London Bridge skyscraper

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2
liz
Wednesday 22 November 2000 1.05pm
the design is incredibly ugly and it's sheer conceit on the part of the developer and architects. and anyway, don't they remember what happened in towering inferno??
Dean
Friday 24 November 2000 1.15pm
Referring to poor 70's films as a way of arguing against something is a bit pathetic. This is what you need to improve Southwark and the surrounding areas, it will have a far greater positive impact than the Tate Modern which hasn't really increased expenditure in the area. This will create a whole new infrastructure and stop people putting down "south of the river". Get real and get out of your ivory towers !
Liz
Friday 24 November 2000 3.27pm
That was a very aggressive reply, Dean. Did you get out of bed the wrong side?
Dean
Friday 24 November 2000 5.10pm
No - I am just fed up with people wanting the area to go up, but then complaining when ambitious projects are proposed. Southwark Towers which it will replace is hardly a desirable building. It is very easy to put something down, but not so easy to make constructive comments.
Fran
Friday 24 November 2000 6.02pm
I think the building looks amazing. Though I dont know how it will look in Borough? Does anyone know where exactly it is supposed to be built? (Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else, but I cant seem to find that out, though I haven't spent a lot of time looking, more curious really)
Liz
Saturday 25 November 2000 4.34pm
OK, point taken. i don't have a problem with a new developments bringing jobs and infrastructure to southwark - far from it - i just don't see why it has to so incredibly tall and ugly and way out of all proportion to everything else. i also suspect that the developer is more concerned with being the man to build the tallest skyscraper in london than he is about the effect it will have on the surrounding area, it just so happens that southwark may be more amenable to such an idea than other councils. but on the infrastructure front, let's hope that the 'more london bridge' stuff will be a big boost to the area.
James
Friday 1 December 2000 10.45am
London Bridge, the locaton of the proposed new skyscraper, is 5 minutes walk from the City of London - power house of the UK economy with huge numbers of unfilled vacancies - yet unemployment stays stubbornly high in Southwark. The creation of ten thousand new jobs will not benefit those unemployed. As with the City of London now, the new skyscraper will create jobs for people who live in Kent,Essex,etc who commute in. The people who will be able to afford to live in the proposed skyscraper will be rich and thus not historic locals. If we really want to change the face of Southwark we need to raise attainment in our schools not play patsy to megalomaniac property developers.
Anonymous
Saturday 2 December 2000 2.47pm
I will not argue with you, in that many of the jobs will go to people living in the leafy suburbs of London. However- The Pool of London Partnership is active in the regeneration of this area and with public and private sector funding is planning a facility which will give local people access to many of the NEW employment opportunities, estimated at 7,000, arising within the area's proposed developments. It is planned that this facilty will offer access to, and widen participation in a wide range of learning opportunites, career guidance, childcare and welfare advice. I do hope you will see this as a step in the right direction. If anyone requires further information please contact the Partnership on 020 7407 4701.
Anonymous
Saturday 2 December 2000 2.56pm
Hi Fran The building (I think it currently known as Southwark Towers) will replace the PricewaterhouseCoopers building located behind London Bridge Station (not the one on the actal bridge,its entrance by the bus station.
Murray
Monday 4 December 2000 1.06pm
I think most people would agree that London is running out of space, in terms of developers being able to find sites for both corporate and urban developments, so to my mind - and Mayor Ken's, the only option for utilizing what little land is available is to build higher density structures - i.e. skyscrapers, in order to meet demand. The problem is that people don't want to face these facts. OK, a building such as that proposed for London Bridge will dominate the skyline, and many will bemoan it for this reason. But unless higher density developments are approved and built, corporations will look to other countries to meet their space requirements, and the UK economy will lose out. And as more skyscrapers are built, so they will become an accepted, even loved part of the london cityscape. I mean how many people would say the Crystler building was ugly?
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: