London SE1 community website

Do you support the Shard/London Bridge?

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 Next
Current: 2 of 3
TAK
Friday 1 June 2007 12.44pm
It's a fab building and will become one of the greates icons of London.
It's very well designed and will look etremely elegant in the skyline and will be admired by generations to come - Think of the Chrysler Building in NYC.

I hope it will have a few PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE bars / restaurants at mid and top level!
Friday 1 June 2007 12.47pm
Personally I don't much are for it. I've never been a fan of height for height's sake, and too many towers with otherwise sound designs are ruined by reaching disproportionately high in comparison to their surroundings.

London has more than enough going for it without needing to engage in this race for the sky that every other tuppence-haypenny city across the world is attempting.

If London absolutely must accommodate this monument to Renzo Piano's ego then it should be situated in one of the two existing clusters: the City or Canary Wharf.
Friday 1 June 2007 1.11pm
Jan the old one wrote:
blimey did i spell it wrong? catterpolt? boys with sticks. elastic bands..stones..my attempt it was to inject a little bit of humour!

Oh, OK lol:)
Friday 1 June 2007 1.59pm
I think it would be spectacular at Canary Wharf, overlooking the dome perhaps?
Friday 1 June 2007 2.08pm
Jan the old one wrote:
I think it would be spectacular at Canary Wharf, overlooking the dome perhaps?

I think ANYTHING of architectural significance would be good at Canary Wharf. Don't get me wrong, lovely place, but compared to the City skyscrapers, theirs are very... boring. they would never approve something like the Shard, because it is interesting, and not a box:(

I'm trying to keep my opinions regarding the location of the Shard and the arguments of it's detractors quiet at the moment until I have hit the 100 limit on the survey. So far 43 people have voted. Thanks again to all of you who did!
Friday 1 June 2007 2.14pm
Bel Ludovic wrote:
Personally I don't much care for it. I've never been a fan of height for height's sake, and too many towers with otherwise sound designs are ruined by reaching disproportionately high in comparison to their surroundings.

This won't be "disproportionately high". It is perfectly proportioned. Compared to the likes of Burj Dubai (a kilometre-high tower under construction in the Middle East), it will be very modest indeed. The architect himself has stated that its height is pretty incidental, and that the project should be considered in the context of its overall design, form, location and other factors.

When you look at the location, it's perfect for a landmark tower like this - being at a major transport interchange in need of regeneration, just 5 minutes' walk from the world's most powerful financial district.

Looking at the shape, it is incredibly slender and will taper to a point, in such a way that it won't be overly-dominating or aggressive. At the same time it will be very striking and have an inspiring presence on the skyline.

The cladding is an important factor too. It will have "extra white" glass that blends into the sky and changes colour depending on weather and sunlight, again reducing its dominance.

Another point is the design itself, which is surely world class. It echoes the Wren church spires of the past, yet does so in a way that is incredibly futuristic. The way it combines the past, present and future is a reflection of London's very essence, which makes this a perfect skyscraper for the city.

These are the reasons why it's so difficult for me to grasp how anyone could possibly object to it.



Bel Ludovic wrote:
London has more than enough going for it without needing to engage in this race for the sky that every other tuppence-haypenny city across the world is attempting.

London isn't taking part in some kind of "race" as you put it. These skyscrapers are just another part of the city's continual evolution. Throughout its history London has changed and evolved. It just so happens that skyscrapers are "in vogue" at the moment. Unlike most other cities, we're going for quality over quantity, and luckily we're getting a number of stunning, world-class (and very eco-friendly) designs such as LBT, and various towers clustered together in the City/Docklands.

We should be thankful for this progression - and grateful for the boldness being shown - rather than shrinking in fear and being paranoid about historic views (which are already subject to the strictest planning laws in the world!).



Bel Ludovic wrote:
If London absolutely must accommodate this monument to Renzo Piano's ego then it should be situated in one of the two existing clusters: the City or Canary Wharf.

No, the Shard must stand alone, so its full impact can be appreciated. Why try to hide it? If built in the City, its beauty would be largely obscured by surrounding buildings. If built in Canary Wharf, it would look rather out-of-place surrounded by those boxy corporate towers, and far less tourists would go over there and see it.

In my opinion, London Bridge Tower is quite simply the perfect tower, in the perfect location, with a perfect height and proportions, and a perfect design. In terms of the fame and admiration it's likely to receive, I honestly believe it will rank alongside the likes of the Chrysler Building, Bank of China Tower, Empire State Building etc. and will be regarded as one of the very best skyscrapers ever built.
Friday 1 June 2007 2.17pm
I voted yes.

wjfox2004 wrote:
No, the Shard must stand alone, so its full impact can be appreciated. Why try to hide it? If built in the City, its beauty would be largely obscured by surrounding buildings. If built in Canary Wharf, it would look rather out-of-place surrounded by those boxy corporate towers, and far less tourists would go over there and see it.

I agree with this. It will look much better for standing on its own. We should be proud to have such a wonderful piece of architecture in our own back yard.
Friday 1 June 2007 2.51pm
I too voted yes and think it a wonderful building.
As for "standing alone", is this likely? Or may we have more world class buildings - high and low - please.
BTW. what happened to the Lieberskind building at the V&A?
Friday 1 June 2007 2.59pm
The post-war tower New London Bridge House is to be replaced by a shorter, but better designed building by Renzo Piano which has been dubbed both 'the Gem' and The Baby Shard:)

Then across the river you have The Pinnacle, Heron, 122 Leadenhall (all of which are confirmed for constuction and either starting or well into demolition)
Friday 1 June 2007 3.20pm
Building will be superb, but I hope they sort our the "wind tunnel" issue on St Thomas' Street near the Macdees and Starbucks - the wind is channelled through onto street level and turns trying to walk to the station a fight for survival
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 Next
Current: 2 of 3

To post a message, please log in or register..
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions