# Is London leading the way in Skyscraper Designs?



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

Kids in the riot said:


> there's not that many innovative towers in NL, in fact i can't think of any. Not to the standard of DIFA and LBT.


NL's UCs

Eindhoven:





























Nieuwegein










Enschede










Rijswijk










just a few outside of the "usual places"


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

zaqattaq said:


> I say no strictly because they allowed the Vauxhall Tower project to continue


Although not inventive, and probably the worst London proposal, its still better then half the things going up around the world, and infact I quite like it. Very Hong Kongish

Vauxhall Tower 181m










And people who dont like Tower 42 are bonkers, its beautiful, elegant and a tru gritty scraper  London already has the street scenes like these in the picture and with added rowering skyscrapers the city if goign to become even more unique.










Another unique high-rise structure is London Eye - unique as its never been done in this way ever before, infact its got so much world-wide recognition companies from Dubai are buying the wheel.










You could also add the new Wembley stadium which will have a 135m arch - which will light up and flash red and white, when England score to show Londerners and tourists what the score is - something quite unique dont you think?


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

I would call only this one innovative yet thats pushing it


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

pottebaum said:


> What are the odds of all these being built, though? Aren't their futures dependant on hopes that the weak office market will approve?


Nope - Reports released today show, London's bucked the trend :cheers: 

All these planned will go ahead - especially the major ones.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

I'm with ya fox, I really like Tower 42 also!

As far as leading the way....I actually wouldn't mind giving London that title cause some of the London designs have been very innovative, butthere are many other proposals that have left me very uninspired, they're not bad designs, just not anything special (indifference) but that doesn't take away from the really, really cool looking ones in my opinion. 

Also, must NY be brought up in every single London thread? anyway, you can't argue that London's proposals will have far more of an impact on the skyline than other cities. It's quite amazing


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

You're exaggerating a bit, Birminghamculture.

London's office market is showing signs of recovery, but there's still a long way to go before all these towers start rising. And Bishopsgate Tower (one of the "major ones" you mention) ain't even approved yet.

The towers likely to start in the near future are Broadgate (164m), and Millharbour (140m), but that's all we can be sure of right now.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

can you post renderings of Broadgate and Millharbour, or give me a elink that has renderings?


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

streetscapeer said:


> I'm with ya fox, I really like Tower 42 also!
> 
> As far as leading the way....I actually wouldn't mind giving London that title cause some of the London designs have been very innovative, butthere are many other proposals that have left me very uninspired, they're not bad designs, just not anything special (indifference) but that doesn't take away from the really, really cool looking ones in my opinion.
> 
> Also, must NY be brought up in every single London thread? anyway, you can't argue that London's proposals will have far more of an impact on the skyline than other cities. It's quite amazing


:rofl:


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

Let's have some that could be rented from october or november this year

ldn is very iffy
if not very offy 



the Eindhoven Vestdijk residential really is something special!

more from the SSC NL database, nothing iffy!!! - many are nearly completed, all U/C anyway









Apeldoorn









Arnhem









Zwolle


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

wjfox2002 said:


> You're exaggerating a bit, Birminghamculture.
> 
> London's office market is showing signs of recovery, but there's still a long way to go before all these towers start rising. And Bishopsgate Tower (one of the "major ones" you mention) ain't even approved yet.
> 
> The towers likely to start in the near future are Broadgate (164m), and Millharbour (140m), but that's all we can be sure of right now.


I'll find the source cheif, I read it today  - about Bishopsgate - like you know its 99.9% guranteed approval only something stupendence can stop it.


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

Eusebius - London has other towers going up alot more inventive then those - its just at this moment in time 100m towers dont seem very big to many Londerners  a 100m in Birmingham and I would wet myself.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

effer said:


> :rofl:


effer, I wish you'd stay out of these Citytalk threads. Your attitude is childish and you contributing NOTHING useful to the discussions. All you seem to do is post smilies or comments like "ROFL OMG".


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

birminghamculture said:


> I'll find the source cheif, I read it today  - about Bishopsgate - like you know its 99.9% guranteed approval only something stupendence can stop it.


If you can find it, please post it here. Cheers.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

birminghamculture said:


> I'll find the source cheif, I read it today  - about Bishopsgate - like you know its 99.9% guranteed approval only something stupendence can stop it.


stupendous hno:
enough to stop it that would be 

</sorry>

there is a universal rule as to how many of the suggested projects actually get through, and subsequently do get built

they're few

my lesson to you, young man:

restrict yourself to the under construction projects, please. The way you're comparing right now is a hype versus proposal battle! And nothing else.


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

eusebius said:


> stupendous hno:
> enough to stop it that would be


My bad :cheers:



eusebius said:


> </sorry>
> 
> there is a universal rule as to how many of the suggested projects actually get through, and subsequently do get built
> 
> ...


Now you're being a prick :yes:


----------



## Dreamliner (Jul 18, 2005)

Fantastic! GO LONDON!!!


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> Show me a recently completed skyscraper that's attracted as much international attention as SwissRe. I doubt you'll find many. This building has become famous all over the world. David Littlejohn of the Wall Street Journal called it "the most ingenious and elegant new skyscraper anywhere in the world for at least 30 years."
> 
> London Bridge Tower is designed by Renzo Piano, one of the world's best architects, and the building is one of the most popular proposals on SSC. And 306m is hardly short.
> 
> ...


There are many towers such as taipei 101. Design wise IMO the tower in riyadh has nicer architecture than the swiss re which was completed only a year after. Sure the swiss re is very nice but its not the best. It only generated lots of attention because new innovative buildings so far are rare in europe. And the tall towers you talk about, firstly they are only proposals, secondly for a new tower in todays world, 300m isn't very tall. Proposed or U/C towers in asia and north america are a lot taller. Ofcourse towers in London are very nice but many other cities too have nice architecture. Some such as dubai and shanghai are far ahead of london in terms of architecture. And also i dont see how i am being dismisive, i never denied the towers werent nice, i just didnt agree with you.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

-- post deleted by wjfox --

Reason: Antagonising to UK forumers


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

birminghamculture said:


> My bad :cheers:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're being a prick :yes:


Now, you leave me in awe, such eloquence. I dread not to reply. 
If you can't stand facts, you shouldn't participate in bitching over heights!


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

Would have been interesting to read what mr Brooklyn had to say :sleepy:


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

909 said:


> But although i like the proposals in London, there are all a bit similar. Always glass and steel structures, looking grey.


Erm............ You've got to be joking, right? These towers couldn't be more different from each other!

A gherkin, a cheese grater, a shard of glass, an open book, etc...!

And regarding the colours, they are also different - LBT is glimmering white/light blue, DIFA is a mixture of blue and purple (how many purple skyscrapers are there in the world?! Not many), Leadenhall actually has multi-coloured blocks if you look closely at the official renderings, SwissRe has unique stripey patterns, Heron is a deep cyan blue, Columbus Tower is a slightly greeny-blue, etc. etc...


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

The good thing about London is that cool buildings like the Leadenhall (48 floors) have a huge impact on the skyline, even though they aren't that tall. 

Even the BishopsGate tower (which, if built, would be London's tallest) would have a limited presence in Manhattan, Chicago, etc.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

What`s the next great tower after 30 St Mary Axe?

This 

















BTW: This tower is not build in London


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

Yep the Turning Torso is fantastic


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

^ It's a great design, but it's stuck out in the middle of nowhere - it would look better as part of a cluster. Also, the cladding is rather average when you see it up close. I prefer SwissRe. Anyway, SwissRe came before this and influenced the "twisting" form.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> it would look better as part of a cluster. Also, the cladding is rather average when you see it up close. I prefer SwissRe. Anyway, SwissRe came before this and influenced the "twisting" form.


Maybe, maybe not. Wo knows? 
I like it. It`s a landmark tower.

So you really want to say that the twisting facade of the SwissRe influenced the twisted shape of the Turning Torso? ^^


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

What else was build 2003?

This great tower. 









The world if full of nice buildings.


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

Many organisations based in the UK, for instance, CABE and EH, contribute immensely in ensuring that London’s appearance stays efficient and tidy and ensures that it has the prevailing project designs that it deserves as a ‘’World City’’.

London has been hidden away for many years, and hasn’t shown its true potential of what it can offer as a ‘’World City’’, but through the course of this year and sooner than the Olympics are hosted in London 2012, we will reveal and demonstrate globally, after being slated for decades, that ‘’We Can Do It Better Than You!’’ 

We will show you how a futuristic city should look like. Nothing like 60’s New York, no! But bright, pioneering projects for greater London. To be frank, I’m relatively thankful that London didn’t experience a ‘’skyscraper boom’’ sometime around the 60’s as New York did.

When the ‘’Shard’’ rises, it will be given more honour than that of the ‘’Gherkin’’. Don’t tell me Wembley Stadium and the Olympic stadium to bee, aren’t the best piece’s of architecture of its class - tony blair, ken livingston and the IOC members seem to think so. Who knows what kind of praise the ‘’Cheese Greater’’ or the ‘’Helter-Skelter’’ will receive… I’m thinking big. No other city’s got it like London!


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

well, foxy babe

many would argue london is like nowhere close

better learn to live with this notion!!

you think london is ever so special but fact of the matter is that london is only like 6 times stupid arnhem 

plenty of ammunititon I would say!


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

^^gosh, you're so funny!


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Are the plans for the Bishopsgate tower final? Is there any chance they'll modify it at all? 

I've tried and tried, but I just don't like that building.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

swiss re is the ugliest building ever it is a giant blue egg. No your city isn't leading shit in skyscrapers, some Londoners are the most arrogant posters on here.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

Just look closely at the buildings(like Swiss Re) that are being designed for nothing. You'll find that the giant egg is actually quite good-looking. It looks even better in person. One of my favorite views is from the city airport(a few miles away).


----------



## oshkeoto (Sep 21, 2004)

I think London is on the forefront. New York is second, and Chicago a distant third.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

great prairie said:


> swiss re is the ugliest building ever it is a giant blue egg. No your city isn't leading shit in skyscrapers, some Londoners are the most arrogant posters on here.


If SwissRe is the "ugliest building ever", then it's funny how 70% of forumers give it 9/10 or higher in Rate Our Talls.

Also, the fact that it's won several major architectural awards (including the Stirling Prize for Architecture - can't get much more prestigious than that), been voted the Best European Skyscraper by SSC forumers, and the Best Skyscraper of 2003 by Emporis.com.

You're in the (very small) minority if you hate this building. There are certain people who, unfortunately, just don't seem to "get" SwissRe. The overwhelming majority though - myself included - can appreciate the amazing design of this building and the way it's revolutionised London's skyline.

I've already quoted David Littlejohn from the Wall Street Journal who called it "the most ingenious and elegant new skyscraper anywhere in the world for at least 30 years."


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

great prairie said:


> swiss re is the ugliest building ever it is a giant blue egg. No your city isn't leading shit in skyscrapers, some Londoners are the most arrogant posters on here.



Some people dont like it, but there very narrow minded and have very limited knowledge of architecture.


----------



## Mac (Apr 7, 2005)

eusebius said:


> well, foxy babe
> 
> many would argue london is like nowhere close
> 
> ...


Who is this dumb dutch ****...and which rock did he crawl from....

Why do threads about the uk always attract these these ignorant continental european *****....

The notion that anwhere in the Netherlands is in the same league as London is just beyond belief..what parrallell universe do they live in...

Why cant they just stick to their own forums if all they want to do is spread poison about the UK.


----------



## DARKNIGHT (Jun 26, 2005)

London has some great architecture.  I love the SwissRe, but London is definitely not "leading" the way in skyscraper designs. I would have to give this title to Dubai. Dubai not only has quantity, it also has height and a variety of buildings...which are all unique in itself. These are all the ones that are U/C. The ones proposed are even more unique!


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

I don't know if London's leading the way in Skyscraper design but I know that although the skyline isn't big, most of the the designs are great. They seem to pick the best from everywhere. For example, the Bishopsgate tower looks like it could be part of an Asian city aswell.


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

DARKNIGHT said:


> London has some great architecture.  I love the SwissRe, but London is definitely not "leading" the way in skyscraper designs. I would have to give this title to Dubai. Dubai not only has quantity, it also has height and a variety of buildings...which are all unique in itself. These are all the ones that are U/C. The ones proposed are even more unique!


Dubai are also building alot of boxes - but agreed, they do have some fantastic things going up aswell, although not designed to the same level as many projects in London then still have an aura about them which you just have to love.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

no other cities get 5+ pages of their cities supporters going on and on about how great their projects which aren't even are. this is the citytalk and urban forum not the england/european keep this shit in there.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

great prairie said:


> no other cities get 5+ pages of their cities supporters going on and on about how great their projects *which aren't even are*. this is the citytalk and urban forum not the england/european keep this shit in there.


What the :soapbox: ?


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

great prairie said:


> no other cities get 5+ pages of their cities supporters going on and on about how great their projects which aren't even are. this is the citytalk and urban forum not the england/european keep this shit in there.


Well, maybe the other cities lack in faithful, proud citizens, simply because there's nothing to be proud of. English and european forumers are all sanctioned to contribute to any forum discussions as well as any other race. We all have things to be proud of in our cities, and SSC allows us to share it with the world whether it concerns you or not. Therefore you of all people have no authority to tell us what not to do on these forums or influence are doo's and dont's
Britain & Europe Stands Proud!


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

great prairie said:


> no other cities get 5+ pages of their cities supporters going on and on about how great their projects which aren't even are. this is the citytalk and urban forum not the england/european keep this shit in there.


This is the world forum.....perhaps its just me but i thought England and Europe where part of the World....so whats the problem??????????


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

great prairie said:


> no other cities get 5+ pages of their cities supporters going on and on about how great their projects which aren't even are. this is the citytalk and urban forum not the england/european keep this shit in there.


:weird:

I've seen plenty of threads about other countries in the citytalk and urban forums. England is part of the world believe it or not.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

you guys are incredibly dense


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

and you're not of course.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

great prairie, please stay out of this thread.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

well to bring this back on topic London is leading europe in Skyscraper design but has nothing on the rest of the world. Canary Wharf is no greater then La Defense(paris) in my opinion.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

I think la Defense is better at the moment but this thread is talking about future designs, not what's currently there.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

From this......














...To this......












...in just a few years. Even if you don't agree that London is "leading the world", you have to be impressed by the transformation that's happening to its skyline.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

great prairie said:


> no other cities get 5+ pages of their cities supporters going on and on about how great their projects which aren't even are.


they can if they want and we won't complain.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

Not really, have you seen singapore or dubai's future renderings. London is just another city when it comes to the future. Even Toronto is comparable to London in terms of future renderings, go check out some Toronto threads and i am sure you will find them. And those people who just claim londons stadium is the best end of story, go checkout other olympic stadiums, they are all preety much at the same level in terms of design. Your just too ignorant if you think Londons design are special. Ofcourse they are unique but every olympic stadium is unique in its own way, it has to be. Beijing is trying out something totally new and different and thats why i like their design more. And anyways its my opinion you dont have to agree with it.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

Butcher said:


> they can if they want and we won't complain.


we aren't that arrogant


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

why is that arrogance?


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

London has some really innovative sky scrapers (swiss Re) and because it is starting to build scrapers so late they get the advantage of new technology. For example NYC's tallest buildings were all built in the 1930's!!!


