London's skyline is a growing mess (Commentary)

[nito]

Originally Posted by 10023

In short... London is never going to have a skyline that looks like an American city.

Excellent points; London is sometimes referred to as a City of Villages because it is such a jumbled assortment of developments that have merged over the centuries.

In addition to your points and the above, London’s development is rather unique and is borderline chaotic; repeated attempts to bring order to the city have been dismissed (e.g. Wren and others plans after the Great Fire of London). For instance whilst the major train stations of North American cities are located at the heart of their respective cities, in London they are mostly consolidated along the periphery of Central London; that drastically alters development across a wider area rather than being consolidated in a specific place. The introduction of the Green Belt in the 1930’s and subsequent development of new towns and dormitory commuter towns outside of London in the post-war environment also mixed things up.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

What are the chances of the City Airport being shut down? It doesn't seem particularly useful. Meanwhile its sitting on a whole bunch of valuable land, and could open up a good part of Tower Hamlets to higher density development with the flight path gone.

The presence of the airport does restrict high-rise development in Canary Wharf and the City; the original design for 30 St Mary Axe (aka the Gherkin) was for a 386m tower, the first plan for the London Bridge Tower (aka the Shard) was 366m tall, whilst more recently the Pinnacle was reduced from 307m to 288m due to the flight paths over London.

Yet as highlighted by 10023 and muppet, it is an important business airport with unmatched public transport access to Canary Wharf (13mins) and the Square Mile (22mins). Late last year the airport also submitted a £200mn planning application (http://www.bdonline.co.uk/pascall-an...5061048.articl) to expand to cope with 6mn passengers per annum. On top of that, provision has been made for a Crossrail station to the south of the terminal, which would enable a journey time of just 5 minutes to Canary Wharf (11mins and 16mins to the City and West End respectively). With the Chinese planning a giant £6bn ($10bn) business port directly opposite London City, I can’t see the airport going anywhere soon unless the Thames Estuary airport is built.

One other point, I notice that you contrasted London City to Toronto’s island airport, but the later is geographically detached from the city with poor public transport access which will surely impede its long-term viability?


Also if anyone is interested, the following is what the skyline at Vauxhall should look like in a few years.


Image sourced by SE9 on skyscrapercity.com: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=225

[chris08876]

^^^^^
I heard of Moscow also being referred to the city of villages or the "big village" as a nickname.

[mousquet]

The City's cluster looks quite heterogeneous and a bit chaotic, so to speak. It's not bad at all. I understand there's some big interest and value in there but still, I like Canary Wharf's better for it's boxy strength and more conventional layout and order. A matter of personality and taste, I guess, feeling like mine is rather conformist in that particular respect. I mean Canary Wharf's skyline looks much more common than the City's, and I strangely like it this way.

[10023]

Originally Posted by nito

For instance whilst the major train stations of North American cities are located at the heart of their respective cities, in London they are mostly consolidated along the periphery of Central London; that drastically alters development across a wider area rather than being consolidated in a specific place.

Which is frankly better. If London did have one central train station (which wouldn't make sense... it was decentralized even before the steam engine), it would probably need to be the largest in the world and the area around it would be a total clusterfuck.

Originally Posted by mousquet

The City's cluster looks quite heterogeneous and a bit chaotic, so to speak. It's not bad at all. I understand there's some big interest and value in there but still, I like Canary Wharf's better for it's boxy strength and more conventional layout and order. A matter of personality and taste, I guess, feeling like mine is rather conformist in that particular respect. I mean Canary Wharf's skyline looks much more common than the City's, and I strangely like it this way.

But Canary Wharf isn't a real place. It's an office park like La Defense.

[mousquet]

^ So is the City basically, isn't it? Planning there is just 1000 or so years older. I was only talking about skylines anyway, not the street life or whatever else.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mousquet

^ So is the City basically, isn't it? Planning there is just 1000 or so years older. I was only talking about skylines anyway, not the street life or whatever else.

The City has few full-time residents but it's a much more interesting place than Canary Wharf. There are better restaurants, lively (after work) bars, a number of schools/universities, better architecture, galleries/exhibits, tourist sites worth seeing and of course history. Plus it's walking distance to areas like Shoreditch, Angel and Borough. Walking in most directions from Canary Wharf can get you mugged.

And it's 2,000 years older.

[rohanjain]

England is just too beautiful. Love london.....

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by 10023

But Canary Wharf isn't a real place. It's an office park like La Defense.

mm... No, I disagree. The Canary has already some interesting potential. See this posted on SSC's French-speaking section for instance.



That older midrise to the left is so sweet there. The good point about la Défense is it's some kind of massive and pretty dense cluster, that's something. On the other hand, it's got nothing much this attractive on that picture. Believe it, I can tell. In fact, both districts have their plus that surely might inspire one another.

I don't think the City of London has so much potential, because it's an older and yet worldwide well established district. It's something different.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mousquet

mm... No, I disagree. The Canary has already some interesting potential. See this posted on SSC's French-speaking section for instance.

That older midrise to the left is so sweet there. The good point about la Défense is it's some kind of massive and pretty dense cluster, that's something. On the other hand, it's got nothing much this attractive on that picture. Believe it, I can tell. In fact, both districts have their plus that surely might inspire one another.

I don't think the City of London has so much potential, because it's an older and yet worldwide well established district. It's something different.

That is not an "older midrise", it was built when the rest of the development was built in the early 1990s. Canary Wharf is a planned development, that's it. There are lots of offices and chain shops/restaurants catering to the people that work there. Trust me, I know it well (close friends work there, I'm there frequently for meetings, etc), better than you can from any picture.

The biggest problem is that it's so far from anything. Nothing is walkable, you need to get on the Jubilee line or DLR to get anywhere from CW.

[M II A II R II K]

The 236 skyscrapers coming to London

Read More: http://www.cityam.com/blog/139463534...-coming-london

.....

According to a report out today, over 236 towers over 20 storeys are being proposed, approved or under construction – more than double the number of high-rise buildings estimated to be in capital today.

- Traditionally a low-rise city, London’s skyscrapers have, until now, been mostly confined to areas like Canary Wharf and the City, responding to demand for office space from growing businesses. --- However, research from the think-tank New London Architecture (NLA) and consultants GL Hearn shows that 80 per cent (189) of these towers in the pipeline are in fact residential, and popping up in new areas that had previously never seen a skyscraper like Lambeth, Greenwich and Newham.

- Tower Hamlets, for example, which has traditionally been one of London’s less affluent boroughs, is at the heart of the building boom as the biggest area of development - with just under a quarter (23 per cent) of the projects being planned there alone. --- These range from British Land and Barratt London’s residential-led scheme at Aldgate Place, which is under construction, and comprises of three towers between 20-25 storeys high, to Ballymore Properties’ proposed Arrowhead Quay, which will have three towers up to 50-storeys high.

- Increasing density in London, particularly around transport hubs, is an excellent way of achieving truly sustainable development and providing all the business benefits of agglomeration. Tall buildings are an obvious means of achieving that increased density and providing a stunning and spectacular skyline into the bargain. But it is important that they are well designed and that sufficient attention is paid to the way in which they fit in with their surrounding spaces. Fortunately, we have the architectural excellence available to us to achieve those ends – developers and investors need to make sure that they take advantage of it!

.....

[evilstewie]

Its crazy how many towers they are building over there

[IIan]

Haha, some comments on this thread are hilarious...

The only better skylines in the states are Chicago and New York, the rest of the cities can't hold a candle to London. Those tiny CBD's surrounded by parking lots and dead suburbia are not comparable in any way to London's main skylines located in a real liveable and dense city.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

I'll be labeled a heretic for saying it, but I think London's skyline is ghastly. Too many "look-at-me!" buildings shouting each other out with no coherence and too much gimmickry.

+1.

One skyscraper with a bizarre or out-of-the-ordinary shape to mark your skyline is good (think the Grande Arche at La Défense for example), but a skyline only made up of towers with bizarre shapes is ugly in my opinion. It looks like a cabinet of curiosities. That's especially true for the City of London, less true for Canary Wharf.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by IIan

The only better skylines in the states are Chicago and New York, the rest of the cities can't hold a candle to London.

Then you don't know the US very well. Just to name a few that I know particularly well, San Francisco, Seattle, and downtown LA look far more impressive than either the City of London or Canary Wharf.

Even a place like Cincinnati has a sexier skyline than London currently does.

Originally Posted by IIan

Those tiny CBD's surrounded by parking lots and dead suburbia are not comparable in any way to London's main skylines located in a real liveable and dense city.

Density is a relative concept. By Asian or Latin European standards, London is not very dense. Its density is about the same as Los Angeles.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

The 236 skyscrapers coming to London

Read More: http://www.cityam.com/blog/139463534...-coming-london

Holy shit.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Density is a relative concept. By Asian or Latin European standards, London is not very dense. Its density is about the same as Los Angeles.

Absolute bullshit...

London 5,285/km2
Los Angeles 3,176/km2

And London is 30% parkland!

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Then you don't know the US very well. Just to name a few that I know particularly well, San Francisco, Seattle, and downtown LA look far more impressive than either the City of London or Canary Wharf.

Even a place like Cincinnati has a sexier skyline than London currently does.

London is a great city and is world-class in most areas, but skyline isn't one of them. There are at least 10-15 better looking skylines in the U.S. It's not rocket science - London just doesn't have a great looking skyline.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

One skyscraper with a bizarre or out-of-the-ordinary shape to mark your skyline is good (think the Grande Arche at La Défense for example), but a skyline only made up of towers with bizarre shapes is ugly in my opinion. It looks like a cabinet of curiosities. That's especially true for the City of London, less true for Canary Wharf.

Agreed on all points.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

London 5,285/km2
Los Angeles 3,176/km2

That LA figure includes MOUNTAINS. Once the mountains are discounted, the density is the same as in London.

On SSC we even looked for the densest areas of London and LA, and we found that the densest area of LA (around MacArthur Park) was denser than the densest area of London (around Paddington station).

[MonkeyRonin]

The city of Los Angeles represents less than a third of it's urban & metro areas. Greater London represents the entirety of the contiguous urban area and about two thirds of its (rather amorphous) metro area. London is denser.