# Why is London playing catch up in skyscrapers?



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

??


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

little planning went into London. LDN organically grew into a metropole.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

Because people were skeptical about building skyscrapers in London. Now that Swiss Re has been a huge success, you will see much more enthusiasm towards skyscrapers in the UK.


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

Well, great prairie, I wouldn’t call it ''playing catch up’'. It’s simply because there’s a blatant demand for office space in the city and high-rises seem to be the most logical for a limited amount space. If we wanted to play ‘’catch up’’ then London will surely be home to the worlds tallest, if not thee tallest, ok. We’d rather be home to the most ingenious… that’s the game we’re playing… and we’re winning!
You know, it’s so sad that you’re really not that clever!


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

London is playing catch up due to a number of reasons, although it has shedloads of office space and still a great deal in demand, only recently has highrises become the norm:

1. London is built on clay,great for carving out a huge underground network, trickier and much more expensive for highrises. (The two cities that do in fact lie on solid granite happen to be Manhattan and Hong Kong).

2. Unpopularity/ tradition of nimbyism : London pulled down over 400 godawful highrises following the Sixties boom after which they had degraded into places associated with crime, concrete and social seclusion- cheaply built and much loathed.

3. Sightlines: Over 20,000 protected buildings and protected views/ viewing 'corridors' - the ones of St Pauls dome stretch for 5 miles across the centre in several directions (the cathedral happens to be in the financial district too, hence a tradition of 'groundscrapers').

5. Demand: with the trend away from inner city living been reversed there's a big demand in denser living space now, enabling shorter commute times and less stress on the network. Before that it was suburbanisation and an emptying city centre during the postwar years. When people started flooding back in the 90s offcial policy now supports denser highrise living, and away from gated communities.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

catch up?.....
I don`t know. 31 buildigs under construction (highest 125m) for a city with more than 7.000.000 people and such an importance isn`t much. 

If Frankfurt would be as large as London (10 times bigger), Frankfurt would have 110 buildings under construction. And in my opinion (i live near the city) is Frankfurt a really depressing city(for a skyscraper fan)


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

Because London is super OLD SCHOOL.


----------



## Cee_em_bee (May 12, 2004)

I personally prefore londons cbd's to most in the worlds, the old victoria style buildings that peak at about 4-5 storys are awesome.


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

polako said:


> Because London is super OLD SCHOOL.


Not really. Despite being over 2000 years old, London is still one of the most modern cities in the world.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

the spliff fairy summarises the main reasons very well.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Because there was already so much built. But land is running out, and rent is through the roof. Much more economical.


----------



## Architorture (Sep 22, 2004)

it never has been a dense city and it never will be...


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

What do you define as dense?

London is plenty dense!


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

London said:


> Well, great prairie, I wouldn’t call it ''playing catch up’'. It’s simply because there’s a blatant demand for office space in the city and high-rises seem to be the most logical for a limited amount space. If we wanted to play ‘’catch up’’ then London will surely be home to the worlds tallest, if not thee tallest, ok. We’d rather be home to the most ingenious… that’s the game we’re playing… and we’re winning!
> You know, it’s so sad that you’re really not that clever!


elitiest prick, go ride a dick


----------



## Architorture (Sep 22, 2004)

streetscapeer said:


> What do you define as dense?
> 
> London is plenty dense!



yes its dense...but its not as dense as many other urban areas...

say you take london and compare it to hong kong... both have a close enough population to get a reasonable comparison of density in terms of human population...

if you were to take the area of london and divide it into tennis courts you would end up with about 1 person in each court

if you were to divide hong kong into tennis courts you would end up with about 22 people in each court...

that is what i mean about london not being 'that dense'.... london is predominantly a low rise city and has developed over hundreds and hundreds of years...hong kond is predominately a high rise city that has developed over a relatively short period of time...

long story short, i'm not saying london doesn't have urban density...i'm just saying that compared to some other cities it really is not all that dense...


----------



## Architorture (Sep 22, 2004)

London said:


> Well, great prairie, I wouldn’t call it ''playing catch up’'. It’s simply because there’s a blatant demand for office space in the city and high-rises seem to be the most logical for a limited amount space. If we wanted to play ‘’catch up’’ then London will surely be home to the worlds tallest, if not thee tallest, ok. We’d rather be home to the most ingenious… that’s the game we’re playing… and we’re winning!
> You know, it’s so sad that you’re really not that clever!



i don't think we'll be seeing the world's tallest in a western country for quite some time...its a phase of architecture that i think the west has largely outgrown


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

1. British People are somewhat snobby and feel every family deserves its own house (not a bad idea, and in fact similar to the U.S.A outside primarily NYC, except in the USA the urban poor don't receive as much assistance as in the U.K. and are thus forced to live in cramped highrises or apartments.)

2. Urban Renewal of the 50s and 60s in the U.K. was transit orientated as opposed to being the highrise / car transit system seen in parts of the U.S.A.

3. England was at its peak (Political and Economic power) during the late 1800s, which was before Skyscrapers were economically viable.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Don't you think it is about time?  
Look at the rest of world cities around the globe, majority of them have been establishing their skyline well one way or another with majority of them like WTBs and supertalls, for skyscrapers, it definitely is a necessity for a city as great as London. So reason is simple, London skyline has woke up, like the currently rebirth of building booms in Chicago, Toronto, NYC, Miami for da NA cities.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

titeness said:


> 3. England was at its peak (Political and Economic power) during the late 1800s, which was before Skyscrapers were economically viable.


The British Empire reached its peak in the early 1920's.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

I can't wait to see what London's skyline will look like in the future because it has so many different projects of such high architectural integrity.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> for skyscrapers, it definitely is a necessity for a city as great as London.


London doesn't need skyscrapers to show its greatness. Do you really think the average tourist/visitor to London honestly gives a damn about the number of tall buildings it has?

As a skyscraper fan, I'm glad the city is getting lots of new towers, but they most certainly aren't a "necessity". London's greatness comes from its amazing history, culture, etc. etc. and the lowrise human-scale environment and street level experience it offers.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Historically the City of London - ie the old Londinium central core used to be immensely populated where hundreds of thousands used to live in very cramped conditions - in literally a square mile. Then since the 19th century it saw the population move into the new urban developments which are now part of Central and Inner London and then in the 20th century into the towns and villages surrounding the London we know of today. Now it has a population of only 7,000 and the Corporation of London wants to keep it that way, because it allows the City to be controlled not by people, but by financial institutions and businesses which is why its now the premier financial centre on the planet.

London is also thankfully not going down the path of Shanghai and Dubai where the vast majority of towers going up are of no architectural quality whatsoever. The towers London is getting though are on average of a quality not seen for decades - every shape and form is being presented in the next batches of skyscrapers that London is getting. Also importantly they all have to (and will do) incorporate into the urban fabric of London. This means that we'll see several clusters develop just like London is a city of cities and villages - all amalgamated together. Then again this is London - 2,000 years in the making with no sign of stopping - war, famine, disease, terrorists, poor planners and politicians have failed to stop it.


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

Tom_Green said:


> catch up?.....
> I don`t know. 31 buildigs under construction (highest 125m) for a city with more than 7.000.000 people and such an importance isn`t much.
> 
> If Frankfurt would be as large as London (10 times bigger), Frankfurt would have 110 buildings under construction. And in my opinion (i live near the city) is Frankfurt a really depressing city(for a skyscraper fan)


thats not really true.Yes Frankfurt officially has 600.000 inhabitants in contrary to the 7.5milion in greater London,but the actual city population of Frankfurt would be around 3.5 million.
Big districts that lie within the city like Offenbach do not get counted to Frankfurts population officially.
Its quite the same with Paris which officially only has 2.1 million inhabitants whereas the real figures are around 10 million.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Checker said:


> thats not really true.Yes Frankfurt officially has 600.000 inhabitants in contrary to the 7.5milion in greater London,but the actual city population of Frankfurt would be around 3.5 million.
> Big districts that lie within the city like Offenbach do not get counted to Frankfurts population officially.
> Its quite the same with Paris which officially only has 2.1 million inhabitants whereas the real figures are around 10 million.


But Offenbachs skyscraper don`t count to Frankfurt in emporis.


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

Architorture said:


> yes its dense...but its not as dense as many other urban areas...
> 
> say you take london and compare it to hong kong... both have a close enough population to get a reasonable comparison of density in terms of human population...
> 
> ...


Comparing London to Hong Kong is wrong, not many cities can compare to Hong Kong. But in London, walk a few miles outside the City then you will see the city is still relative dense, just like the most big European cities. That London is a low-rise city doens't mean is hasn't got urban denstity. The most American cities aren't dense compared to London, even if they have a lot of skyscrapers. Everthing is relative.



Tom_Green said:


> But Offenbachs skyscraper don`t count to Frankfurt in emporis.


But La Defense don't count to Paris according to emporis...


----------



## GNU (Nov 26, 2004)

Tom_Green said:


> But Offenbachs skyscraper don`t count to Frankfurt in emporis.


thats right.I forgot about that


----------



## Architorture (Sep 22, 2004)

909 said:


> Comparing London to Hong Kong is wrong, not many cities can compare to Hong Kong. But in London, walk a few miles outside the City then you will see the city is still relative dense, just like the most big European cities. That London is a low-rise city doens't mean is hasn't got urban denstity. The most American cities aren't dense compared to London, even if they have a lot of skyscrapers. Everthing is relative.
> 
> 
> But La Defense don't count to Paris according to emporis...



okay we are talking about 2 different kinds of urban density...the architectural and the human... i tend to say 'urban fabric' when talking about the architectural density of a city since i don't really think the number or proximity of buildings really gives a clear understanding of a city... you can't divorce the concept of density away from the presence of human beings..

with that said it makes perfect sense to use hong kong, b/c it is a great example of extremely dense development architecturally and human... there are lots of buildings tightly packed with lots of people tightly packed...

london on the other hand has plenty of buildings tightly packed but those buildings are spread out over a greater area and are of fewer stories reflecting the fact that the population of that city is far more spread out, which gives you a better understanding of the atmosphere of the city and the socio economic situations that may be there...

i don't understand why you ended you statement with 'everything is relative'

the example i gave london and hong kong... is a relative relationship... london when compared to hong kong doesn't exhibit as much density... that isn't to say london is not a dense city.... any city of a particular population is going to be 'dense' the question is 'how dense?'

and since we are talking about london 'catching up' with OTHER CITIES it certainly seems to make sense to me that we would COMPARE london to other cities to maybe gain some greater understanding of the issue...

you are welcome for that little lesson in abstract thought...


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

great prairie said:


> elitiest prick, go ride a dick


See, you proved me right. You cannot spell, and your English is pitiable. Like I said...in veracity, you’re not that clever! Instead of telling me to ‘go ride a dick’, why don’t you do something constructive and go and ride a dictionary. Maybe you’ll learn something!


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

Architorture said:


> i don't think we'll be seeing the world's tallest in a western country for quite some time...its a phase of architecture that i think the west has largely outgrown


Totally agree. Not expecting too many supertalls in London but nonetheless tall innovative ones


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

909 said:


> But La Defense don't count to Paris according to emporis...


Yeah this sucks.
For what city name i have to surch to find the La defense skyscraper.
La Defense doesn`t work.

I think London was from 2001 - 2003 in a skyscraper boom
4 skyscraper from 150 - 180m have been build and 2 with 200m. I still remember the many construction updates on emporis. But now.....


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Now the market is recovering from a dip. Towards the end of this year and 2006 is the year that were going to see a lot of these towers going up.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> Now the market is recovering from a dip. Towards the end of this year and 2006 is the year that were going to see a lot of these towers going up.


Would be nice. I am a world skyscraper fan.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Cause it might be the height limit?


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

I think there was a very well imposed height limit so that the landmarks stood out in the city, but I think it was lifted by the queen or some goofy shit and now...

Also, I still think that the rest of Europe handed the UK loads of business and money by forming the EU, fortuantely the UK never fell into that trap. Everytime I see a photo of a British City, it has construction cranes all over...I just don't see that at the same degree on the mainland.

Build up Britains!


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

Many of the skyscrapers approved will proceed with construction or other activities to clear the way for construction in mid/late 2006. However the other towers that dont start that year, if any, should in that case start late 2007/mid 2008. And from now till 2009-10, other mids and highs will obviously be proposed. So on the whole London will have a healthy, wealthy and surley dense cluster by the olympic games. On the odd occassion, we will see some mid rises under construction during the olympic games but nothing too damaging to the skyline. A possitive outlook.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

nick-taylor said:


> London is also thankfully not going down the path of Shanghai and Dubai where the vast majority of towers going up are of no architectural quality whatsoever. The towers London is getting though are on average of a quality not seen for decades - every shape and form is being presented in the next batches of skyscrapers that London is getting. Also importantly they all have to (and will do) incorporate into the urban fabric of London. This means that we'll see several clusters develop just like London is a city of cities and villages - all amalgamated together. Then again this is London - 2,000 years in the making with no sign of stopping - war, famine, disease, terrorists, poor planners and politicians have failed to stop it.



That said, London has some of the crappiest highrises in the Western World - (Guys Hospital or Council Flats for example, the whole area around Heathrow is pretty crap too)


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

titeness said:


> That said, London has some of the crappiest highrises in the Western World - (Guys Hospital or Council Flats for example, the whole area around Heathrow is pretty crap too)


Well I don't know any city where all the highrises are great. New York and Hong Kong have far more horriffic (and taller) towers. That said, the designs that London is coming up with are of an exceptional and world-class design. LBT, Leadenhall, DIFA, - I think London is building an award-breaking skyline - I suspect a few more Emporis skyscraper of the year awards to be coming London's way soon. :yes:


----------



## sdtj (Sep 11, 2003)

The same question can be applied for cities like Rome, Madrid, Athens... etc... It almost feels more cultural than anything else.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

A quick list of the 4 main skyscraper cities of Europe. All towers either built, U/C, approved + proposed all added up to get a 'height':

London - 6,442m
Frankfurt - 4,820m
Paris (inc. LD) - 2,137m
Madrid - 1,336m


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

nick-taylor said:


> A quick list of the 4 main skyscraper cities of Europe. All towers either built, U/C, approved + proposed all added up to get a 'height':
> 
> London - 6,442m
> Frankfurt - 4,820m
> ...


dude theires more than 20*100m tower in paris city alone 

(italy place cluster and front de seine cluster)


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

rocky said:


> dude theires more than 20*100m tower in paris city alone
> 
> (italy place cluster and front de seine cluster)


To be correct I took the skyscrapers - ie anything above 150m.


----------

