# Walkie Talkie tower, Fenchurch St crackles into life



## editor (Jan 19, 2011)

The ground breaking ceremony took place yesterday, and completion of this very odd looking creation is planned for early 2014.

What do you think urban? A beauty? Or a beast?












More info: http://www.urban75.org/blog/walkie-talkie-tower-fenchurch-st-crackles-into-life/


----------



## jakejb79 (Jan 19, 2011)

I like it.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 19, 2011)

I like it.  Simple but kind of elegant.  Much nicer than those bronze coloured ones you posted up the other day.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 19, 2011)

I think it'll fit quite well with the other buildings around it.


----------



## boohoo (Jan 19, 2011)

Yuck!


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2011)

I can GUARANTEE that the sky garden won't look as wonderful as it does in those artist renders!


----------



## Crispy (Jan 19, 2011)

Fucking minging. Hideous. The worst skyscraper in london. I wish death on its designer.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 19, 2011)

Do a thread on 122 leadenhall next. That's back under construction after a few years on hold and it's a BEAUTY.


----------



## boohoo (Jan 19, 2011)

I'd really rather like a stop to these sky scrapers. I'm just not sure how much we will enjoy them in 50 years time.


----------



## editor (Jan 19, 2011)

Have to say it looks really horrid and oppressive in this render. It looks like it's bullying the smaller buildings around it!


----------



## lang rabbie (Jan 19, 2011)

The beast must die!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 19, 2011)

editor said:


> Have to say it looks really horrid and oppressive in this render. It looks like it's bullying the smaller buildings around it!


 

oh, it looks really dumpy there.  It looks like it's overweight when you see the others round it.  I may have to change my mind about it.  I thought it was skinnier and taller than it is in that picture


----------



## Crispy (Jan 19, 2011)

That image goes some way towards showing how wrong this building is. The other ones under construction are all clustered together and make a group that culminates in the Pinnacle tower (no. 8 Minerva is cancelled and replaced with a low rise). But this one sits way off to the side, close to the river where it will utterly ruin the view from the south bank. I really really hate it. Hate it,


----------



## clicker (Jan 20, 2011)

Looks good in the very top picture.....but looks top heavy and cumbersome in the last picture.....agree with Crispy, it looks like it just couldnt be arsed getting up close and chummy with the others and is sulking on the sidelines.

And I love the view from the South Bank.....how very dare it blight that.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2011)

Oh fuck off you dumpy, overbearing twat.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2011)

The more I see it, the less I like it. What's the fugly thing next to the OXO Tower?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 20, 2011)

Bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that the garden on top isn't open to the public for long. Same with the top floors of the Shard.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 20, 2011)

editor said:


> The more I see it, the less I like it. What's the fugly thing next to the OXO Tower?


 
I assume its the Coin Street development thats been on the cards for years (and often features in Private Eye!)

re: the thread subject, i don't like it at all. it's completely out of context with its immediate setting and also with the other big buildings either up or springing up around the area.

As another skyscraper derail, i went up the Eureka Tower over Christmas in Melbourne. It's got a fantastic viewing area on the top floor - open to the public but for a charge. We didn't have the time or the balls to go in it's star attraction which is basically is a glass cube which comes out of the side of the 88th floor!

http://www.eurekaskydeck.com.au/the-edge.asp


----------



## IMR (Jan 20, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that the garden on top isn't open to the public for long. Same with the top floors of the Shard.



^ this

'Security' reasons will be invoked, surprise surprise.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2011)

editor said:


> The more I see it, the less I like it. What's the fugly thing next to the OXO Tower?


 
Mirax-Beetham tower, now cancelled. The site's for sale.

Unless you mean the square one just to the right? That's the ITV studios/Television Centre. Built in 1970


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 20, 2011)

Crispy said:


>


 
They really are going all out to fuck up the skyline of London at the moment


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bet you a pound to a pinch of shit that the garden on top isn't open to the public for long. Same with the top floors of the Shard.


 
Nah, Empire state, Rockerfeller, Chrysler towers are all still open to the public. The Shard (and Pinnacle, which will actually be at a higher level) viewing areas will be paid tourist attractions, and aren't the right size for useful lets, so they'll be open for ever IMO. The public garden though, that's supposed to be free access (although there's private dining and a restaurant up there too, so it's not exactly profitless floor space). Future looks a bit darker for that. I'll go and look up the planning conditions and see how onerous they are.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2011)

There is a long and exhaustive list of planning conditions for this building, but preservation of free access to the roof garden is not one of them.

On the plus side, the building will incorporate a minimum of 400 cycle parking spaces, and showers/changing with them, for the life of the building.


----------



## quimcunx (Jan 20, 2011)

editor said:


> Have to say it looks really horrid and *oppressive* in this render.



As I said on another thread it reminds me of the monster in bugs bunny  looming menacingly, but not comedically unfortunately.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 20, 2011)

I like all the other skyscrapers that have gone up or been proposed in recent years but really dont like the look of this monstrosity.


----------



## gabi (Jan 20, 2011)

i think, like the london2012 logo, it will grow on me. on first sight tho, its a fucking disgrace (i said that about the logo too tho)


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2011)

The logo, though, will be done and dusted by 2013. This thing will loom over the river for 30 years at least


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 20, 2011)

boohoo said:


> I'd really rather like a stop to these sky scrapers. I'm just not sure how much we will enjoy them in 50 years time.


 
There's every chance they won't be there, given the way commercial space in London gets developed, or indeed may well crash & burn.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2011)

It's kind of sad that many grand Georgian/Victorian commercial buildings are continuing to serve hundreds of years after completion, whereas a lot of the modern stuff isn't expected to hang around for more than 30-50 years.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2011)

editor said:


> It's kind of sad that many grand Georgian/Victorian commercial buildings are continuing to serve hundreds of years after completion, whereas a lot of the modern stuff isn't expected to hang around for more than 30-50 years.


 
Oh this will be designed for a longer life, but in commercial terms, that's as soon as we can hope for it to be knocked down.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> As I said on another thread it reminds me of the monster in bugs bunny  looming menacingly, but not comedically unfortunately.


I like that comparison and have added it to my article!


----------



## Diamond (Jan 20, 2011)

It's 'orrible.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 20, 2011)

I've changed my mind after seeing those pictures too - and I was alsl thinking that it looked like it was sulking.

To me it looks like Marvin the Martian:


----------



## bromley (Jan 20, 2011)

I love the shape of the walkie talkie, but it's too big and wide, a slimmer & lower version will look decent IMO.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 20, 2011)

I like the building but not it's location. Should be at Canary Wharf or somewhere rather than overshodowing the Tower of London.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 20, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Nah, Empire state, Rockerfeller, Chrysler towers are all still open to the public. The Shard (and Pinnacle, which will actually be at a higher level) viewing areas will be paid tourist attractions, and aren't the right size for useful lets, so they'll be open for ever IMO. The public garden though, that's supposed to be free access (although there's private dining and a restaurant up there too, so it's not exactly profitless floor space). Future looks a bit darker for that. I'll go and look up the planning conditions and see how onerous they are.


 
Not sure if New York is such a good comparison, the skyscrapers are a big reason that many people visit. I understand that the Shard's upper floors will be small, but as soon as some scum-fucker comes up with a commercially viable plan for them the public will be booted out. Tis the way of stuff in London.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jan 20, 2011)

but a lot of Georgian/Victorian stuff didn't last long; remember you are generally seeing the better old buildings, the bad ones were demolished or fell down a long time ago


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jan 20, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Fucking minging. Hideous. The worst skyscraper in london. I wish death on its designer.


 
Might I ask for a return to civility in architectural discourse.....next thing some deranged person will try killing poor Rafael Vinoly in the head....and it will be your fault!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 20, 2011)

Architectural Palinism.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 20, 2011)

pseudonarcissus said:


> but a lot of Georgian/Victorian stuff didn't last long; remember you are generally seeing the better old buildings, the bad ones were demolished or fell down a long time ago


 
or bombed to fuck, in many urban centres at any rate.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

e2a: just got nickname and piccies. apols.


----------



## El Sueno (Jan 20, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> As I said on another thread it reminds me of the monster in bugs bunny  looming menacingly, but not comedically unfortunately.


 
Bang on


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

I'll add my vote to the 'I hate that building' - brutal, ugly, graceless, worse than every council housing highrise ever built


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2011)

pseudonarcissus said:


> but a lot of Georgian/Victorian stuff didn't last long; remember you are generally seeing the better old buildings, the bad ones were demolished or fell down a long time ago


But that's the point: these are supposed to be the high prestige buildings of today.


----------



## Echo Base (Jan 20, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Oh fuck off you dumpy, overbearing twat.



Blade Runner.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 20, 2011)

Yes, London looks exactly like LA in 2019:


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 20, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Oh fuck off you dumpy, overbearing twat.



Oh, that looks even worse.  Amazing how when put alongside the other buildings you see it in a completely different light.  It's fat and dumpy.  Didn't look like that in Editor's original picture


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2011)

In the future, there will be one or two slightly taller buildings between it and the main cluster, which will help it blend in a bit, but won't stop it being butt ugly.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 20, 2011)

Crispy said:


> In the future, there will be one or two slightly taller buildings between it and the main cluster, which will help it blend in a bit, but won't stop it being butt ugly.


 
Yeah, I think I probably thought it was initially ok as I remember when the original pictures were leaked years ago and it was horrendous then, but that picture made it look better than the picture years ago


----------



## Crispy (Jan 20, 2011)

Also, the shape has been tweaked since the intial design. It used to be taller, with more of a 'waist' to it. Now it's shorter and fatter.

Here's how it used to look:






Blame the planners for the change.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 20, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Also, the shape has been tweaked since the intial design. It used to be taller, with more of a 'waist' to it. Now it's shorter and fatter.
> 
> Here's how it used to look:
> 
> ...


 
Glad I didn't just imagine it looked different then  

There were some other views though that were published which made it look a lot worse than that


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 20, 2011)

I'm starting to think the original looked better


----------



## bromley (Jan 20, 2011)

I think the planners have improved it, it doesn't look like a can of spam anymore!

The squashed disco ball by Blackfriars looks good.

The pinnacle is still head and shoulders above anything else in the city.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 21, 2011)

Well, the original looked like that old-skool nokia phone with the slidey case, and the new one looks like mushroom that's gone badly wrong. Neither are especially pretty.


----------



## hipipol (Jan 21, 2011)

Fenchurch st, always been awful
Full of idiots from Essex and insurance types, rushing about with armloads of paper
Whats happening to the Broadgate site where all the firms are having to leave round the Ice Rink?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 21, 2011)

Ah that's the horrible new HQ for UBS. It ruins the one good bit of urban planning in The City from the 80s. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jan/02/5-broadgate-london-review-make-ken-shuttleworth

By the same man who did the gherkin would you believe


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not sure if New York is such a good comparison, the skyscrapers are a big reason that many people visit. I understand that the Shard's upper floors will be small, but as soon as some scum-fucker comes up with a commercially viable plan for them the public will be booted out. Tis the way of stuff in London.



It makes very good commercial sense to have the viewing area though... It is the only place in London you'll be able to get those views from, so if it's public it will draw in a fuckload of people. With the Gherkin that wasn't an issue as it's basically just office space, but the shard needs to get people into its restaurants and hotel rooms (I imagine the apartments will be snaffled up anyway). You'll also get growth in retail with the development of the station, so from a planning point of view any change of use is probably going to be looked on pretty harshly.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 22, 2011)

In combination, the new new towers make London look like a non-descrpit mid-western State capital.


----------



## editor (Jan 22, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Ah that's the horrible new HQ for UBS. It ruins the one good bit of urban planning in The City from the 80s.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jan/02/5-broadgate-london-review-make-ken-shuttleworth
> 
> By the same man who did the gherkin would you believe


The fuckers:



> A pedestrian route across the site will be closed, forcing people to squeeze round the edges of the new building's bulk. A covered arcade through the block might have been possible, but this is banned for security reasons, as are shops or cafes at the building's base. The ban is a deal-breaker, apparently: if the City's planners insisted on these humanising touches, UBS would up and go – to Canary Wharf or, worse,*Frankfurt.


----------



## Cid (Jan 22, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Ah that's the horrible new HQ for UBS. It ruins the one good bit of urban planning in The City from the 80s.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jan/02/5-broadgate-london-review-make-ken-shuttleworth
> 
> By the same man who did the gherkin would you believe


 
'make' has so much promise as a practice too (employee owned, proper working hours, limited hierarchy), how did they end up doing something like that? 

Tbh though, large architecture practice in the middle of a recession, UBS offers you a project like that - probably stop you laying off 10 people.

Doesn't actually appear to be on their site mind you...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2011)

Crispy said:


> That image goes some way towards showing how wrong this building is. The other ones under construction are all clustered together and make a group that culminates in the Pinnacle tower (no. 8 Minerva is cancelled and replaced with a low rise). But this one sits way off to the side, close to the river where it will utterly ruin the view from the south bank. I really really hate it. Hate it,


 That's the thing, the buildings on that street are all low rise - some of them boring, but a lot look ok, this is going to look out of place where it is. The other skyscrapers like the gerkin work because there is space around them and you can look up and see the whole thing - this won't because of the narrow streets around it.

I'm not sure the city needs all this extra office space either.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 25, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Nah, Empire state, Rockerfeller, Chrysler towers are all still open to the public. The Shard (and Pinnacle, which will actually be at a higher level) viewing areas will be paid tourist attractions, and aren't the right size for useful lets, so they'll be open for ever IMO. The public garden though, that's supposed to be free access (although there's private dining and a restaurant up there too, so it's not exactly profitless floor space). Future looks a bit darker for that. I'll go and look up the planning conditions and see how onerous they are.


 
Chrysler is NOT open to the public and hasn't been for years,


----------



## Crispy (Jan 25, 2011)

Oh? My mistake then.


----------



## editor (Jan 25, 2011)

The viewing platform on the Rockefeller Centre only reopened relatively recently too (2005) after being closed for nearly twenty years.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2012)

Here's a pic: 







http://www.urban75.org/blog/walkie-talkie-tower-at-20-fenchurch-street-rises-into-the-london-sky/


----------



## bromley (Nov 12, 2012)

Looks like it's on fire, good work Editor, burn it down!


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2012)

That's how it looked on Saturday afternoon - no filters used in that pic!


----------



## RoyReed (Nov 12, 2012)

editor said:


> The viewing platform on the Rockefeller Centre only reopened relatively recently too (2005) after being closed for nearly twenty years.


Great to know it's re-opened. It really is the best view in New York.


----------



## Manter (Nov 12, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Ah that's the horrible new HQ for UBS. It ruins the one good bit of urban planning in The City from the 80s.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jan/02/5-broadgate-london-review-make-ken-shuttleworth
> 
> By the same man who did the gherkin would you believe


As the thread has been bumped I'll bump this bit of the topic 

I've heard rumours UBS are pulling out of building that given layoffs/general failure to run their own bank


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2012)

Manter said:


> As the thread has been bumped I'll bump this bit of the topic
> 
> I've heard rumours UBS are pulling out of building that given layoffs/general failure to run their own bank


 Very interesting! How substantial are those rumours?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 13, 2012)

Manter said:


> I've heard rumours UBS are pulling out of building that given layoffs/general failure to run their own bank


 


> It will be, Shuttleworth says, "an expression of the stability of the bank".


----------



## cybertect (Nov 13, 2012)

A couple of recent-ish pics




The City at night by cybertect, on Flickr




20 Fenchurch Street by cybertect, on Flickr


----------



## g force (Nov 13, 2012)

Could be some truth in it...UBS announced laying off 10k people in Europe, and the majority of those will be the London-based traders (the bank is essentially removing itself from investment banking per se and going back to it's roots of being a wealth manager). So quite who would be in this building is anyone's guess - were any figures announced in terms of how many people it was meant to house?

I suppose they could still take it on and then sub-let to other firms.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2012)

They could have made their mind up before demolishing the old building


----------



## 19sixtysix (Nov 13, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Oh this will be designed for a longer life, but in commercial terms, that's as soon as we can hope for it to be knocked down.


 
I wonder what the design life actually is. I know many flats put up have only a 50 year life less than half the lease length.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2012)

"Design Life" is a nebulous term. Any building will last more or less forever if properly maintained.


----------



## stuff_it (Nov 13, 2012)

scifisam said:


> I think it'll fit quite well with the other buildings around it.


What next? An electric toothbrush? Food mixer?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Nov 13, 2012)

Crispy said:


> "Design Life" is a nebulous term. Any building will last more or less forever if properly maintained.


 
Not so sure about that with some of the modern construction techniques. The flat I heard about with the 50 year design life included lots of rubber like gaskets between parts of the building. Can't imagine them being fixable when they decay after a good few years. These had the estimated 50 year life. At work its the rubber parts that's finished off many a machine. Neoprene pinch rollers are fantastic because they turn to a viscous fluid and just drip away.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 13, 2012)

I don't like it at all. It has a shape that creates unease. It just looks wrong in the landscape.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2012)

It also makes the mistake of having a concave, reflective south-facing facade. Here's a simulation of the focused "hot spots" that will result:






Compare how the flat-faced buildings give much fainter reflected light.


----------



## Idaho (Nov 13, 2012)

It looks like a normal oblong building made of sad jelly.


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2012)

It looks like a bully, put there to intimidate nearby buildings.


----------



## Manter (Nov 13, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Very interesting! How substantial are those rumours?


 noone who would be willing to be quoted!  but more than idle speculation.  basically therre will not be the demand for as many offices as they will have round there so some willneed to be sold of. they aren't in the business of leasing buildings so if their money is already committed they may pullout at a later stage/dump one of their other buildings...?


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2013)

I've just added a big photo feature showing how the block looks now: 











http://www.urban75.org/blog/walkie-...s-work-starts-on-europes-highest-roof-garden/


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2013)

I have to say that close up I kind of grew to like it a bit.


----------



## Manter (Jul 4, 2013)

editor said:


> I have to say that close up I kind of grew to like it a bit.


I go past it a few times a week- I'm not a fan.  It looms oddly.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2013)

Manter said:


> I go past it a few times a week- I'm not a fan. It looms oddly.


It is different though and it's certainly better than what was there before.


