[unishisse]

Of course, English Heritage are kicking up a fuss about these obscuring the London skyline, but I think they are a bunch of fuddy-duddy Luddite tw@ts

[emuffette]

You've got an education coming, if you think the tall buildings will lower real estate prices in London.

[DeilMikina]

Originally posted by Asher
Skyscrappers f*cking rule! Quoted for TRUTH!

[loginereQQ]

Didn't Paris just put its bigger buildings in a single district away from most of the historical stuff?

[attanilifardy]

Does London have regs like DC that bar buildings beyond a certain height? DC bans buildings higher than the monument; I can imagine that the equivelent is no buildings higher than Big Ben.

[Fhgzmftq]

London Bridge Tower

[Mangoman]

I don't think they could get enough footprint space to have a solid skyline like NYC, which is not a bad thing.

I am curious as to what they are knocking down to get the property to build on.

[syncFisee]

Paris has the fewest skyscrapers of any major city yet one of the highest population densities.

This is because once you go above around 10 floors, net floor area ratio (usable space) increases very slowly, as services, especially elevators, take up more space, buildings need to be stepped back to meet zoning codes so whole neighborhoods aren't in the shadows all day, structural columns get big, etc.

Net floor area ratios above 10 are exceedingly rare, even in Manhattan.

Typical European blocks of around 8-10 stories, built to the lot lines, and with a light court in the back, get around a net area of 5.

[crycleascentyv]

Smiley, I assume from your description that net floor area ratio is calculated as total usable space/footprint?

[HBPujWBe]

It doesn't help that nowadays most highrises have the upper 20 "floors" doing nothing but looking pretty. In the picture shown, I doubt the top third of the building has any useful space.

[Greapyjeory]

I thought they had taller buildings there, but I have seen other pictures and it looks nice.

[egexgfczc]

Skyscrapers are ugly!!!

Paris

[Lenkapuppia]

i hope Prince Charles gets involved in this discussion

[Immonnaornach]

Originally posted by Starchild
And the best part is that we're not building just metal and glass blocks. Someone in the Observer commented that London is starting to look like the European version of Shanghai with its style of skyscrapers. eh, I don't know if the Shanghai comparison is desirable, they've got some really tacky stuff over there.

[Vagtlaldo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Didn't Paris just put its bigger buildings in a single district away from most of the historical stuff? Yes, but the reason for that is because underground Paris can't support the weight of a skyscraper. It's the catacombs, you see. They've made the bedrock a Swiss cheese, and thus unsuitable for heavy buildings.

[Kamepherype]

Originally posted by Sn00py
It's about time London started building skyscrapers, what took them so long?

Oh, little things called building regulations, the London Building Acts, conservation areas, listed buildings and good taste.

Having seen what happens when you completely remove impediments to erecting hideous tall buildings in the pursuit of a fast buck (London Docklands Development Zone) and having to live with a view of Canary Wharf, I can honestly say that an excellent strategic view of London from Greenwich has been utterly ruined by a non-descript clutch of Anywheresville buildings.



"It seems to be corporate ego or ambition. It's Master of the Universe syndrome. "You feel important. It is partly commercial, partly psychological and partly corporate," said Paul Finch, editorial director of the Architects' Journal and deputy chairman of the Commission for Architecture and Built Environment (Cabe).

But he struck a note of caution that London's newest landmarks needed to be distinctive in design.

Peter Rees, the City planning officer for the Corporation of London, said: "The skyline is not going to become Manhattan over the next five years." But there will be a cluster of tall buildings around Tower 42 east of the Bank of England, in a location that will not jeopardise views of St Paul's Cathedral, he said. "We are not doing this to change the skyline. "We are doing it because we need more offices surrounded by public transport." Without skyscrapers some companies may take their business elsewhere to cities like New York, Chicago, Hong Kong or Tokyo, it is feared. A combination of prestige, views, accommodation needs and the creation of centres of excellence explain why companies want these buildings, he said. As for the public, he said: "It is amazing how they are warming to the idea of tall buildings."

Mayor Ken Livingstone shares a positive view of tall buildings in the right places. He has said he expects to see a limited number of very tall buildings developed - about one a year - with these most likely to be in the City, Canary Wharf and some other town centre locations. Much of the development in the City seems driven by the insurance sector.

Nicholas Antram, the London region's assistant regional director, said: "It would have been a brave decision to reject it on heritage grounds in a location in need of regeneration and in an area where there are three existing tall buildings." English Heritage insists tall buildings have to be well-planned and of high architectural quality. "We must make sure they go in the right places and don't have an impact on our cherished heritage. "We only have to look around London to see the mistakes of the 1960s," said Mr Antram.
by Margaret Ryan
BBC News Online



Or the 1980s and 1990s.

Small is beautiful:

http://www.findaproperty.com/agent.a...rop&pid=240208

[trilochana.nejman]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


There is no denying that the 60s were a disaster but we're not talking about that kind of half-arsed cheap construction...
Remind me again- how did the architecturally uninspired Canary Wharf buildings come to be built ?


Oh, that's right- over the top of any objections from any locals, property developers were given free rein to stick up any old crap because planning rules and regulations had been virtually suspended for them by a very helpful right wing government in search of easy money and a Guangzhou type economic development zone.


Oh wait, that has a familiar ring to it...

http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk...egionallon.pdf

Market driven planning I believe it was euphemistically referred to...

[malishka1025]

Originally posted by TheStinger
As everyone who has ever watched US movies knows the only thing to be seen in london is Big Ben and red buses And those guys with the big hats.

[9enackivegliva]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i hate it when this happens, but i agree with molly.
You're allowed to be right occasionally too.

[Soresbox]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
As many of you have noticed, whether visitors or residents, that London is relatively short on big buildings, at least until very recently. I have been flicking through some of the proposed buildings that are either under construction and proposed. I think this is a good thing, about time there was more floorspace to bring the prices of space down and they look impressive! The London Bridge Tower is due to be constructed (307m) and I was looking at another proposed building, the Bishopsgate Tower at 308m. Will be cool if these two are built

And there are several other buildings being proposed. There is another one called Ecotower which is proposed that would be 485m.

It will be nice to see the skyline of London looking a little bigger about friggin' time you guys got into the 20th century.

Now only Washington D.C. is in the dark ages.