please empty your brain below
|
|
Centre Point is in Camden.
Brian Armitage | 11.11.20 - 7:05 a.m. | #
|
|
Isn't the Euston Tower also in Camden?
James | 11.11.20 - 7:15 a.m. | #
|
I told you it wouldn't be correct.
Updated, thanks.
diamond geezer | Homepage | 11.11.20 - 7:21 a.m. | #
|
|
Surprised Lambeth, with all the horrors of Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea to its name, isn’t showing more. Guess that will change over the next couple of years.
Philip | 11.11.20 - 7:50 a.m. | #
|
|
Only Vauxhall is in Lambeth. Nine Elms and Battersea are in Wandsworth (and very much on the rise).
diamond geezer | Homepage | 11.11.20 - 7:55 a.m. | #
|
Are ecclesiastical structures excluded?
dg writes: Yes.
Six cities (Salisbury, Norwich, Preston, Edinburgh, Louth and Bristol) all have spires taller than 88m. Salisbury (123m) would come in at No 6 and, if you include historical structures, Lincoln's 160m spire would place it 3rd.
timbo | 11.11.20 - 8:07 a.m. | #
|
|
Louth is not a city.
monkeyface | 11.11.20 - 8:21 a.m. | #
|
|
Really interesting. But clicking through to Newham's tallest building (Manhattan Loft Gardens) I see the Wikipedia entry complains that the protected view from King's Henry's Mound in Richmond Park to St Paul's Cathedral was blocked by this building. You've blogged about that view several times over the years (and referred to it obliquely yesterday), but haven't mentioned that it is no longer there (if that is in fact the case).
John Abbott | Homepage | 11.11.20 - 8:25 a.m. | #
|
The City planning document I referred to yesterday includes plenty of detail about of Background Wider Setting Consultation Areas, but doesn't include them in 'Areas Inappropriate for new Tall Buildings'.
Instead proposed background development "should preserve or enhance the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate the Strategically Important Landmark."
diamond geezer | Homepage | 11.11.20 - 8:34 a.m. | #
|
|
You can still see St Pauls from King Henry's Mound, but half of the dome is no longer silhouetted against the sky. (The simplest solution might be to move King Henry's Mound 100m or so to the south...)
timbo | 11.11.20 - 8:42 a.m. | #
|
Ealing (North Acton) and Harringey (Tottenham hale) will both join the 100m club soon if they haven’t already.
dg writes: North Acton (183m!) early stages.
Tottenham Hale (128m) not yet complete?
David | 11.11.20 - 8:49 a.m. | #
|
|
Nothing remotely 100m here in Bracknell DG, tallest a mere 200ft. Skyscrapers definitely the realm of big cities.
davews | 11.11.20 - 8:56 a.m. | #
|
|
Can't see myself going back to 5, 4 or even 3 days a week in the office and I can't be the only one. So I might speculate that future tall buildings will be residential rather than office and we might therefore see future tall buildings follow the Tower Hamlets trend. That suggests maybe yet more in Inner London, but not the City or West End?
Will | 11.11.20 - 9:44 a.m. | #
|
|
Croydon has at least 3: The George Street twin towers and the Saffron tower
Non | 11.11.20 - 9:58 a.m. | #
|
Since 9/11 really tall buildings give me the willies!
I'm glad we're nowhere near the likes of the Middle East and Asian countries!
Cornish Cockney | 11.11.20 - 9:59 a.m. | #
|
|
I feel (relatively) blessed that the skyline of my part of North London is dominated by Wembley Stadium, rather than a dull residential tower! The arch is 133m, but even the stadium itself is highly visible, due to the lack of tall buildings around it
Mikey C | 11.11.20 - 10:29 a.m. | #
|
Thank you DG for another fascinating and informative post.
On the suggestion that more future tall towers will be residential. There are definitely quite a few under construction, but these were signed off years ago. Many have been sold off plan to overseas buyers (often Chinese).
However, I suspect the demand for property in these towers is stalling. Potential buyers are coming to realise that apartments in these buildings are virtually impossible to sell on. A number of factors.
(1) Following the horror of Grenfell, mortgage lenders are demanding fire assurance certificates (relating to the flammability of the cladding), which many new buildings don’t have. The fire safety problem also affects social housing, refer to the recent evacuation of the entire Paragon development in west London.
(2) Terrible mismatch between high service charges and what is actually provided. The residents in the Pan Peninsular building on the Isle of Dogs (147m, 38 floors) at South Quay have gone for months without hot water, combined with water dripping into communal areas. Another nearby tower New Providence Walk apparently has similar water system problems.
IslandDweller | 11.11.20 - 1:54 p.m. | #
|
Oh dear, I expected a post about today's date (11/11/2020) and the frequency with which two repeated digits occur in that format followed by two more repeated digits.
dg writes: Never expect.
Ian | 11.11.20 - 2:19 p.m. | #
|
I would expect the height of a tall building to be measured from the ground to the top (excluding masts and similar appendages). Is that the case in these two articles?
I note that the last map in yesterday's post shows height above AOD (Above Ordnance Datum, i.e. sea level). The highest ground in the City is Cornhill (17.7m of 58ft AOD).
John M. | 11.11.20 - 2:28 p.m. | #
|
|
John M - Not Cornhill but Cheapside (in St Pauls Churchyard, next to the Tube station). However, because of a tidying up of boundaries in 1994 the highest point is now on the corner of Chancery Lane and Holborn, at 72ft AOD.
timbo | 11.11.20 - 4:53 p.m. | #
|
Here is a report from 2018 on tall buildings planned, under construction or recently completed at the time.
While their definition of tall buildings is 20 or more storeys, there is a good share of buildings reaching 30 or more. If everything were to be built what's been planned, Greenwich would soon rise into the top dozen.
Joachim | 11.11.20 - 5:41 p.m. | #
|
Haringey now has a 100m+ residential tower - Hale Works in Tottenham Hale topped out last month at 107m.
dg writes: Updated, thanks.
Oliver OBrien | 11.11.20 - 8:10 p.m. | #
|
Enfield will shortly be getting its first 100m+ tower block (126m) on the site of what is currently a retail park on the A10. That would make it a good 50m taller than the next tallest residential buildings in the borough.
The only way is up, judging from this thread. And although the accommodation is no doubt welcome, that tower block will be in a horrible location at the junction of two very busy roads.
Adam Bowie | 11.11.20 - 8:41 p.m. | #
|
|
just wanted to say thank you on the separate existence of no. 9 on the Countries with tall buildings list
C | 12.11.20 - 10:35 a.m. | #
|
It's behind a paywall and I don't have a subscription but perhaps you have inspired The Times...
thetimes.co.uk/skyscrapers-in-london-do-we-want-to-reach-for-the-stars
ap | 16.11.20 - 9:19 a.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|