# Why did London take so long?



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Turknology said:


> Btw, I think it is people from cities that have no substantial history who think that cities without a skyline flooded by skyscrapers is "uncool".
> 
> I like skyscrapers, but think that in historic cities they should be as far away from the historic centers of the cities as possible.


London was already ruined once by modern buildings after WWII, so people were against such redevelopment. Since the regeneration of London Docklands with Canary Wharf etc, attitudes have changed a bit.


----------



## REAPER666 94 (May 16, 2010)

London has very strict rules which means less gets built, but when something is built it is of the highest quality you only need to see the shard. London doesnt need to do a dubai and fill its self with garish skyscrapers just to fill the skyline in. It may have few but the few going up are always of the highest quality


----------



## ProudArabian (Jul 31, 2009)

^ kinda like Riyadh, Saudi arabia then, it has only few scrapers but all of them are really high quality shiny buildings.

One thing i am disspointed about dubai is that many buildings look amazing from outside but inside they are just average


----------



## Turknology (Jan 31, 2007)

^^

It would take only a country like Saudi Arabia to demolish all their historic buildings and replace them with what they see as more "modern" (i.e Mecca).

so it can't be compared to the UK in that account.


----------



## Concrete Stereo (May 21, 2005)

European cities are too pretty to spoil with the architectural equivalence of some guys comparing the sizes of their penises.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

If London wanted or needed a top skyline they would have built one a long time ago.


----------



## Turknology (Jan 31, 2007)

Concrete Stereo said:


> European cities are too pretty to spoil with the architectural equivalence of some guys comparing the sizes of their penises.


:yes:


----------



## ProudArabian (Jul 31, 2009)

Turknology said:


> ^^
> 
> It would take only a country like Saudi Arabia to demolish all their historic buildings and replace them with what they see as more "modern" (i.e Mecca).
> 
> so it can't be compared to the UK in that account.


Thats true, however they haven't really demolished anything in historic part of Riyadh, much of the old buildings are there. Not sure why did in the holy city of Makkah


----------



## REAPER666 94 (May 16, 2010)

Concrete Stereo said:


> European cities are too pretty to spoil with the architectural equivalence of some guys comparing the sizes of their penises.


Yeah its ok if theyre doing it on a barren desert you can make the most ugly building ever if you want there.


----------



## IchimaruGin1 (Jul 6, 2009)

REAPER666 94 said:


> Yeah its ok if theyre doing it on a barren desert you can make the most ugly building ever if you want there.


not a dubai fan i take it :lol:


----------



## weird (Feb 24, 2006)

Who cares? London is awesome.


----------



## REAPER666 94 (May 16, 2010)

IchimaruGin1 said:


> not a dubai fan i take it :lol:


I dont mind dubai but i do think they overdo it.

And some of the buildings just feel tacky to me.


----------



## siamu maharaj (Jun 19, 2006)

London has a skyline?


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Concrete Stereo said:


> European cities are too pretty to spoil with the architectural equivalence of some guys comparing the sizes of their penises.


Well, this is *skyscraper*city.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

Were there ever any impressive buildings in Saudi during the middle ages though? A lot of old European cities have the kind of buildings that I would consider impressive enough that they need not be ruined with modern sky scrapers but I don't think Saudi or UAE ever had buildings of such quality in the past. At least not in the same quantity.


----------



## DennisRodman817 (May 10, 2010)

status quo mentality.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

London had tall buildings after WW2 but not many of them. The reconstruction of large bombed out areas was done in much the same scale as the old London but several larger and taller buildings were built. Canary Wharf changed all that and ever since, the city has had quite a lot of new towers built. I imagine at some stage London will look like Tokyo: no real "downtown" with most of the tall buildings but pockets of them scattered everywhere. The city that's really holding up skyscraper development is Berlin.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

^and Rome..it's about time they built a tall tower in the center of the coliseum.


----------



## cardiff (Jul 26, 2005)

Silly thread by someone who i guess hasnt travelled much and therefore doesnt realise a skyline does not make a good city (quite the oposite in alot of cases). London already had a skyline over a hundred years ago, and it was this skyline that was deemed worth preserving over Manhatten esque skyscrapers. After the war i guess it was less an issue but the subsequent developments wernt of a good standard and therefore put the British public off tall buildings until Canary Wharf.


----------



## just4ivaylo (Apr 6, 2008)

Was expecting more...the banner does not look good.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

cardiff said:


> Silly thread by someone who i guess hasnt travelled much and therefore doesnt realise a skyline does not make a good city (quite the oposite in alot of cases). London already had a skyline over a hundred years ago, and it was this skyline that was deemed worth preserving over Manhatten esque skyscrapers. After the war i guess it was less an issue but the subsequent developments wernt of a good standard and therefore put the British public off tall buildings until Canary Wharf.


+1


----------



## Evan (Jul 8, 2004)

Turknology said:


> Sticking a skyscraper next to big ben is change?


Yeah, that would be SO wrong to have one of the most iconic structures in the world be totally obscured.


----------



## Remolino (Nov 7, 2008)

Generally, all cities with Skyscrappers all bunched up together look alike. Seems in the UK. they rather not spoil the charm of there Capital City.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Londoners are very traditional people. Thats why they don't like modern skyline.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> Londoners are very traditional people.


All eight million of us?


----------



## Fizmo1337 (Mar 26, 2009)

To be fair, I wouldn't mind more European cities having a nice skyline. There are a lot of commie blocks and ugly appartment buildings in cities like Brussels or Paris or London so why not have a nice skyline somewhere too? It adds modernity to a city. A city like Paris is perfect as an example. A cluster of modern buildings like La Defense and for the rest nice historical architecture outside it.

Commie blocks don't ruin a city and so won't some nice modern skyscrapers. Aslong as it's put in the right place.


----------



## tuten (Aug 16, 2005)

:lol: It seems people have a very 'hollywood' opinion of what the average Brit is like.


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

A lot of shit was built after the 2nd world war. Now they are carefully planning an expansion upwards as they need too but are trying to accomodate it to make it fit. London could've had the biggest skyline in the world if it had wanted too but its not that type of city.

I personally love watching Londons skyline develop. Think it has alot of potential.

This for me is why its the joint best city in the world. They have thier own way of doing things.

Fabolous


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

A few reasons:


Height restrictions prior to the 1960s
A city already pretty well developed and high density prior to the boom in skyscrapers in other parts of the world. The land grab and build it high mentality in newer cities didn't take place in London.
The notion that London is polycentric as opposed to many US cities which get higher as you move towards the centre
The awkward narrow streets and lack of any grid pattern
The lack of cohesive planning laws for London as a whole
The legacy poor residential high-rises post-WWII left in many people's minds in the UK
The IRA targetting tall buildings in the City
Construction costs compared to new cities in Asia
A historical skyline worth preserving; something cities outside of Europe don't have to worry about to quite the same extent when throwing up 'scrapers.

Relaxed planning laws, high rents and high demand, the IRA threat decreasing, Middle Eastern money, the success of Canary Wharf in the East of the City, increased reliance on Financial Services to the economy with the decline of the manufacturing sector, the first elected Mayor and city authority coming into existance in the early part of this century, increased competition from Asian markets and Globalisation have changed this and we're starting to see a bit of a boom in construction.


----------



## IchimaruGin1 (Jul 6, 2009)

see i dont believe in this charm thing.

People usually built skyscrapers to keep commercial office space rates down. Ie skyscrapers make economic sense.


----------



## tuten (Aug 16, 2005)

Which is why we have Canary wharf.....


----------



## cardiff (Jul 26, 2005)

Looking through these threads its very easy to see that over a certain heigh, building high becomes more costly. London is an incredibly dense city in terms of architecture alone, just take a ride on ggole street view through the central parts and you will see this. There are massive ground scrapers dotted around the city with no real need to build tall, persopnally i still think there is no need to build as tall as they are in the city of London, but its in response to Canary wharf in the east of the city that is causing such height and quality. The best skyline IMO are not ones of many skyscrapers, but of a few well designed and high quality building that are well massed together, something London is doing excellently. Despite skyscrapers London has a great skyline that should be complimented by skyscrapers and not replaced by them





































Beyond any historical skyline Canary wharf exhibits all that i said above


----------



## IchimaruGin1 (Jul 6, 2009)

tuten said:


> Which is why we have Canary wharf.....


well that was a recent development or 20 years ago.


Fine, i got nothing against charm. But look at the rates of premium office space in London. Per square foot they are one of the most expensive in the world.

thats not a healthy position to be in. I am pretty confident many more companies would have set up shop in London had it not been for the expensive office space.


Its the same with housing. Some of the per sqaure foot rates are just way way expensive even for the common man in london even on the outskirts.


You are really screwing with the quality of life for the charm.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

This thread discussion reflects both trends I particularly don't like or don't approve:

(1) - the immediate, linear and straightforward association between skyscrapers and wealthy and progress. I know in some continents and regions the construction of ever-taller-than-anything-else is the most prominent architectural expression of economic development, and I respect that. But Europe was already damn-rich by the time skyscrapers became technically and financially viable, so this cultural association just don't exist here to the same extent it exists, say, in Middle East or South Asia.

(2) - many post-1970 architecture school of thoughts (in a broader sense) have been placing too much emphasis on (high) density as a kind of silver-bullet solution to urban problems. This trend is misguided IMO, as high and low density on themselves cannot create better or worse environments to live and work in. Yet, this trend holds a hype on SSC and in many other circles, so a belief that if you build a bunch of 200-400m skyscrapers and connect them all with a massive subway network (in other word, "turn'em all like Manhattan), prosperity will follow and urban problems, from affordable housing to juvenile crime, will be solved. There is too much unscientific faith on density IMO.


----------



## tuten (Aug 16, 2005)

IchimaruGin1 said:


> well that was a recent development or 20 years ago.
> 
> 
> Fine, i got nothing against charm. But look at the rates of premium office space in London. Per square foot they are one of the most expensive in the world.
> ...


We are not going to destroy the landscape of one of the greatest cities in the world to bring down office prices. The reason London is so expensive is because its the best, not due to lack of skyscrapers.


----------



## wingwang (Jul 29, 2010)

goschio said:


> Londoners are very traditional people. Thats why they don't like modern skyline.


oh dear:lol:


----------



## Turknology (Jan 31, 2007)

Evan said:


> Yeah, that would be SO wrong to have one of the most iconic structures in the world be totally obscured.


I don't think some people care about that, they see things only in terms of real estate and $$$.

Hey, I have an idea, London has far too many parks, why not just build skyscrapers on them, bring in the moneys


----------



## IchimaruGin1 (Jul 6, 2009)

tuten said:


> We are not going to destroy the landscape of one of the greatest cities in the world to bring down office prices. The reason London is so expensive is because its the best, not due to lack of skyscrapers.


so your ready to sacrifice part of your economy local economy for that?

Well fair enough, I guess i respect that. Atleast you can say London has different priorities.

From a personal POV I would build skyscrapers if indeed there is a need to lower prices of office space.


----------



## Turknology (Jan 31, 2007)

IchimaruGin1 said:


> so your ready to sacrifice part of your economy local economy for that?
> 
> Well fair enough, I guess i respect that. Atleast you can say London has different priorities.
> 
> From a personal POV I would build skyscrapers if indeed there is a need to lower prices of office space.


cities are not just about office blocks, people live in cities and living in a nice city with lots of recreational space, a preserved history, etc should be a priority.


----------



## IchimaruGin1 (Jul 6, 2009)

Turknology said:


> cities are not just about office blocks, people live in cities and living in a nice city with lots of recreational space, a preserved history, etc should be a priority.


I understand that. I honestly do. 

Just think that there needs to come a time when all things considered the economy needs to be thought about.

Not saying that London should have built skyscrapers, or that they would solve all the problems. Just something to keep costs down for global business.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Ecological said:


>


This is clearly *Lamb*eth


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

El_Greco said:


> I would call it cluttered and messy. Id much prefer 'uniform' boulevards of Paris. Indeed it never fails to amaze me that these forward looking Victorians with their ambition and vision, failed to provide London with wide streets!


You can't really blame the Victorians. The city plan was already centuries old by then. Sweeping away the entire city centre to start again would be unheard of, and finacially ruinous.

There were plans to create such a series of wide streets after most of the "City of London" (the financial district of today) burned down in 1666, but the plans were scrapped in the haste to rebuild, sticking with the same street plan that had existed since medieval times.

To get some idea of the size of the problem the Victorians would have faced, look at the position of all of the major London railway stations. They mark the edge of the city in 1850ish. London's population at the time was around two and a half million, making it the biggest in the world by some margin. Suggesting the Victorians rearrange the streets of the age would be like suggesting Lower Manhatten is reconfugured to adopt the grid pattern of the rest of the island.


----------



## Harry (Nov 8, 2002)

El_Greco said:


> Indeed, it is perhaps the ugliest, the most chaotic and disfunctional CBD in the whole of Western Europe and maybe the World too.
> 
> It may be interesting for casual 'cool' guy to go and have a look around from time to time, but it is quite different when youre there day in and day out.
> 
> ...


Each to their own, I guess. I think you're certainly in a minority with your wish for uniformity and wide open boulevards. I love the City. The way it mixes old & new is completely unique, and I would not trade it for anything else.

I like Paris as well - for different reasons. The Haussmannisation worked well there, but in London it would have been a disaster because we would not have executed the new boulevards in the same way. In fact, I'm quite sure most of the thoroughfares in central London would have ended up like the Kingsway in Holborn. Long live the mediaeval street plan!


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Rev Stickleback said:


> You can't really blame the Victorians. The city plan was already centuries old by then. Sweeping away the entire city centre to start again would be unheard of, and finacially ruinous.
> 
> There were plans to create such a series of wide streets after most of the "City of London" (the financial district of today) burned down in 1666, but the plans were scrapped in the haste to rebuild, sticking with the same street plan that had existed since medieval times.
> 
> To get some idea of the size of the problem the Victorians would have faced, look at the position of all of the major London railway stations. They mark the edge of the city in 1850ish. London's population at the time was around two and a half million, making it the biggest in the world by some margin. Suggesting the Victorians rearrange the streets of the age would be like suggesting Lower Manhatten is reconfugured to adopt the grid pattern of the rest of the island.


Haussmann demolished medieval Paris, The Portuguese rebuilt central Lisbon in grid system after the Earthquake, indeed such improvements were hardly 'unheard of'.
By 1850s London was much larger than you suggest and the position of railway stations is easy to explain - railways were banned from the city centre, all those stations on the edges is as close as the railway companies could get to the city. Indeed this prohibition is what led to the invention of the Underground!

Victorians defeated Cholera by building the sewer system (we still rely on it), invented the Underground (without it London could not function) etc etc. They were inventive, ambitious, visionary, forward looking people, so I find it absolutely amazing that they failed to provide London with adequate road system. 



Harry said:


> Each to their own, I guess. I think you're certainly in a minority with your wish for uniformity and wide open boulevards. I love the City. The way it mixes old & new is completely unique, and I would not trade it for anything else.


How beautiful eh?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobindrums/909098131/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Sorry, Id rather have uniformity than that.



> but in London it would have been a disaster because we would not have executed the new boulevards in the same way.


Whats with the defeatist attitude? :dunno:



> In fact, I'm quite sure most of the thoroughfares in central London would have ended up like the Kingsway in Holborn.


Kingsway is great. Wide and spacious with lots of trees and if clutter was removed it would be even greater.



> Long live the mediaeval street plan!


Long live the medieval street plan, yes if you live in a village, not so when its a 21st century metropolis. Im sorry but Id rather have wide avenues than clogged up, congested, polluted and cluttered medieval streets! Medieval plan is wholly unsuitable for the 21st century, its so obvious!


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

^ You can make the argument that London's business should be based outside the 'golden mile'..however you can't suggest that London's most historic districts (London's story!) should be destroyed and replaced by (albeit nice-looking) buildings that could be built anywhere outside this zone.

London is arguably the world's most influential city. Which is all the more reason to preserve its story.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

I said no such thing. I said that Londons road system is unable to cope with the demands of the 21st century and to keep the status quo and carry on as normal is a huge mistake. Something has to be done and widening the roads seems like obvious solution, unless you can offer something better? 
Indeed Canary Wharf is a huge pain in the Cities arse precisely because Canary Wharf is modern, functional and everything City is not.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

El Greco I don´t understand you at all. You seem to love the old alleys and side streets of the city yet you would rather have boulevards?? The square mile is one of the most interesting places I´ve been to - it is completely unique. I´m glad London is not a city of boulevards, and frankly it wouldn´t help today if it was. The ugliness of some of the city street is only due to crappy post war buildings and street clutter - the width of the roads have nothing to do with it.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Theres a lot of history in the streets between boulevards of Paris. Side streets and alleys is also where Citys history lies, while the main roads are incredibly ugly ; (Cannon Street, Upper Thames Street, Cheapside, Queen Victoria Street etc) with tiny cluttered pavements and equally tiny and congested streets. You would not lose much if you widened those streets, indeed with good planning involving wide pavements, trees (theres no tree lined streets in The City, yet it is very polluted) and maybe a few new public squares, it would a huge improvement. Traffic problems solved, better air quality therefore better health, new places to relax etc. City would become an attractive place. Whats wrong with that?


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

There is a disconcerting push for uniformity amongst cities now that I sometimes find a bit unsettling. I am not sure if it is the age of the internet causing it, but we seem to want to change all non-standard cities to make them look more like other cities, instead of encouraging them to keep their own unique differences.


----------



## IchimaruGin1 (Jul 6, 2009)

gonzo said:


> One could make the arguement that having hyper-centralized office space can create a monumental skyline and therefore add something to a city's character.
> 
> However I don't see any practical advantage to this arrangement. If anything it only complicates matters for cities that want to grow.


hmm it reduces commute time for people all over the city.

plus considering the circular layout of london people can live spread out


----------



## IchimaruGin1 (Jul 6, 2009)

Taller said:


> There is a disconcerting push for uniformity amongst cities now that I sometimes find a bit unsettling. I am not sure if it is the age of the internet causing it, but we seem to want to change all non-standard cities to make them look more like other cities, instead of encouraging them to keep their own unique differences.


not at the cost of economics.

There needs to be a balance.

charm is not going to employ people.


----------



## Harry (Nov 8, 2002)

El_Greco said:


> I said no such thing. I said that Londons road system is unable to cope with the demands of the 21st century and to keep the status quo and carry on as normal is a huge mistake. Something has to be done and widening the roads seems like obvious solution, *unless you can offer something better*?
> Indeed Canary Wharf is a huge pain in the Cities arse precisely because Canary Wharf is modern, functional and everything City is not.



Investment in public transport
Introduction of the central London congestion charge by Ken Livingstone
There's two for a start. The first is on going; the second has reduced traffic levels considerably during its period of operation.

Your proposal to get traffic in London moving by bulldozing the urban fabric and widening streets to form multi-lane thoroughfares will never even enter the realms of a serious debate because

(a) it's utterly bonkers;
(b) the mantra that you can get traffic moving simply by increasing roadspace is approximately 40 years out of date; and
(c) I don't think I've ever met anyone who would agree with it.

I think you're on your own there, pal. If you have time, read up on the definition of 'suppressed demand' as it applies to transport policy. This will tell you all you need to know about the futility of road widening in a complex city like London.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

IchimaruGin1 said:


> hmm it reduces commute time for people all over the city.


IF there are multiple centres. Not one mega-centre.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Any improvements should be done in tandem ; you improve public transport but also provide better infrastructure for the road users. Neglecting one in favour of the other is a mistake. London should think a bit more like Singapore (city with probably the best planned public spaces, the best public transport system in the world and very few cars) and less like Dubai where priority is given to the motorist (ie one user - something you are suggesting).
Wide roads do improve traffic flow (Haussmanns redevelopment of Paris solved traffic problems. Yes, it was many years ago, but traffic existed then as it does now and it behaves the same way), but most importantly give an oportunity to improve the public realm (wide pavements and trees) which improves the overall look and feel of the place. In the end there has to be a well thought out plan with clear aims and objectives and which takes everyone into account. Its not bonkers, its a good answer to urban problems.
As for the urban fabric - on the streets like Cannon Street, Upper Thames Street, Cheapside, Queen Victoria Street etc it is nasty and could be demolished without second thought, unless you have some kind of strange fetish for ugliness, pal.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

But there are still beautiful Victorian buildings and 17th century churches, even medieval and tudor stuff along those ugly streets which means that widening is impossible. The only thing possible is simply widening of pavements and decluttering.


----------



## IchimaruGin1 (Jul 6, 2009)

gonzo said:


> IF there are multiple centres. Not one mega-centre.


well say you live in one part of the city and your work is in some other part of the city

that means you mostly have to move or commute a longer distance.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

El_Greco said:


> Haussmann demolished medieval Paris, The Portuguese rebuilt central Lisbon in grid system after the Earthquake, indeed such improvements were hardly 'unheard of'.
> By 1850s London was much larger than you suggest and the position of railway stations is easy to explain - railways were banned from the city centre, all those stations on the edges is as close as the railway companies could get to the city. Indeed this prohibition is what led to the invention of the Underground!
> 
> Victorians defeated Cholera by building the sewer system (we still rely on it), invented the Underground (without it London could not function) etc etc. They were inventive, ambitious, visionary, forward looking people, so I find it absolutely amazing that they failed to provide London with adequate road system.
> ...


I'm not exactly sure what's unsuitable about it. Name me a major city of a simialr size to London that doesn't have bad problems with traffic. Paris' population is smaller than London's in the 1850s.

All those grand streets in Paris had very little to do with traffic flow. They were for decoration and gentrification for the benefit of the rich. Britain was also not ruled by an authoritarian dictator able to push plans through regardless of the opposition.


It's true that nobody would plan a city to have London's street layout, but I'd much rather have it than a grid pattern that's dreadful for pedestrians and completely dead out of office hours.


----------



## Martin S (Sep 12, 2002)

Congested roads have been a permanent feature of London - at least for the past 150 years. It seems to be self-levelling - London always has enough cars, buses and taxis to ensure that its streets are congested but not gridlocked. Trying to build your way out of the situation is unlikely to solve problems as the more traffic that can get into the centre, the more pressure there is on all roads in the centre and then cars need space to park, filling stations etc. Way back in the early 60s, Colin Buchanan pointed out in 'Traffic in Towns' that trying to rebuild the city to suit the motor car is self-defeating.

I used to live in London and often drove on the South Circular Road which is mainly two lane single carriageway with numerous complex junctions and gyratories. Even when I was fairly familiar with the road, I still often found myself getting completely lost having got into the wrong lane at a junction.

I now live in Liverpool which has about one sixteenth of the population of London and a far less robust economy. However, Liverpool has a circular road - Queens Drive - that south Londoner's would dream about. It is mainly four lane dual carriageway with an extensive section of six lane and two grade separated junctions. The road has a simple layout with no complicated junctions. 

Even so, at peak hours Queens Drive is congested because of the shear weight of traffic. that begs the question, how many lanes would London's South Circular need before it satisfied the transport demands of South London?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Rev Stickleback said:


> I'm not exactly sure what's unsuitable about it. Name me a major city of a simialr size to London that doesn't have bad problems with traffic. Paris' population is smaller than London's in the 1850s.
> 
> All those grand streets in Paris had very little to do with traffic flow. They were for decoration and gentrification for the benefit of the rich. Britain was also not ruled by an authoritarian dictator able to push plans through regardless of the opposition.
> 
> ...


Oh yes the renovation of Paris was done in order to make it easier to move artillery in place in case the plebs revolted. It was done so an authoritarian regime could sleep easy at night! 

The renovation included construction of sewers and fresh water pipes. It was about order and harmony. Indeed it greatly improved quality of life in Paris ; the traffic circulation improved and disease epidemics ceased! The Romans would have approved.

Neither Paris with its wide boulevards nor Baixa in Lisbon with its grid are dead, while Quartieri Spagnoli in Naples also with grid is very lively 24/7. City of London, however is dead.

Why do you think medieval streets are unsuitable for the 21st century? Ill help you out here - they are narrow.


----------



## cardiff (Jul 26, 2005)

El Greco with his 'wacky' ideas and arguments hes not willing to change again, hes attacking the thing he likes to take pictures of in London and what makes the financial district so interesting. Narrow streets do not mean its unsuitable for the 21st century, in what way does it? how would a 18 lane motorway flanked by business parks be any better than the same condensed with one of the best public transport systems in the world? The guys deluded and isolated in his opinions and its pointless arguing or debating with him as he will not change his opinion just state 'this is what i say and im leaving it there', move along now greco.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

IchimaruGin1 said:


> well say you live in one part of the city and your work is in some other part of the city
> 
> that means you mostly have to move or commute a longer distance.


No matter the urban layout people in the world's largest cities don't have the luxury or living wherever they want, with no regard for where their work is located.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Many major streets in the Square Mile (and indeed the whole city) have boulevard potential though - Thames Street, Farringdon Street, Queen Victoria Street, Cheapside (though I believe something is planned for this street) etc.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

cardiff said:


> blabla.


Is there any particular reason youre following me?


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Keep it civil, please. Thank you.


----------



## gonzo (Jul 30, 2006)

I'm curious what the widest street in central London is. Pic?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

I would say Whitehall 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whitehall,_London.jpg


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

The bit of High Holborn between Chancery Lane and Holborn Circus might just pip it... It's certainly up there with Whitehall and Kingsway.

There actually are quite a few 'planned' roads in a boulevard style in London; Regent St, Shaftesbury Avenue, Marylebone / Euston Roads, City Road, Kingsway / Aldwych, Queen Victoria Street... It certainly isn't that London retains its original street plan or anything... Numerous new roads have been driven through the old pattern.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

El_Greco said:


> Oh yes the renovation of Paris was done in order to make it easier to move artillery in place in case the plebs revolted. It was done so an authoritarian regime could sleep easy at night!
> 
> The renovation included construction of sewers and fresh water pipes. It was about order and harmony. Indeed it greatly improved quality of life in Paris ; the traffic circulation improved and disease epidemics ceased! The Romans would have approved.
> 
> ...


London also greatly improved sewage and water pipes etc in the same era. Those are all underground, and don't need wide streets.

Neither Paris nor Lisbon are anything approaching the size of London.

The Quartieri Spagnoli's average street is apparently 12 foot wide. Not exactly the kind of grid plan I had in mind, and nothing like what you are suggesting for London. In fact if such an area existed in the heart of London, it sounds like exactly the sort of thing you'd say has no place in a modern city.


The fact is, once cities get to London's size you will never get free-flowing traffic unless you rip the heart of of the city with multi-lane freeways. And even then that's no guarantee. London's solution has been to attempt to divert all unecessary traffic away from the centre, and provide good public transport links. 

Reconfiguring the street layout may prove to be more aesthetically pleasing, but it's not going to allow the 300,000+ office workers in the City to be able to drive to work easily.


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

cardiff said:


> El Greco with his 'wacky' ideas and arguments hes not willing to change again, hes attacking the thing he likes to take pictures of in London and what makes the financial district so interesting. Narrow streets do not mean its unsuitable for the 21st century, in what way does it? how would a 18 lane motorway flanked by business parks be any better than the same condensed with one of the best public transport systems in the world? The guys deluded and isolated in his opinions and its pointless arguing or debating with him as he will not change his opinion just state 'this is what i say and im leaving it there', move along now greco.


^^
Hmmm...yeah. He's in a minority because some people shout him down...

What's with this all or nothing approach. SOME of London's streets/areas are a deplorable cramped mess, with little architectural merit. A certain level of boulevards would help the urban realm - if only for the visual break and space they provide and a break in scale. Think of Madrid - it has a number of impressive wide streets which pass by traditionally narrow lanes nearby.

And yes, roadbuilding often leads to increased traffic to fill those roads. But London has few roads wider than 1 lane in each direction. Even if the additional lanes were bus-lanes this would improve flow - most in the city are disjointed or interrupted along the way by parking etc. Point the odd boulevard for major routes can hardly be described as disastrous. Again - look abroad.

Also, as much of the charm that London has lies in its winding medieval streets and great architecture - which I'm not denying or proposing to sweep through on a city-wide scale with a bulldozer, London is often a victim of these streets. So many times I've noticed an incredible building which went unnoticed before, only for the fact it caught my eye as I looked up. Many impressive buildings are simply not appreciated at street level because the streets are too narrow to allow for proper visibility at street level.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

After the Great Fire in 1666, there was a proposal by Sir Christopher Wren to impose a newfangled street grid with wide boulevards in London. The Privy Council and the Court of Common Council, in a hurry to rebuild the economy and concerned about how to compensate unknown parties for taking property to square the streets, said no and so instead the city merely widened streets and alleys and prohibited the crazy medieval overhangs that jutted so far out they nearly touched buildings across the street. But London retained its ancient property boundaries and crooked streets. Another reform was to clear away access to the Thames so that fire crews could reach water more easily. In the end, London has retained it's medieval layout and is so much more interesting and unique for it. If WW2 had never happened, people would be astonished at the amazing building shapes and styles that emerged out of the ashes. Even today, London has such variety and cleverness in design that to change it in any way would be unimaginable.










Wren's plan










And an even more radical plan by Robert Hooke (map inset)


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Rev Stickleback said:


> London also greatly improved sewage and water pipes etc in the same era. Those are all underground, and don't need wide streets.
> 
> Neither Paris nor Lisbon are anything approaching the size of London.
> 
> ...


Water pipes and sewers dont need wide streets, that is correct, in fact you could lay them in a forest no problems or even do without them. However it is much easier to maintain them when you have lots of space ; in London even a small job virtually closes down the whole street or creates even worse than usual traffic jams.

Then of course theres aesthetics. Narrow street is ugly, dark and oppressive, while wide one has trees and wide pavements which allow cafes and restaurants to put the tables outside and which in turn adds liveliness and generally makes area more attractive. Trees also are good for air-quality. City is hopelessly polluted, congested, cluttered and with no trees just a few tiny parks (Postmans Park). An absolutely awful place to be in. I do not propose to demolish the whole area. I propose to widen the main roads (in the process getting rid of post-war eyesores), widen the pavements, plant some trees and remove the clutter. What we have now is wholly inadequate for the 21st century. Again London needs a well thought out masterplan that takes everyone into account.

Order and harmony is good, mess is not.



desertpunk said:


> After the Great Fire in 1666, there was a proposal by Sir Christopher Wren to impose a newfangled street grid with wide boulevards in London. The Privy Council and the Court of Common Council, in a hurry to rebuild the economy and concerned about how to compensate unknown parties for taking property to square the streets, said no and so instead the city merely widened streets and alleys and prohibited the crazy medieval overhangs that jutted so far out they nearly touched buildings across the street. But London retained its ancient property boundaries and crooked streets. Another reform was to clear away access to the Thames so that fire crews could reach water more easily. In the end, London has retained it's medieval layout and is so much more interesting and unique for it. If WW2 had never happened, people would be astonished at the amazing building shapes and styles that emerged out of the ashes. Even today, London has such variety and cleverness in design that to change it in any way would be unimaginable.


I think it is a great tragedy Wrens or Evelyns plans were thrown out, London had an amazing opportunity to modernise and become an envy of Europe. Unfortunately it decided to stick to damp lanes and dingy alleys. You call that cleverness, it is anything but.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

El_Greco said:


> I think it is a great tragedy Wrens or Evelyns plans were thrown out, London had an amazing opportunity to modernise and become an envy of Europe. Unfortunately it decided to stick to damp lanes and dingy alleys. You call that cleverness, it is anything but.


I wouldn't disagree that if Wren's plan in particular, were adopted, London would have been incredible and far more modern than its contemporaries. The "cleverness" is in the way builders have adapted to the existing street matrix, not in the matrix itself. But taken as it is, I think London has something special and unique no matter how annoying it might be for some people.


----------



## PortoNuts (Apr 26, 2008)

originally posted by *Bob!*









Source: David Bank on flickr


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

Keeping it simple - I think cities with big aspirations probably build skyscrapers to create the illusion that they are something they are not. A bit like third world countries buying fleets of Mercedes to drive their diplomats around in. It's the direct way of marketing, by appearance - London has always marketed itself in a more organic way - by demonstrating it is the best City in the world with the services it delivers and not trying to create an illusion by desperately sticking up a skyline which says "look at me I'm here:wave:"


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Turbosnail said:


> Keeping it simple - I think cities with big aspirations probably build skyscrapers to create the illusion that they are something they are not. A bit like third world countries buying fleets of Mercedes to drive their diplomats around in. It's the direct way of marketing, by appearance - London has always marketed itself in a more organic way - by demonstrating it is the best City in the world with the services it delivers and not trying to create an illusion by desperately sticking up a skyline which says "look at me I'm here:wave:"


This _was_ true, but things are changing.. the _"look at me" _phase has arrived with the slew of new towers in the past decade. Not only are towers being built, but they are being designed with as much novelty as possible, in order to stand out and be noticed. London is very much a city with big aspirations.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Taller said:


> This _was_ true, but things are changing.. the _"look at me" _phase has arrived with the slew of new towers in the past decade. Not only are towers being built, but they are being designed with as much novelty as possible, in order to stand out and be noticed. London is very much a city with big aspirations.


Too much novelty if you ask me. London is on the verge of becoming an architectural fashion victim. :yes:


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

London boulevards. Some of them are cluttered with railings, traffic islands and such and are called dual carriageways :lol:

Loads of potential. Some of these streets are already fantastic.


























The streets are wide enough. They just need to hire some Germans to reorganize them. An additional ring road wouldn´t probably hurt either.


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

Mr Bricks said:


> London boulevards. Some of them are cluttered with railings, traffic islands and such and are called dual carriageways :lol:


Tell us about it - we spend a fortune on road furniture to turn our roads into obstacle courses - it's lots of fun hno:

..I can't see what's funny about the dual carriageway terminology though - would be any road in the world with two lanes, right?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Dual carriageway is something you want to keep as far away from as possible, while boulevard is something elegant, grand and beautiful.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

London's narrow streets are one of its best features. Speaking as a frequent visitor.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Evan said:


> I think one of the reasons why New York looks so nice is the fact that its modern buildings blend in nicely with the historic buildings (for the most part). The same with Chicago. London can do the same thing, yes? I personally think London is a beautiful city as it is now, but you can make modern skyscrapers fit into the historic fabric of a city. Toronto has also done a very good job of that. It's a beautiful city in every way.


Well, I also think skyscrapers blend in wonderfully with historical buildings, but, at the same time, I wouldn't want to see any wonderful historical buildings in London destroyed. 

One of the reasons why there are so few skyscrapers in London, was that when the first ones went up, they were not percieved well. Britain, like a great deal of Europe, built many of their first highrises as concrete social housing, and these are quite ugly. They turned the public off highrises in general.

In the United States, the first highrises were glossy and attractive business towers and they had a positive effect on the public.

It has taken a while for this to turn around in Europe, and slowly, people are starting to appreciate skyscrapers more. As this happens, we will see more there, but hopefully not at the expense of any beautiful historical buildings.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

And, I think it could be said that they were originally viewed as being_ "American"_ and something that wouldn't fit in to European cities. Its taken a few decades, but Europe has warmed to the idea of "skyscrapers" as being applicable to practically any city around the world.


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

No they haven't. I don't see how skyscrapers can be build in Athens this century.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

But, wouldn't that be more because there really isn't a need for skyscrapers in Athens? I was referring to larger European business centres like London, Paris, and Frankfurt where towers are going up. Even in North America, not every city is going to need or want "skyscrapers", or more skyscrapers than they already have.


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

Athens is larger than Berlin. There is no space anymore to build anything from the density, the city has filled the Attica plain and now starts to climb the mountains surrounding it and the metro can't reach most of the city. There is city center density 7-8 km from the center with nothing but roads to connect them. As I said, the idea is still NIMBYs target, small minded people and life philosophy that will prevent such a thing to spread across many parts of Europe.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

I don't get Athens either, from my memories, there is very little history in Athens except for the odd one such as the Acropolis etc. The population of Athens in 1900 was only 100,000 or so and has sky rocketed since then, especially after WWII, so as it is not the most historical of European cities for much of it's current architecture, I would have thought there would be less opposition to skyscrapers.

Oh, and before some of our Greek friends start attacking about the history thing, yes, I know Athens dates back probably some 7000 years etc etc, but I am referring to the general architecture of the city today, and quite honestly, over all it looks as though it has a lot less historical buildings than Rome, Vienna or even London.


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

You are partially right. Athens has a huge ancient center surrounding the Acropolis that spans from early Antiquity to late Roman times. Then there are a couple of dozen or so middle ages churches from the 8th to 15th century and mosques from the 16th to the 18th century in and around the archaeological sites, the only buildings that survived from that period, the rest were demolished to clean the archaeological sites during the 19th century. Athens surprisingly has a Neoclassical center, build in the middle of the 19th century, from the north corner of the Acropolis, which is amongst the oldest still original in continental Europe that were unharmed by the war. By the late 19th early 20th century Athens was a completely neoclassical city with many great buildings from famous architects like Ziller and Hansen, most of which still survive today. The problem is here: unlike the rest of European capitals during the industrial period, Athens was very small, around 100k by the turn of the century, A few hundred thousand by ww2. If these figures were to continue, Athens would still be considered a purely historical city. But unlike the rest of the cities, the population after the war exploded from a few hundred thousand to 4 million in a couple of decades, drowning the center into a sea of low rise concrete. With no space to build and away from historical buildings, the brainwashing of so many decades is so strong, that not only there were almost no highrises built, but are not even matter for discussion outside the forum.


----------

