too attractive and I doubt there will be any plans to remove them soon. These new additions would balance out the skyline and give it more of a whole look.

However, coming from a city that loves to build vertically, Toronto. I hope this doesn't result in a trend where streets are walled in skyscapers. It can ruin historic neighbourhoods and take away the human scale of an area. Also, will they offer anything to the public? even just an observation deck? 

Keeping highrises assigned to one area of a city (Docklands, London or La Défense, Paris) would leave the most minimal impact, if any, on older areas. Too late for that, in The City, though and the new skyscrapers will counter act the effect of the older ones.


----------



## Reno (Feb 11, 2007)

Truepioneer said:
			
		

> Keeping highrises assigned to one area of a city (Docklands, London or La Défense, Paris) would leave the most minimal impact, if any, on older areas. Too late for that, in The City, though and the new skyscrapers will counter act the effect of the older ones.



I love high rise buildings and agree with that. Skyscrapers look best when clustered together, but I don't mind the City being one place for them. San Fancisco has a nice skyline with skyscrapers being restricted to the Financial District and the posh Russian/Nob Hill area.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 11, 2007)

The City has a lot of history though - what do you think about views of St Pauls, etc?

I would be inclined to say "cover the Isle of Dogs" as they've got a good cluster going there and there's not a whole lot to spoil (seeing as view from Greenwich observatory already compromised).

Getting the people to work there is another issue though...


----------



## untethered (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Getting the people to work there is another issue though...



I suspect it's got as much to do with the quality of the working environment (or lack of it) rather than just its location.


----------



## hiccup (Feb 21, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You can indeed read without being logged in.  I just tried it.



Some forums you can, Photography for instance, and some you can't. Can't rerember which ones are which though.


----------



## rich! (Feb 24, 2007)

wjfox2007 said:
			
		

> I don't work for a developer and I have absolutely zero interest in the monetary side of these towers!  <snip> Anyway, why shouldn't developers in London strive to make a profit?



Anyone else see a contradiction there?


----------



## rich! (Feb 24, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> I love high rise buildings and agree with that. Skyscrapers look best when



aeroplanes fly into them.

Sorry, I agree it's a senseless waste of human life, but I'm with Stockhausen on this one.

Skyscrapers are made to be destroyed. Knock the fuckers over, and see the splatter of collateral damage.

To quote the US Government: "We think <the deaths of 500000 people> is a price worth paying" - it's like dominoes.


----------



## TAE (Feb 25, 2007)

> the heritage body UNESCO have recently visited London. They are concerned about the historic setting of the Tower of London, and are requesting these projects be cancelled.


Hurrah for UNESCO !


----------



## BenL (Feb 25, 2007)

Truepioneer said:
			
		

> However, coming from a city that loves to build vertically, Toronto. I hope this doesn't result in a trend where streets are walled in skyscapers. It can ruin historic neighbourhoods and take away the human scale of an area. Also, will they offer anything to the public? even just an observation deck?
> 
> Keeping highrises assigned to one area of a city (Docklands, London or La Défense, Paris) would leave the most minimal impact, if any, on older areas. Too late for that, in The City, though and the new skyscrapers will counter act the effect of the older ones.


 I'd be against the toytown city which could be created if we put new buildings in one place and old buildings in another. It's something London's never done and the diversity of architecture is a great strength of the city. They would have the least impact but I don't think we should necessarily be against impact.

Canary Wharf does feel like a bit of skyscraper canyon and I quite like that feeling, coming from a city with few tall towers but in the City of London there is only one road (Bishopsgate) that could possibly feel at all like that. A lot of the towers will have shopping areas in the lower floors and Bishopsgate tower will have a three storey restaurant on the roof. 122 Leadenhall Street will have a huge public plaza area, 20 Fenchurch Street will have a public roof garden and the Shard will have two public viewing galleries.





			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> The City has a lot of history though - what do you think about views of St Pauls, etc?
> 
> I would be inclined to say "cover the Isle of Dogs" as they've got a good cluster going there and there's not a whole lot to spoil (seeing as view from Greenwich observatory already compromised).


 There are sightlines so that you can't build in protected views of St. Paul's.

I understand that view but I think it's a slightly conservative attitude to assume that modern architecture will automatically "spoil" and we should engage in a policy of damage limitation. I hope you'd agree that for example the Shard will really improve the view of that area of London?


----------



## ska invita (May 15, 2007)

*Chipping in to this old thread...*

Anyone know what it is thats getting built right now - theres something going up... is it the Shard? I dont think it is, cos isnt that going to be in south london, by Guys hospital?

I have a feeling it might be this "Pinnacle" thing:












Also, does anyone know anything about this squashed one here? Maybe its that?





Personally Im against skyscrapers, but now we have some I suppose we might as well have more - but only a few more - NY is dehumanised by its sky scrapers IMO - a few here and there is bearable, but lets not go overboard.


----------



## kyser_soze (May 15, 2007)

Interesting and fun historical fact; when Wren designed and was building that most perfect of buildings, St Paul's Cathederal, there were complaints from various 1/4s that it was wrong to build it in stone, that it was too high, that it was a monstrous design and was not of London's nature etc etc. 

London is a city that has built, rebuilt and re-rebuilt itself time after time, and constant change is the norm, not the kind of permanence that people seem to want to preserve. The current arguments are nothing new, nor are they fresh.


----------



## Crispy (May 15, 2007)

He originally wanted to build it as a symmetrical cross (just like michaelangelo's original design for st.peter's) but was forced to go for the nave/transpet design.


----------



## corporate whore (May 15, 2007)

The one that's going up on Bishopsgate is that there Pinnacle, all 63 floors of it  

Dunno about the other one

Edit: fuck me that was a big image..


----------

