Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
(a side note - I think "has a little cry" is OTP's best contribution to DiS)
especially when there's low cloud and the top is obscured.
sometimes you can just see that floating through the dark, like a UFO or something. a UFO advertising the Olypmics.
as it went through the usual planning process allowing for comments and complaints. In the end, the ayes won.
like all big cities, London has to change and adapt to future requirements. cities that are preseved as museums fade away.
during the period where Brunelleschi was building his controversial Duomo and the Medici and the Strozzi and the Guelff and all the others were throwing up palaces and churches and shouting: "LOOK AT THE SIZE OF OUR ENORMOUS WANGS!"
public generally happy with it!
The Shard is on the other side of the river to St Pauls and is probably about half a mile away.
Old money always thinks old is good. Safely ignored.
as their opinion carries a fair amount of weight.
there's also this: http://www.build.co.uk/construction_news.asp?newsid=83167 wherein they and the City of Westminster (ah, more old money) launched jount legal action to stop a tower being built in another Borough because it would be visible on a 'historic' view in St James' Park.
John Prescott punched them* though and it went ahead.
is that the same as a grumble mag or a grumble flick?
A million shit buildings have been built in London in the past 50 years, at least the Shard will be noteworthy.
thinking the tower in the picture just to the right of the shard is guys hospital?
either way - that already spoils the view really, so a kick-arse pointy mega tower plonked there can't do anything but improve the view really
They won't admit it, but they will.
As long as the famous view of the cathedral from the millenium bridge crossing isn't obscured, I don't see an issue
but I'm fairly sure christopher wren would've thought the shard was pretty badass
They are completely different buildings, with different functions, different architecture and style, on opposite sides of the Thames. The only thing they have in common is that both will be iconic. It seems a bit silly really, like the Albert Hall complaining about the London Eye. Silly stuff.
you can see the Shard.
along with loads of other buildings.
but The Shard is REALLY TALL.
People are a bit silly though to be so size obssessed. It's perhaps a sign of our times, but I never really think of St Paul's as being a vast structure anyway, with or without being juxtaposed with THE MASSIVE SHARD. I can't think of anything that would diminish how much I love St Pauls. I look at it lovingly through my telescope every day (also the Shard, because I am nosy, and super excited about it).
if it has more than four stories it's THE WORK of THE DEVIL
I'm going to have to find a different angle to look at st pauls from now.
London must think it's Coruscant.
(Coruscant would be FINE BY ME)
I looked up the artist's renderings of it's completed form too.
but the artist's impression doesn't do justice to quite how <grapples for word> fucking awesome (will that do?) it is. It looks quite vertical when you're next to it. It makes my mind boggle in a happy way.
I mean, part of me loves unique iconic skylines, and this would definitely add something more 'lofty' to Londons.
But then other parts of me look at the design pictures and they remind me of http://tinyurl.com/29738uo
once I realised that I liked it more.
:D it does, it really does.
insofar as yes, the shard does take away massively from what is one of the major landmarks of the london skyline. whether you think that's a bad thing or a necessary evil probably frames how you'll approach this.
one thing i'm wondering though - this "protected panorama" thing, the article doesn't say who listed it as protected - is it UNESCO? if so, then it does kind of mean we don't have the moral highground when someone like uzbekistan or something goes and puts some monstrosity in such a way as to ruin some beautiful historically significant area.
i like the shard as a building, but do think it would've fitted better with the london skyline were it closer to, say, the city. as it is it's just a bit out in the middle of nowhere, and looks rather daft as a result
in an area that had a lot of potential space for such projects as well as being a transportation hub, but a combination of The Downturn and the NIMBYs in Southwark seem to have put pay to that now.
i assumed it was just talking about the protected viewing corridors / sightlines / whatever you want to call them.
Boris wants new skyscrapers in 'clusters' and has identified the area up to Old Street as one in which new high-rise development is to be encouraged. I'm not sure how they stand in the current economic situation, but plans for 16 towers in that area had been submitted for planning approval at one point.
that's why the new overground station there is just a concrete box, it's designed to have something build over/on it.
I can't link to it as it's behind Building Design's paywall, but there was an article a year or two ago in which all the schemes were shown. Granted, not all of them will be built, but the London Plan identifies that whole area as one in which development should be given preference.
Of course, the plan is for Old Street to be London's 'Silicon Roundabout' in a few years, which is pretty ridiculous seeing as though most IT/design firms are moving out of that area due to rent rises and redevelopment pressures from the expanding City.
didn't realise that many were outside of the Goods Yard. interesting. is there a list anywhere?
You can see a fair few of them further down this page: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=430856&page=11
it's not a fossil fuel.
"London's most precious, and finite, assets — its heritage"
Cross-dressing traditionalist cunts.
old and new next to each other.
Fuck the haters
Dont care about st pauls, now > the past
Then eventually thought, 'It's been going for a while now. Some kind of interesting discussion not related to toasters must have broken out.'
Also: it's London. It's a city, and quite a big one at that. Since when did a) anyone think it should be pretty, and b) anyone think it WAS pretty? It's, like, some buildings and that. I'd probably only recognise it on a picture if I saw the Gherkin.