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Zaki said:


> Not really, have you seen singapore or dubai's future renderings. London is just another city when it comes to the future. Even Toronto is comparable to London in terms of future renderings, go check out some Toronto threads and i am sure you will find them. And those people who just claim londons stadium is the best end of story, go checkout other olympic stadiums, they are all preety much at the same level in terms of design. Your just too ignorant if you think Londons design are special. Ofcourse they are unique but every olympic stadium is unique in its own way, it has to be. Beijing is trying out something totally new and different and thats why i like their design more. And anyways its my opinion you dont have to agree with it.


You fail to acknowledge the fundamental change that is happening to London's skyline.

It is changing from a lowrise city into a highrise city.

Prior to 2002, the only skyscrapers it had were Tower 42 and 1 Canada Square. By around 2012, it could potentially have around *35* skyscrapers, including 2 buildings over 305m, and around 50 new midrises. Many of these will be stunning designs by some of the world's best architects (Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano, Kohn Pederson Fox, Cesar Pelli). For a city that has traditionally avoided building tall - due to the conservatism of heritage bodies, and the strict planning laws - it's nothing short of revolutionary.

I reject your statement that London's proposals are "nothing special" and that it's "just another city".

Sounds to me like you're just jealous.


----------



## djm19 (Jan 3, 2005)

I dont know if they are leading so much as making their own path. They are kinda making up for their lack of height (so far) by ensuring that they have unique buildings.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

djm19 said:


> I dont know if they are leading so much as making their own path. They are kinda making up for their lack of height (so far) by ensuring that they have unique buildings.


That's what I think aswell. They don't have many buildings but the ones that they do have (or getting) are of the best designs, so it's quality over quantity there.


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

*@ Zaki*

All of London’s high-rise projects will be extraordinary designs because we consent to nothing less… for instance 30 st Mary axe, which made a remarkable addition to world skyscraper designs. The fact that many proposals for London are high/mid-rise and are being approved is enough to make them special. As Wjfox said, in 2002, only 2 skyscrapers existed, then a decade later we’ll own 50 mid-rises, 35 high, and 2 supers – I do consider 300+'s supers!
I mean, who knows from this point onwards what kind of projects will be proposed!


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

Zaki said:


> Not really, have you seen singapore or dubai's future renderings. London is just another city when it comes to the future. Even Toronto is comparable to London in terms of future renderings, go check out some Toronto threads and i am sure you will find them. And those people who just claim londons stadium is the best end of story, go checkout other olympic stadiums, they are all preety much at the same level in terms of design. Your just too ignorant if you think Londons design are special. Ofcourse they are unique but every olympic stadium is unique in its own way, it has to be. Beijing is trying out something totally new and different and thats why i like their design more. And anyways its my opinion you dont have to agree with it.


 :rofl: Go home little boy


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

Now now people.

I think we have already established and many have agreed that though London might not be leading the world, is more than likely leading europe.

So anyone talk about London leading europe, and stop having ag at some guy because he asked if London was leading the world.


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

London said:


> All of London’s high-rise projects will be extraordinary designs because we consent to nothing less… for instance 30 st Mary axe, which made a remarkable addition to world skyscraper designs. The fact that many proposals for London are high/mid-rise and are being approved is enough to make them special. As Wjfox said, in 2002, only 2 skyscrapers existed, then a decade later we’ll own 50 mid-rises, 35 high, and 2 supers – I do consider 300+'s supers!
> I mean, who knows from this point onwards what kind of projects will be proposed!


Id expect an extroadinary amount of Residential towers to be proposed sooner rather then later.


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

Your right... Mr Tregonning said: "We will be proactive. We will put a small team together to work out the strategy to tap into opportunities in London." The firm has had a presence in London since 2000 and is working on five projects, including a pound stg. 200 million residential project.


----------



## Gladys8it (Mar 24, 2005)

I think the London projects are fantastic!!

I don't see anything wrong with the Londoner being proud of his city. It's a great city. No arrogance detected.

I love my city equally.

Cheers!!


----------



## EnglishKevin (Apr 28, 2005)

You are to blame said:


> i would say chinese cities are leading in this category, alot of unique different towers are going up there


===============

Yes I agree . I also agree with the chinese businessmen who said they felt completely intimidated and stifled by them and the best thing to do was do your work and get out of there as fast as you could .


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

London is not even close to leading the world in this category. Personally I don't find the rendered buildings very attractive. I like more simple, elegent designs rather than buildings trying to shout out saying "look at me" like some of those proposals. It's skyline is def going to be improved w/ those additions, but it's still not going to be a real impressive skyline for a while. That's my 2 cents.


----------



## Yankee BOY (Nov 26, 2004)

such a horribly ugly skyline london as the rest of europe will never lead in skyscraper designs sadly i think europe is the worlds muesum and will continue to become more of one in the future.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Im not seeing how London is leading the way. They are building some nice towers just like plenty of other cities in the world.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

All this thread has proven to me is that Eusebius is the laughing stock of this website. He's so funny. How can you take such a silly boy seriously. LOL.

London has got fantastic designs for future scrapers. End of story.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Yankee BOY said:


> such a horribly ugly skyline london as the rest of europe will never lead in skyscraper designs sadly i think europe is the worlds muesum and will continue to become more of one in the future.


Your signature is out of date.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Under no circumstances is London leading the way in skyscraper design. London has (and will always have) a fraction of the skyscrapers that NY, Chicago, HK and Shanghai do. Those cities, moreover, together with Dubai, "lead the way" in new designs. In fact, Swiss Re, London Bridge and a few others are the only great towers in London that were recently built or are planned. The Canary Wharf skyline is filled with non-descript, mundane buildings.


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

London definately does lead the way in innovative skyscraper designs! - Only because we've learnt from the mistakes NY had made, you know, all those concrete 60's skyscrpaers that just overwhelm the city with shadow's and suffercation 

They'll never be able to get rid of um :laugh:

But dont get me wrong the skyline is breathetaking..........*through suffercation yeah* - jus jokin

London's lucky because it has something new to work with - a fresh leaf if yu like.


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

i mean look-all in correct place, but some are in front of others that shouldnt be  otherwise, thats London in 2012


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Most of the towers in that diagram are mundane. Nonetheless, this thread is to be expected given the tendency of Londoners on this forum to make absurd statements about their city. As I've speculated in the past, the next thread will argue that London is more historic than Rome and has more ancient buildings than Rome does.  That would be a hilarious claim, yet somehow, it is inevitable that someone will assert it.

Those on this forum who have attended a reasonable university, will surely recognize the Falstaff-esque quality of these inane boasts!   

London is one of the best cities in the world. Nonetheless, it falls well short of the hyped statements that one reads here.


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

Well, London was and still is a much bigger city than Rome, even in the 12th century. Now in that time, i think London would av pretty much been historic right until late/early 18th/19th century.

*Maybe* London does have more, im not saying it does but none of us have actually gathered and counted each and every historical building in each City.

Like about the Forums subject - Im not just sayin it cos im London, I believe its true. Maybe they're not very very tall designs but they are overwhelming. I havnt hit upon a city with a large number of amazing projects to the quality of LBT. Chicago had that new twisted building... but thats it.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Rome has buildings from before the time of Christ, which London does not, and it has buildings from the first century. London's oldest building is the Tower, which was started after the Norman Conquest. (PS: Pieces of Roman walls are not buildings.)


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> Most of the towers in that diagram are mundane. Nonetheless, this thread is to be expected given the tendency of Londoners on this forum to make absurd statements about their city. As I've speculated in the past, the next thread will argue that London is more historic than Rome and has more ancient buildings than Rome does.  That would be a hilarious claim, yet somehow, it is inevitable that someone will assert it.
> 
> Those on this forum who have attended a reasonable university, will surely recognize the Falstaff-esque quality of these inane boasts!
> 
> London is one of the best cities in the world. Nonetheless, it falls well short of the hyped statements that one reads here.


Oh look it's Mike the burger flipper.

I'll have 6 McChicken nuggets please.


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

MikeHunt, Since your on a roll, i'll av large fries and an apple pie. Cheers :cheers:


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

Feast on this... im bloated fanks


----------



## lakegz (Oct 23, 2003)

Butcher said:


> Don't even try to compare that thing to Swiss Re. And I don't see any other buildings in New York that are more beautiful. Empire State may be bigger, but Swiss Re is much more beautiful. I would take Swiss Re over any building in New York (except Chrysler) any day of the week.
> 
> And if you think I am being ignorant and bias, then look at its rating in Rate Our Talls. (Higher than every other building except mabye Chrysler). Once again, go ask any good architect and they will tell you what a great masterpiece it is.




































its not even completed yet.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which is the greatest masterpiece of them all?


----------



## Yankee BOY (Nov 26, 2004)

not the swiss re thats what i can tell you


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

Lakegz that's a nice tower but nothing on Swiss Re.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

^^I agree


----------



## Martin S (Sep 12, 2002)

I can't get enthusiastic about London skyscrapers. London had a magnificent low-rise skyline, as celebrated by Canaletto in the 18c. : 









This view of London remained until the 1960s when towers of quite indifferent architectural value were allowed to be built around St Pauls. Later designs have been a great improvement, especially those in the planning stage at the moment such as London Bridge Tower and Minerva, but they do not fit well together and just serve to submerge the London skyline.

London is not New York. NYC's skyscrapers are a vertical projection of the orthogonal grid of the city and acheive a harmony that is completely lacking in London, whatever the merits of individual towers.


----------



## skyboi (Mar 30, 2008)




----------



## ArchiTennis (Jul 3, 2006)

London has a lot of beautiful proposals...but, to say that it's leading the way in skyscraper design is just plain silly.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

My favourite part of London is the historical architecture. I worry that too much is going up in a trendy 2005 style, and will look faddish and dated in ten years. It is one thing for a brand new city like Dubai to do it, but London needs classic buildings that will stand the test of time.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

skyboi said:


>


You bumped a 2.5 year old thread just put a smiley? Congrats. :applause:

:|


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Taller said:


> too much is going up in a trendy 2005 style, and will look faddish and dated in ten years.


I've heard us Canadians say that, and that it takes nearly one year to come to appreciate just the interior designs over there alone. Just before being there a whole year, I gather that at least a couple of us realized just how far ahead designers there are, what with their gifts and all. Everything that London is getting up to makes me laugh at Montreal's UN designation at being some 'city of design' . . . for crying out loud (no offense intended here), ideas here are ever so tired (yawn)....


----------



## CORLEONE (Jun 15, 2007)

London has great buildings and has a great global future project but I'm afraid is quite far from NYC, Chicago, Shanghai, Hong Kong or even Singapur. Actually In Europe Frankfurt been a medium european size city has much better skyline. Paris I think that it is over London in that way as well. Warsaw is working hard to be up on the list and even Rotterdam has amazing skyscrapers as well. Madrid if starts soon with the OPERACIÓN CHAMARTÍN will start the building of 15 new skyscrapers which is gonna place it in a quite high place. And the projects are really amazing as well.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

ArchiTennis said:


> London has a lot of beautiful proposals...but, to say that it's leading the way in skyscraper design is just plain silly.


I agree.


----------



## MelboyPete (Nov 15, 2005)

IMO if any city can lay claim to possibly be leading the way in skyscraper design it would have to be Dubai followed by HK and NY not necessarily in that order for 2nd and 3rd spot.


----------



## cristof (Feb 8, 2006)

in europe yes
in the world... no


----------



## howelee (Dec 27, 2004)

this question shows how ignorant those londoners are, they still live in the 19th century,


----------



## howelee (Dec 27, 2004)

to be honest, have been living in london for 4 years, i dont think there is any building in this city can be called a 'skyscraper'


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

howelee said:


> in london for 4 years, i dont think there is any building in this city can be called a 'skyscraper'


I'm glad to hear (that this is still so).


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

10ROT said:


> You bumped a 2.5 year old thread just put a smiley? Congrats. :applause:
> 
> :|


Yeah... WTF? :lock:


----------