----------



## RedDragon (Jul 4, 2013)

It's fast becoming one of my favourite towers.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 4, 2013)




----------



## Crispy (Jul 4, 2013)

I think it looks great up close. The splayed fins and subtle curves are very graceful. The over-curving glass means you see reflections of the city as well as the sky. But I still think it's an ugly addition to the skyline. Squat and bulbous and overbearing. It's all on its own as well, making a mess of the "cluster" of towers in the City. "The Sore Thumb" is a better epithet, IMO.


----------



## lang rabbie (Jul 4, 2013)

editor said:


> I have to say that close up I kind of grew to like it a bit.


Apostate.  

_“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.”_ *2 Peter 2:1-3.  *


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 2, 2013)

It just melted a car: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23930675


----------



## Manter (Sep 2, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> It just melted a car:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23930675


----------



## editor (Sep 2, 2013)

Here's what the article said: 


> A new London skyscraper dubbed the "Walkie Talkie" has been blamed for reflecting light which melted parts of a car parked on a nearby street.
> 
> Martin Lindsay parked his Jaguar on Eastcheap, in the City of London, on Thursday afternoon.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crispy (Sep 2, 2013)

Crispy said:


> It also makes the mistake of having a concave, reflective south-facing facade. Here's a simulation of the focused "hot spots" that will result:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is not a trivial problem.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 2, 2013)

OMG, remember this?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39403349/...y-vegas-hotel-pool-heats-guests/#.UiUDGDabN6J



> Las Vegas has a new hot spot — but it's not a nightclub.
> Guests at the new Vdara Hotel & Spa have complained that the glass skyscraper can magnify and reflect the sun's rays onto an area of the pool at temperatures hot enough to singe hair or melt plastic. It's a phenomenon that some hotel employees jokingly call the Vdara "death ray."



Guess who the architect of the Vdara Hotel was?
Rafael Vinoly, also architect of 20 Fenchurch Street


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 2, 2013)

It's amazing and facepalm all at once


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 2, 2013)

pissflaps said:


>


----------



## Manter (Sep 2, 2013)

Crispy said:


> OMG, remember this?
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39403349/...y-vegas-hotel-pool-heats-guests/#.UiUDGDabN6J
> 
> ...


do these people never do reviews of their buildings once they're built?  Or even read their own press cuttings??!!


----------



## Greebo (Sep 3, 2013)

Manter said:


> do these people never do reviews of their buildings once they're built?  Or even read their own press cuttings??!!


Apparently not - as long as they've already been paid, it's no longer their problem.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 3, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Apparently not - as long as they've already been paid, it's no longer their problem.


Not true. When buildings have defects after completion and nobody fesses up, the court cases to apportion blame are often very strongly contested, with all the consultants and contractors fighting their corners. If the fault is found to lie with the design, rather than the implementation, then the architect (or structural engineer or services engineer, or whoever was responsible for the incorrect design) can be liable for correcting the fault.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 3, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Not true. When buildings have defects after completion and nobody fesses up, the court cases to apportion blame are often very strongly contested, with all the consultants and contractors fighting their corners. If the fault is found to lie with the design, rather than the implementation, then the architect (or structural engineer or services engineer, or whoever was responsible for the incorrect design) can be liable for correcting the fault.


Thanks for that - how often does the architect have to put it right though?  There was that stainless steel clad Disney building (in LA?) where some of the outside panels had to be sanded to stop it creating a hotspot, I only heard of that this morning.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 3, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Thanks for that - how often does the architect have to put it right though?  There was that stainless steel clad Disney building (in LA?) where some of the outside panels had to be sanded to stop it creating a hotspot, I only heard of that this morning.


I was about to mention the same building. No idea who was found liable for that one. I also don't know how it works overseas.

However, it's common these days for the contractor to be liable regardless, as many contracts are of the "design and build" type. This means that the chain of command goes client->contractor->architect. The architect is contracted by the builder to provide design services, but it is the contractor's responsibility to finalise the design and make sure that it is correct. This sort of contract is beneficial to clients, because a contractor will happily cut corners in the design to save money, whereas architects tend to insist on all their expensive niceties.

In this case, however, the design flaw is so gross, no contractor could reasonably be expected to alter the design to fix it. I predict a complicated court case.


----------



## Boycey (Sep 3, 2013)

"evil genius builds giant parabolic death ray into city skyscraper, twice" 

i'm having a shit morning and this is really perking me up


----------



## magneze (Sep 3, 2013)

Awesome


----------



## _pH_ (Sep 3, 2013)

Crispy said:


> However, it's common these days for the contractor to be liable regardless, as many contracts are of the "design and build" type. This means that the chain of command goes client->contractor->architect. The architect is contracted by the builder to provide design services, but it is the contractor's responsibility to finalise the design and make sure that it is correct. This sort of contract is beneficial to clients, because a contractor will happily cut corners in the design to save money, whereas architects tend to insist on all their expensive niceties.



Are novated agreements still common? I.e., client employs architect, architect designs the building to such a point that contractors can price up and submit a tender, successful contractor then becomes the architect's employer (at which point, the contractor tries to cut costs on everything and the architect gets upset at all their lovely detailing being thrown out on grounds of cost).

There were/are problems with the Shard; at certain times of day, the sunlight reflects off the glass straight into the eyes of train drivers approaching London Bridge - it can be really blinding! There were meetings between the developers, Network Rail, the TOCs and the unions, but I'm not sure what the outcome was.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 3, 2013)

_pH_ said:


> Are novated agreements still common? I.e., client employs architect, architect designs the building to such a point that contractors can price up and submit a tender, successful contractor then becomes the architect's employer (at which point, the contractor tries to cut costs on everything and the architect gets upset at all their lovely detailing being thrown out on grounds of cost).


That's exactly the terminology used in such design & build contracts.


----------



## _pH_ (Sep 3, 2013)

Crispy said:


> That's exactly the terminology used in such design & build contracts.


I've worked on a couple designing the landscape element - a right pain in the arse when the client is happy with the outline design work then the contractor pressures you to change half of it because they screwed up the QS in their bid.


----------



## Manter (Sep 3, 2013)

Boycey said:


> "evil genius builds giant parabolic death ray into city skyscraper, twice"
> 
> i'm having a shit morning and this is really perking me up


he trained in Argentina according to CityAM- its all a plot!!


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 3, 2013)

Maybe it's time to revoke the architects license or at least restrict him to designing garden sheds.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 3, 2013)

_*Walkie Scorchie*_

The guy had a Jag and was driving around central London, no sympathy from me. Leave your car at home.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 3, 2013)

according to someone on the lunchtime news, the sun is in the wrong position at certain times.


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 3, 2013)

Amazing, it set a hair salon's doormat on fire


----------



## bromley (Sep 4, 2013)

Does this mean they're going to knock it down?!! 

Thank you almighty sun god.


----------



## Manter (Sep 4, 2013)

bromley said:


> Does this mean they're going to knock it down?!!
> 
> Thank you almighty sun god.


Nah, they're putting scaffolding round it


----------



## _pH_ (Sep 4, 2013)

Shamelessly stolen from b3ta (by Captain Howdy):


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 4, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Amazing, it set a hair salon's doormat on fire



It's trying to start the riots again.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 4, 2013)

bromley said:


> Does this mean they're going to knock it down?!!
> Thank you almighty sun god.


 
You could instal giant curtains over the building.


----------



## T & P (Sep 4, 2013)

If the windows could be angled individually by motors to further enhance the sun rays, the building would make a very cool Bond supervillain weapon


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2013)

It's become a tourist attraction!






https://twitter.com/ianpatterson99/status/375249411640541184/photo/1


----------



## _pH_ (Sep 4, 2013)

That almost looks photoshopped, it must be something to do with the weird light.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 4, 2013)

I popped by today. Hundreds of people there including film crews.  Frying pans and eggs included.
It's a bit like a huge film lighting rig has beamed down onto the streets.


----------



## _pH_ (Sep 4, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Frying pans and eggs included.



Did anyone manage a fry-up?


----------



## RedDragon (Sep 4, 2013)

We should open up a soup kitchen.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 4, 2013)

RedDragon said:


> We should open up a soup kitchen.


No need to bring a gas hob


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 4, 2013)

_pH_ said:


> Did anyone manage a fry-up?


 
Apparently so - there was one article I read where a journo had claimed to have done that. 

Bit of a stupid design flaw mind.  But the moniker of that hotel in the US amused me 'death ray hotel' - quite a cool name really.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 5, 2013)

T & P said:


> If the windows could be angled individually by motors to further enhance the sun rays, the building would make a very cool Bond supervillain weapon


 Or focus the light on solar panels on the roofs across the road.


----------



## WouldBe (Sep 5, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Frying pans and eggs included.


 
That Thai restaurant / cafe should have thought of that.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 5, 2013)

I can see it from my living room, if I get home one day and discovered my sofa has been melted there'll be hell to pay


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 6, 2013)

Can a few people be organised to stand at specific points around the building and fire lasers at it to see what happens? Could turn it into a proper death ray!

I'm sure the little pen lasers you can buy wouldn't hurt anyone if they were all focused onto a single point. Would they?


----------



## clicker (Sep 7, 2013)

When the hell did we stop calling this building 'the pint glass'!! I have been misinforming visitors for months now...enjoyed watching it go up...its going to be a wibbly wobbly bridge situ all over again. Something quite snigger raising about such monumental cock-ups though, makes mine fade into insignificance..


----------



## _pH_ (Sep 8, 2013)

clicker said:


> When the hell did we stop calling this building 'the pint glass'!! I have been misinforming visitors for months now...enjoyed watching it go up...its going to be a wibbly wobbly bridge situ all over again. Something quite snigger raising about such monumental cock-ups though, makes mine fade into insignificance..


Was it called the Pint Glass? Never heard that!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 8, 2013)

Crispy said:


> I think it looks great up close. The splayed fins and subtle curves are very graceful. The over-curving glass means you see reflections of the city as well as the sky. But I still think it's an ugly addition to the skyline. Squat and bulbous and overbearing. It's all on its own as well, making a mess of the "cluster" of towers in the City. "The Sore Thumb" is a better epithet, IMO.


I work around there and I quite like it. It's not a million miles away from the other skyscrapers either, the Heron tower must be further. What's really making a mess is the Pinnacle being a building site.


----------



## _pH_ (Sep 8, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> What's really making a mess is the Pinnacle being a building site.



Is that the one where the developer went bust? Is it still at a standstill?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 8, 2013)

_pH_ said:


> Is that the one where the developer went bust? Is it still at a standstill?


Yeah, work has been stopped on it for ages. I'm not surprised because there's a lot of new office space with these new skyscrapers, where are they going to get companies to let them out to?.


----------



## _pH_ (Sep 8, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yeah, work has been stopped on it for ages. I'm not surprised because there's a lot of new office space with these new skyscrapers, where are they going to get companies to let them out to?.


It's been, what, a couple of years now? It'll be interesting to see what happens, it's not that far advanced - I wonder if demolition and a different scheme is a possibility?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 8, 2013)

_pH_ said:


> It's been, what, a couple of years now? It'll be interesting to see what happens, it's not that far advanced - I wonder if demolition and a different scheme is a possibility?


They have the foundations and a bit of the core built up, I wonder if they can be re-used?. Crispy ??


----------



## _pH_ (Sep 8, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> They have the foundations and a bit of the core built up, I wonder if they can be re-used?. Crispy ??



If it's a different design, presumably a new submission for detailed planning permission would be needed. Could take years...


----------



## clicker (Sep 8, 2013)

What is the one that has a top third all bright green at night time - can't see the outline properly from the South so couldn't place it properly...


----------



## _pH_ (Sep 8, 2013)

clicker said:


> What is the one that has a top third all bright green at night time - can't see the outline properly from the South so couldn't place it properly...


Is that Tower 42/Nat West Tower?


----------



## Crispy (Sep 8, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> They have the foundations and a bit of the core built up, I wonder if they can be re-used?. Crispy ??


The original developer didn't get the investment they needed. They built the basement and core stub as a gamble, to make investors impressed. It didn't work. The major investor, Arab Investments has now bought the project and has commissioned multiple option designs for a replacement, which may or may not re-use the existing basement+core. It will probably be as tall, but not as extravagant.


----------



## clicker (Sep 8, 2013)

_pH_ said:


> Is that Tower 42/Nat West Tower?


Maybe...ph i did the marlow to henley walk last week on a glorious day,armed with your blog...will post pics on that thread soon....fantastic walk.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 24, 2013)

I was near the Design Museum past tower bridge at the weekend. Looking back at the city what disaster this tower is !  How did it ever get planning permission ?  messes with the views of Tower of London and Tower Bridge.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 26, 2013)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I was near the Design Museum past tower bridge at the weekend. Looking back at the city what disaster this tower is !  How did it ever get planning permission ?  messes with the views of Tower of London and Tower Bridge.


im sure thats true, but i was on the platform at london bridge today thinking how ugly the shard is up close - those square bits at the bottom are crap - it already looks dated, never mind the general phallic shityness of it, and look across at the walkie talkie which you can just about see, by contrast at least and on relative terms it looked pretty good.






Talking of spoiling views and such check out the horrible glass and steel thing they built directly opposite the Tower of London, just over the bridge - completely out of keeping with the buildings around it - that Thistle hotel at least blends in.


----------



## Manter (Sep 26, 2013)

ska invita said:


> im sure thats true, but i was on the platform at london bridge today thinking how ugly the shard is up close - those square bits at the bottom are crap - it already looks dated, never mind the general phallic shityness of it, and look across at the walkie talkie which you can just about see, by contrast at least and on relative terms it looked pretty good.
> 
> Talking of spoiling views and such check out the horrible glass and steel thing they built directly opposite the Tower of London, just over the bridge - completely out of keeping with the buildings around it - that Thistle hotel at least blends in.



Completely agree re the shard. And it does weird shadow/ wind tunnel things at ground level too


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2014)

What a cock up 



> Developers have unveiled plans to install aluminium fins on the "Walkie-Talkie" to prevent the sun's rays reflecting from the skyscraper.
> 
> Land Securities and Canary Wharf Group have submitted a planning application to the City of London for a brise soleil system.
> 
> ...


----------



## pk (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## Chilavert (Feb 13, 2014)

.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2015)

Looks like that promised public sky garden is turning into more of a 'keep walking and then bugger off' kind of arrangement.

 

http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2015/01/04/as-the-walkie-talkie-prepares-to-open-to-the-public/


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2015)

editor said:


> Looks like that promised public sky garden is turning into more of a 'keep walking and then bugger off' kind of arrangement.
> 
> View attachment 65951
> 
> http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2015/01/04/as-the-walkie-talkie-prepares-to-open-to-the-public/


on the other hand, with some small adjustments, it could be a grand spot to push a banker into eternity


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2015)

I got to go up yesterday!



























It's bugger all like the original leafy renders - a swish restaurant has replaced what was supposed to be a near forest, but the views are wonderful and I like the sleek, modernist lines. 

http://www.urban75.org/blog/the-sky...lkie-tower-20-fenchurch-street-london-photos/


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 15, 2015)

...is that Spiderman traversing the roof in the last pic...?


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2015)

hot air baboon said:


> ...is that Spiderman traversing the roof in the last pic...?


There were loads of workers scuttling over the roof.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 15, 2015)

That's an amazing space. Shame it's such a sore thumb on the skyline


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2015)

Crispy said:


> That's an amazing space. Shame it's such a sore thumb on the skyline


It felt extra futuristic to me because there was hardly anyone there at all. The cafe has normal prices too, so it would be one one hell of a cool place to meet for a coffee (if you can get in - it's now fully booked to the end of March).


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 15, 2015)

...that first pic is a bit remensiscent of......







.....give it another 50 years.....


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jan 15, 2015)

Crispy said:


> That's an amazing space. Shame it's such a sore thumb on the skyline


Exactly it's in the wrong place. The view from the other side of tower bridge looking towards the tower of London is really screwed. Planning scrutiny FAIL.


----------



## Winot (Jan 15, 2015)

Amusing review here:

http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...ie-talkie-the-more-you-pay-the-worse-the-view

How does that accord with your experience editor?


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2015)

Winot said:


> Amusing review here:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...ie-talkie-the-more-you-pay-the-worse-the-view
> 
> How does that accord with your experience editor?


I think he's right about the view from the restaurant, but I think he's unduly harsh: or maybe I just saw it in its best light being a bright sunny day and almost empty. I really enjoyed the place.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 15, 2015)

A third nearly metre long bolt broke on the building yesterday,it says it didn't fall because the bolts have been tethered (this presumably means they've stuck something under the head of the bolt and secured it to something else),not good for a nearly new building.

E2a Oops that's the cheese grater building,all much of a muchness to me.


----------



## T & P (Jan 17, 2015)

Once the outside terrace is open to the public it'll be well worth the visit IMO. Don't particularly like the look of the cafe and its furniture. It looks like the typical cafe you'll find in a museum, a place where you'd only sit & use out of necessity.

Don't have a problem with the outside of the building. Its shape and colour are certainly striking and different. It reminds me a bit of EVE off Wall-E.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 18, 2015)

I think it's great that bits of these places are open to the public and free. The Heron Tower is another, unlike the Shard which costs a fortune. If Miss Tag gets Friday off work, she may get treated to a VEGGIE breakfast up there; yup despite being in the city, modern and trendy, they have veggie brekkies 
Please tell me the lifts are internal and not external. Th lifts up the Heron are a nightmare, a scary, horrible, Nauseating nightmare ( though I can see the appeal for some people, just not me).


----------



## hash tag (Jan 23, 2015)

Unlike the heron tower, you can walk round all 360 degrees which is good. The views from the top are a little more manageable than from the top of the shard, which makes london look like toytown. Very expensive!


----------



## kabbes (Jan 23, 2015)

I've had meetings in there. It was shit.

All these new buildings are shit.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 23, 2015)

hash tag said:


> I think it's great that bits of these places are open to the public and free. The Heron Tower is another, unlike the Shard which costs a fortune. If Miss Tag gets Friday off work, she may get treated to a VEGGIE breakfast up there; yup despite being in the city, modern and trendy, they have veggie brekkies
> Please tell me the lifts are internal and not external. Th lifts up the Heron are a nightmare, a scary, horrible, Nauseating nightmare ( though I can see the appeal for some people, just not me).


I've had meetings in Heron Tower too.

It wasn't as shit but it was still shit.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 23, 2015)

peterkro said:


> A third nearly metre long bolt broke on the building yesterday,it says it didn't fall because the bolts have been tethered (this presumably means they've stuck something under the head of the bolt and secured it to something else),not good for a nearly new building.
> 
> E2a Oops that's the cheese grater building,all much of a muchness to me.


Not had a meeting in the cheesegrater yet (don't think anyone is in there yet?). But no doubt I will eventually and it will be shit.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 23, 2015)

I worked for a bit in the Gherkin.  It was shit.

I have lots of meetings in Lloyd's.  It's great.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2015)

I've had breakfast in the Heron tower, I like the lifts. . But it looks more boring than the walkie talkie.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jan 23, 2015)

kabbes said:


> All these new buildings are shit.



I work in a three year old flagship building. It is expensive and shit. Plumbings a joke, the air horrible, the stench below ground vile somedays, lighting horrible, stairs not in useful places, lifts over loaded.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 24, 2015)

In addition to thouggts on 20 fenchurch st, the plants up there look like they are in a terrible state!


----------



## Tony. (Feb 12, 2015)

I love the Walkie Talkie Tower. I'm interested in Modern Architecture, so I like it. This is my first post by the way, nice to meet you all.


----------



## quimcunx (Feb 12, 2015)

Welcome. 

You're wrong though.  It's horrible regardless of any interest in modern architecture.


----------



## Tony. (Feb 12, 2015)

Well, it comes down to preference. Some people like it, some don't. Me, I like it.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 12, 2015)

I like it too. Ignore quimcunx. She comes from a part of the UK where wattle and daub is still de rigeur.


----------



## Tony. (Feb 12, 2015)

It has a very distinctive shape. I like it.


----------



## Chick Webb (Feb 12, 2015)

hash tag said:


> Please tell me the lifts are internal and not external. Th lifts up the Heron are a nightmare, a scary, horrible, Nauseating nightmare ( though I can see the appeal for some people, just not me).


I had to collect my boss's coat from the Heron Tower the day after a fire in Sushi Samba a while back.  I thought the lifts were great!  It was the highlight of my day.  /saddo

I love their aquarium too.   I think the walkie talkie is very ugly, but it amuses me that it used to have a death ray.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 30, 2015)

For a cuppa at the walkie talkie, £3.50 and it comes in a bleedin cardboard cup!


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 2, 2015)

Wins the Carbuncle Cup 2015,

Hurrah. Reason has finally prevailed .....there's some other stinkers on this list too. Apparently it's got really bad wind around the base


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 2, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Wins the Carbuncle Cup 2015,
> 
> Hurrah. Reason has finally prevailed .....there's some other stinkers on this list too. Apparently it's got really bad wind around the base



Read that this morning too - good news.  It is a horrible building so well deserving of the win.


----------



## editor (Sep 2, 2015)

it's the winner of the Carbuncle Cup 2015!



> It has singed shopfronts, melted cars and caused great gusts of wind to sweep pedestrians off their feet. Now the Walkie Talkie tower, the bulbous comedy villain of London’s skyline, has been bestowed with the Carbuncle Cup by Building Design (BD) magazine for the worst building of the year.
> 
> Responsible for a catalogue of catastrophes, it is hard to imagine a building causing more damage if it tried. It stands at 20 Fenchurch Street, way outside the city’s planned “cluster” of high-rise towers, on a site never intended for a tall building. It looms thuggishly over its low-rise neighbours like a broad-shouldered banker in a cheap pinstriped suit. And it gets fatter as it rises, to make bigger floors at the more lucrative upper levels, forming a literal diagram of greed.



Carbuncle Cup: Walkie Talkie wins prize for worst building of the year


----------



## cesare (Sep 2, 2015)

Heron Tower's a nightmare for wind as well.


----------



## Manter (Sep 2, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Wins the Carbuncle Cup 2015,
> 
> Hurrah. Reason has finally prevailed .....there's some other stinkers on this list too. Apparently it's got really bad wind around the base


I think Parliament House should have won out of that lot. Fenchurch street is ridiculous but at least it looks like someone designed it


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 2, 2015)

Manter said:


> I think Parliament House should have won out of that lot. Fenchurch street is ridiculous but at least it looks like someone designed it



You're probably right but I think the Walkie Talkie was in a much more public position and more people see it. It also promised so much and failed e.g. the viewing garden

I'd cycled past Parliament House a few times and barely registered it.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 2, 2015)

Parliament house is an uglier building, but Fenchurch St. deserves the win for the magnitude of its wrong-formedness. It completely ruins the skyline from almost anywhere that can see it, and will continue to do so for decades if not more.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 2, 2015)

Imperial College's student accommodation in north Acton looks pretty bad too, I guess they were forced to build high :


----------



## kabbes (Sep 2, 2015)

Deserves to win worst building.  I walk past it every day and I'm still not used to just how horrible it is.  And it's shit to have meetings in too,


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 2, 2015)

I don't get the hate on the walkie talkie at all. I like the bulging out, it makes it different.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 2, 2015)

Yay it's cute and cheeky.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 2, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't get the hate on the walkie talkie at all. I like the bulging out, it makes it different.


Do you have to walk past it on a daily basis or otherwise work in its vicinity?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 2, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Do you have to walk past it on a daily basis or otherwise work in its vicinity?


Yeah, I walk past it a few times a week. It's not like Fenchurch st is a pretty street full of uniform buildings anyway. I hate the Heron tower much more, it's just boring.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 3, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yeah, I walk past it a few times a week. It's not like Fenchurch st is a pretty street full of uniform buildings anyway. I hate the Heron tower much more, it's just boring.


It looms from everywhere.  You can't walk down Lime St without it dominating.  You see it bulging out unexpectedly over the top of Leadenhall Market or Lloyd's or from Gracechurch and it never belongs to the skyline.  It's always there like some kind of horrific boil.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 5, 2015)

Good piece on Citylab about 20 Fenchurch Street The Walkie Talkie Really Is London's Worst Building


----------



## Belushi (Sep 5, 2015)

The Walkie Talkie is a sty in London's eye – and proves we can't say no to money


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> It looms from everywhere.  You can't walk down Lime St without it dominating.  You see it bulging out unexpectedly over the top of Leadenhall Market or Lloyd's or from Gracechurch and it never belongs to the skyline.  It's always there like some kind of horrific boil.



No it looms like this: 

It brightens up my day.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 27, 2017)

Bought by Lee Kum Kee. Perhaps they'll restore the frying function


----------



## hash tag (Jul 27, 2017)

My elderly Ma in Law, who lives outta town, has now been up 20 Fenchurch St three times and loves it. On her last visit, she noticed another bar had been added. She much prefers it to the Shard.



DJWrongspeed said:


> Imperial College's student accommodation in north Acton looks pretty bad too, I guess they were forced to build high :



Try not to feel too sorry for the good students at Imperial, they are some of the brightest and richest out there.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 27, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It looms from everywhere.  You can't walk down Lime St without it dominating.  You see it bulging out unexpectedly over the top of Leadenhall Market or Lloyd's or from Gracechurch and it never belongs to the skyline.  It's always there like some kind of horrific boil.




I come out of Bank tube most days and it looks like a scene from Half Life 2 some days, this big egregious eyesore in the clouds and morning sun.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 27, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> I come out of Bank tube most days and it looks like a scene from Half Life 2 some days, this big egregious eyesore in the clouds and morning sun.
> 
> View attachment 112266


Eugh.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 27, 2017)

In fairness, you can make that accusation against many modern buildings when contrasted with elderly ones.
Take either the gherkin orchestra Lloyd's building, between which is an old church.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 27, 2017)

hash tag said:


> In fairness, you can make that accusation against many modern buildings when contrasted with elderly ones.
> Take either the gherkin orchestra Lloyd's building, between which is an old church.


None of them loom in the same way though.  The walkie talkie is the absolute worst.


----------



## mx wcfc (Jul 27, 2017)

View from the 44th floor or something of the walkie talkie,  The high temples of capitalism aint such a big deal.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 27, 2017)

Awesome building. I bet it will be Grade I listed in 40 years time.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 27, 2017)

hash tag said:


> In fairness, you can make that accusation against many modern buildings when contrasted with elderly ones.
> Take either the gherkin orchestra Lloyd's building, between which is an old church.



That's actually one of the better days, most days it's just a looming lump. 

The Shard say, can look decent at night and in the day unless it's shit weather. The walkie is forever just shit.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 27, 2017)

If you want the real Half Life 2 experience, you need to go to Manchester.





_Half-Life 2's Citadel_





_Beetham Tower, Manchester_


----------



## paolo (Jul 27, 2017)

mauvais said:


> If you want the real Half Life 2 experience, you need to go to Manchester.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I like the design of the tower.

In context though... a bit weird.

And the walking talkie I think is awful. For me the design is yuck, but add to that, it doesn't fit into an existing cluster - city or Canary Wharf.

Unless you see it from a very specific angle, it just appears plonked. Which it is.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 28, 2017)

I can't overemphasise how dangerous it is either.  Even on a calm day, it's blustery as you walk past.  A few months ago when we had those high winds, as I walked into the overhang of the walkie talkie, I was physically blown sideways and came within a whisker of being blown off my feet into the road.  I wasn't the only one.  People were being knocked all over the place.  I saw several hit the ground.  The funnelling of the wind is lethal.  I actually now cross the road before I get to it and take paths to avoid it.


----------



## editor (May 22, 2021)

I visited it again earlier this week.  It really is quite an amazing attraction for free. 















						In photos: spectacular views from the Sky Garden in the City of London
					

Six years after my first visit, I returned to the Sky Garden in the City of London and took in the spectacular views from the top of the landmark skyscraper. Located in the Walkie Talkie tower at 2…




					www.urban75.org


----------



## hash tag (May 22, 2021)

It's a much better visit than that thing across the river. The views from post office tower are the best though


----------



## Griff (May 22, 2021)

Worked right next to it until WFH started in March 2020. Love this view of it:

Yeah, it's windy alright! 😀


----------



## Griff (May 22, 2021)

.double-post!


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 23, 2021)

Griff said:


> Worked right next to it until WFH started in March 2020. Love this view of it:
> 
> Yeah, it's windy alright! 😀




When you come out of Bank in the morning is best (worked in the area around there 2011-2016)


----------



## RoyReed (May 23, 2021)

I still think it's one of the more attractive buildings in the City.




Walkie-Talkie Building by Roy Reed, on Flickr




Sky Garden Terrace by Roy Reed, on Flickr




Walkie-Talkie Building by Roy Reed, on Flickr


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 23, 2021)

The view from my window the last time I was in London.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 23, 2021)

I worked in there a while back, the central core is massive with 6 double decker lifts and the offices are a strip around this. Where we were on the bulge you could  lean back a bit on your chair and just see street below, a bit disconcerting. The glass is filthy as it's difficult to clean with the curve.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 23, 2021)

Went there today and they said you need to book two weeks in advance just to go and have a look!


----------



## editor (May 23, 2021)

skyscraper101 said:


> Went there today and they said you need to book two weeks in advance just to go and have a look!


To be fair in most other countries you'd have to pay to get in.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 23, 2021)

editor said:


> To be fair in most other countries you'd have to pay to get in.



Japan, as in many things the UK attempts, does better.

So many tall buildings have free entry or a rooftop bar/garden/restaurant.


----------



## T & P (May 24, 2021)

I love the look of the building, though I am aware a great many people find it ugly.

The Sky Garden Terrace was a tiny bit underwhelming tbh, as the outside balcony area was closed on the day of our visit. I am glad it didn't cost money to go up. But I would have loved to be able to go outside.


----------



## editor (May 24, 2021)

T & P said:


> I love the look of the building, though I am aware a great many people find it ugly.
> 
> The Sky Garden Terrace was a tiny bit underwhelming tbh, as the outside balcony area was closed on the day of our visit. I am glad it didn't cost money to go up. But I would have loved to be able to go outside.


It does make a real difference to the 'experience' going outside but it was well windy when I was there and closed after half an hour.


----------



## maomao (May 24, 2021)

It's too phallic for me. I don't like the way it curves and swells. And no I don't have a square knob. Though I'm not a fan of tall buildings generally.


----------



## T & P (May 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's too phallic for me. I don't like the way it curves and swells. And no I don't have a square knob. Though I'm not a fan of tall buildings generally.


I certainly prefer it to the dildo-like building on the left of the image Sasaferrato posted above. IIRC that's all or mostly private hyper-expensive apartments as well.


----------

