> Cabe give there support to everything.
No they don't. Certain aspects of the Vauxhall Tower were heavily criticized. Ditto for London Bridge Tower and some of the other skyscrapers being planned.
> I find the consept of them aporling
I totally disagree. In my opinion they are a very valuable organization who provide intelligent, constructive criticism on a wide range of issues, for a wide range of projects in London, and their comments are generally unbiased.
> The famous views in London are a major part of
> what makes London a great city.
Aside from St Paul's, Tower Bridge, etc, London's skyline is frankly quite pathetic compared to most other cities, especially given its status as one of the "Big Three" major world cities.
Skyscrapers, if designed well and placed in the right locations, can enhance the city's image and show the world that - in addition to being full of history and heritage - it's also a modern, forward-thinking, progressive 21st century city. Just look at what the Gherkin has done to improve London's image. I'm not saying this Coin Street tower is a stunning world class design or anything, but it seems to me that your general attitude towards skyscraper proposals in London is rather luddite (as is the attitude of many other people on this forum).
thought that all developments above 14 units had to give 25% to social housing - Ken Livingstone wants it to be 50%. Personally can't stand tall buildings - especially where I'm living on the ground floor of a block, face a wall on one side, fought developers to keep light on the other side, now find that they're wanting to build a 13-storey block on the corner of Waterloo/Westminster Bridge Road that will block out the sky, the light and the sun even more so.
Skyscrapers, if designed well and placed in the right locations, can enhance the city's image,
By implication also means
If there not designed well and built in the wrong location they will damage a city image.
I think you'll find if you look back at the sort of comments I make on this message board not only do I knot have a luddite atitude to tall buildings but ,most of the time I don't even comment on them.
Its become necessary to comment on them ,
There has also been a lot of comment in the press from people that are far from luddite about tall buildings expressing valid concern at the changes to protected view status of famous land marks.
I do not personally have objections to tall buildings in London, however I don't support the comment that Londons skyline 'is pathetic compared to most other big cities', which I take to mean that without lots of tall buildings our city can't compete in the world ranking of skylines, as if that's of any importance compared to everything else the city has to offer. Skylines vary depending on the point from which they are viewed and for the majority of us city dwellers that's from pavement level most of the time, not the best place to enjoy tall buildings.
As a general observation, I despair at the way the larger developments taking place in London continue to progress in a haphazard, un-coordinated way, and in particular the way that developers are allowed to dictate the pattern of how we use and access one of the best features of our city, the river. In a recent article about the looming development of the Lea Valley area for the Olympics, the FTs architecture critic summed up the situation: "This de facto privatisation of the riverscape shows that little has been learnt from the disastrous developments that followed the decline of London's docks, and which have seen the Thames treated shabbily and incoherently, the city's finest topographical asset and raison d'etre demoted to the cliche of an estate agent's brochure".
By all means support the Olympics [whatever that means] and I do not wish to resurrect the debate about that particular subject - but weep for the destruction of a unique part of London that is as Edwin Heathcote observes, 'a wilderness haven far more enthralling than the parks that will replace it'. I can't post a link to the article because it requires subscription to the FT, but if you can track it down I recommend also noting the perceptive comments of William Mann who heads up one of the architectural practices commissioned to study the Lower Lea Valley and suggest approaches for its transformation over the next 7 years and beyond.
There was a program about it a few weeks ago
Apparently the first plastic and petroleum were invented in the lee valley
Im sure the Olympic park will make use of these interesting facts some how.
I did visit the lee valley near the Ice rink .the whole valley is an impressive feature of the east end it was so massive I felt it could take an Olympics.
Are you sure that petroleum was invented in the Lee Valley? I thought it was a naturally occurring substance, which was first extracted by the Chinese nearly 2000 years ago. Oil refining, the technology that distills petroleum into oils, petrol, etc, was invented in America in the 19th century as far as I know. But who knows? rather like the invention of the computer, each locality tries to put its own spin on who invented this and that.
Getting back to the topic in hand: "Skyscrapers: Doncha Lovem!"
It's interesting that the landmarks that most clearly define the modern London skyline are its most recent additions: The Gherkin and The London Eye. Yet, before they were built there was the usual outcry of "Oh, you're spoiling London's famous skyline!". The beauty of living in a mega-city is seeing that skyline evolve over time, constantly adapting and re-inventing itself. Bring on the skyscrapers!
Taking a slightly different angle (which I'm not sure is totally relevant, but here goes): for the past week the outer suburbs of Paris have suffered dreadful riots. What a lot of people forget is that, because central Paris is treated like some sort of embalmed museum, the entire conurbation suffers from a weird "doughnut effect"..... a fabulously protected city centre, but surrounded by very high-density slums on all sides. London should try not to get into the same situation, by allowing constant regeneration.