http://www.skyscrapernews.com/bdbsearch.php?city=London
2006-07-20 02:38:52 · 12 answers · asked by Alex 2 in Travel ➔ United Kingdom ➔ London
There are already quite a few! Buildings like Canary Wharf (the tallest office building in Europe I think, or at least it was when it was built) and The Natwest Tower are easily high enough to qualify as skyscrapers.
As for building more - I don't think the terrorism risk (which is small) is a reason not to build them. However, I do think that 9/11 showed it is very difficult - in fact impossible - to tackle a fire effectively in a high rise. Still, city space is at a premium, so people are prepared to take the risk.
Everyone loves the Gherkin (real name Swiss Re, St Mary Axe!) so if the proposed developments are even half as attractive as that, most people will be supportive.
2006-07-22 14:33:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Despite being a World City, London has suffered years of neglect in the high-rise architecture stakes as the conservatism of heritage bodies and the worries of planning bodies have scuppered any attempts at a skyline.
The 21st century though is dawning and finally London is reaching for the skies with a number of exciting world beating projects that will put it on the map and change the city forever.
2006-07-20 10:47:46 · answer #2 · answered by McAtterie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So long as they are good quality and well finished and sited then I approve. You can't really tell with the computer generated images what they will end up looking like. I particularly remember that city hall looked good in the images, but cost cutting took place during construction with inevitable results. Its not as though London is going to turn the clock back to the 1930's by stopping them from being built is it?
2006-07-20 09:50:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like it. I think the skyscrapers as targets of terrorism is a poor argument considering that the majority of terrorists attacks are not on skyscrapers and there's been maybe two skyscrapers targeted out of thousands?
Skyscrapers are great for problems such as urban sprawl and offer better options for downtown areas than some of the alternatives, such as shacks that are slapped on top of one another.
The buildings on the site you gave look pretty good, for the most part. They have that modern look, but are classic enough that they'll still fit in the skyline in 40 years.
2006-07-20 09:53:56 · answer #4 · answered by jshclhn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, cool. You don't usually think of skyscrapers when you think of London. I only looked at the 'approved' ones and they all looked great...
2006-07-20 09:41:56 · answer #5 · answered by Dan C. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They all seem to architecturally very novel and innovative, and not just straight slabs. The Gherkin is a fabulous building, so more like that would be great.
2006-07-20 14:23:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think maybe they should build a ham & cheese twin tower to go with the Gherkin one already there.
2006-07-20 09:45:58 · answer #7 · answered by i_b_moog 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Until they have been built and I've seen them I will be unable to comment.
2006-07-20 09:44:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as they cover up the Gherkin, I don't mind.
2006-07-20 09:42:34 · answer #9 · answered by schmagum 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i have never heard of it, but it sounds great.
2006-07-20 09:40:12 · answer #10 · answered by jame_football 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