London Bridge Tower. YES or NO

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2
Monday 22 April 2002 6.01pm
Hey, I'm doing some research on the new developement London Bridge Tower.
I have copius amounts of info on what government authorities think about the Tower, It's Pros and Cons, but one thing I am finding hard to gather is that of local opinion on the project.
Since everyone here is going to neighbour this developement, I welcome any views and opinions you have about it.
How do you feel about living in its shadows?
Can the area cope with the intensification of activity?
How will it benefit or hinder your life?
Please write any feeling you have about it.
I will look forward to anyones reply.
James Hatts
Monday 22 April 2002 6.06pm
Dont forget to check out the discussions we've already had about the tower - and
Tuesday 23 April 2002 11.53am
I think its a good thing. It will put up the property values, and provide employment for local people.
Wednesday 24 April 2002 12.41pm
Definitely a good idea. A beautifully designed building, public access guaranteed, employment opportunities for local residents, near an existing transport hub. This building will be the St Paul's Cathedral of the 21st century...unless the Luddites have their way. (Happy to say that this isn't looking likely though).
Wednesday 24 April 2002 5.16pm
I went on the Eye for the first time recently and tried to picture where the new tower would stand. I used as a reference the fact that it will be about one third the height again of Canary Wharf (easily visible despite being quite some distance off) and Guys hospital as a rough idea of where it will stand (I don't think that's too far off the mark).

From the height of the Eye one could try to visualise just how great a structure the Shard of Glass will be - It will definately be a major landmark and very impressive.

So that's a yes from me.
Thursday 25 April 2002 2.32pm
I'm conducting the study for my final year dissertation. Thanx to everyone who replied.
the greatest opposition comes from English Heritage, in such a historical area they don't think the building is appropriate.
In my view, new buildings like this one is not going to physically change any of London landmarks. I don't think there is any problem. We can't stop new and exciting architecture. Are they affraid of change?
What does everyone out there think?????
It's obviously a matter of opinion. Pls post your personal views. THANX again!!!!!! P
JB Slacks
Thursday 25 April 2002 7.28pm
English Heritage have a long record of being completely out of touch with what local people want. As a good bench mark, if English Heritage want something, it usually means that the plans suck, and vice versa. Anyone who has ever visited Gateshead will be familiar with the truly hideous 60s concrete carpark that dominates the skyline behind the Tyne Bridge. For some bizarre reason, the lunatics at English Heritage want to protect this building (if you haven't been to gateshead, think of the the Ashenden block on New Kent Road SE1, then multiply the ugliness factor by 100). So it doesn't surprise me that this ridiculous organisation want to put the skids on this new London tower. What is truly galling, however, is that it is yours and my taxes that pay for this arrogant quango. I thought the Labour government promised to abolish these unaccountable bodies, that serve no useful purpose? Anyway, end of rant- basically, whatever English Heritage think, locals like me think the tower would be a great addition to the skyline.
Friday 26 April 2002 7.23am
'Ere 'Arry Boy...wot's a Luddite?
Friday 26 April 2002 11.46am
A Luddite is a person who resists technology and innovation fearing it's overall negative impact on life and employment. The word derives from Ned Ludd, an 18th century Englishman who led riots against industrial innovation.
Sunday 28 April 2002 6.58pm
From an economic point of view, it can be arguably said that the English Heritage has contributed enomously to the decline of the British economy. London boast the most expensive property prices in the world. Its office rent is twice as high as that of New York and Paris. The house prices are several times higher in London than in Paris. This is the single most significant drawback to the competitiveness of London in the world. Building high and increasing supply is the only solution to the present problem. Thanks to English Heritage, almost every initiative that's meant to do the society as a whole is unnecessarily delayed.

I read this disgusting remark from Martin Humphrey, chair of the Heath and Hampstead Society, "One of the great features of Hamstead Heath is its veiw across London. Views are historically important and should not be interfered with." Now, which is important, the view of the priviledged few at Hamstead Heath, or the welfare of the tens of thousands of people that could benefit from this major commercial project? And which is imporant, the "view of St Paul" (as English Heritage habitually quotes in their opposition to any building project. I wish they could have more reasons to quote) ), or the competitiveness of London as an important international financial centre? Who should be better looked after by the government, the few people that insist that they want to see the St Paul from the expensive and exclusive properties that they live in, or the millions of Londoners that live in slums and have to endure the most expensive city in the world?
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: