Boris Johnson is Mayor of London

[dirtydog]

Skyscrapers which have planning permission and are currently under development and due to be completed in 2-4 years' time, unless Johnson intervenes in the courts...

The Shard

Heron Tower

122 Leadenhall

Bishopsgate tower

Riverside South

 

[dirtydog]

Yeah, I'd like to know how preventing London turning in to a souless, New York lite is anti business?

There's still quite a fair few tall buildings under construction anyway. I wouldn't worry too much.

How many successful major world cities do not have a skyscraper business district?

 

[Wicksta]

How many successful major world cities do not have a skyscraper business district?

London? Frankfurt?

 

[dirtydog]

London? Frankfurt?

Both those cities have skyscrapers. Canary Wharf was born from the severe planning restrictions at the time on skyscrapers in the City of London - although it needs more, and also needs Crossrail to be completed for it to expand much further - and Boris Johnson's commitment to that is in question.

As for Frankfurt...

 

[Wicksta]

Yes Frankfurt has a few skyscrapers, but I assumed you meant on the scale of New York or somewhere.

So, London and Frankfurt have a small skyscraper business district, and are both successful financial cities - that was kind of my point.

 

[dirtydog]

London needs more in order to maintain its competitive advantage. Cities that stand still, stagnate.

 

[Wicksta]

London needs more in order to maintain its competitive advantage. Cities that stand still, stagnate.

Why though? I'm yet to see you actually explain how having a skyline full of skyscrapers makes any difference whatsoever. London is completely different to somewhere like New York, you have areas like the Thames Valley nearby and other British cities are also commutable via road/rail. We don't (in my opinion) need one area where everything has to be crammed into - it makes sense in a country as big as the USA which doesn't have great transport links but not here.

 

[dirtydog]

Why though? I'm yet to see you actually explain how having a skyline full of skyscrapers makes any difference whatsoever. London is completely different to somewhere like New York, you have areas like the Thames Valley nearby and other British cities are also commutable via road/rail. We don't (in my opinion) need one area where everything has to be crammed into - it makes sense in a country as big as the USA which doesn't have great transport links but not here.

There are a number of reasons for skyscrapers rather than low rises.

- you can have all of your employees on one site
- large plate trading floors which are lacking in London
- prestige (an indefinable quality whereby multi national companies would prefer a prestigious location to a bland low rise for their European or international HQ)

 

[Wicksta]

There are a number of reasons for skyscrapers rather than low rises.

- you can have all of your employees on one site
- large plate trading floors which are lacking in London
- prestige (an indefinable quality whereby multi national companies would prefer a prestigious location to a bland low rise for their European or international HQ)

I can kind of see your point, but take a look at Tower 42 and see what kind of companies are in there. NatWest have gone and now you have different small companies on each floor - so it's not like it has one company with all of it's employees in one building. Apart from financial institutions no one seems to be interested in that here.

Most multi national blue chip companies like Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Vodafone, Three, O2, Orange etc all seem to prefer having their UK (and in many cases European) headquarters outside of the city but within commutable distance. Why they are all based in the M4 corridor when they could be in the city? I guess one of the reasons is that it's far easier to get to Slough or Reading from Heathrow than it is to get to central London and having a nice 'campus' is a lot preferable to most employees than being stuck in a high rise block.

 

[dirtydog]

And look at the towers in Canary Wharf, eg. the Citigroup, HSBC and Barclays towers. Tower 42 is outdated and cramped compared to modern office towers. Incidentally I suspect if T42 was proposed today, BJ would oppose it on the grounds of being too tall.

 

[Ricochet J]

Skyscrapers are needed in London. They're a necessity. International companies would rather do business in London than New York City. To accommodate for the steep rise in foreign companies, the Canary Wharf Group and the City of London have been competing with various projects to lure the big companies to let out their skyscrapers. It promotes healthy competition which in turn fuels our economy. A big example, JP Morgan is in advanced talks to let out Riverside South, two huge skyscrapers at Canary Wharf.
Also, TfL are going to take 70% of the office space at Shard: London Bridge and Shang ri La hotels have already signed on the dotted line to accommodate for the residential aspect.
Heron, 122 Leadenhall, Shard, Pinnacle (Bishopsgate) are all under construction. The contracts have already been drawn up and Borris can do nothing to stop them.


Edit: Furthermore, the designs of the skyscrapers in the City of London are designed to protect viewing corridors. Take the tapered design of 122 Leadenhall for example.

 

[Mad old tory]

There are a number of reasons for skyscrapers rather than low rises.

- you can have all of your employees on one site
- large plate trading floors which are lacking in London
- prestige (an indefinable quality whereby multi national companies would prefer a prestigious location to a bland low rise for their European or international HQ)

I imagine this is why KPMG have decided to move all of their staff to a new office in Canary Wharf. Atm they have about 8 different sites clustered in different areas of the city. I had to walk for one building to another just to have an interview on my assessment day.

Hopefully Boris will see sense and allow those buildings you've shown above. The shard and Bishopsgate, in particular, look fantastic .

 

[Mad old tory]

I can kind of see your point, but take a look at Tower 42 and see what kind of companies are in there. NatWest have gone and now you have different small companies on each floor - so it's not like it has one company with all of it's employees in one building. Apart from financial institutions no one seems to be interested in that here.

Most multi national blue chip companies like Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Vodafone, Three, O2, Orange etc all seem to prefer having their UK (and in many cases European) headquarters outside of the city but within commutable distance. Why they are all based in the M4 corridor when they could be in the city? I guess one of the reasons is that it's far easier to get to Slough or Reading from Heathrow than it is to get to central London and having a nice 'campus' is a lot preferable to most employees than being stuck in a high rise block.

Of greatest importance in London is finance, an area in which London is currently the World's hub really. Dirtydog is right, we need to be doing all we can to keep that position and suitable office space is part of that.

 

[aardvark]

Source?

its common knowledge but here are 2 reports:

http://www.citylocal.co.uk/cities/Harrow/news/article/18416/

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...s_launches_audit_panel_to_investigate_lda.php

 

[Freefaller]

I'm obviously thick as I just don't understand why skyscrapers are that important. I'm sure a couple will be built in time anyway. I personally like London the way it is. But as I said the business I'm part of doesn't use big tower blocks and still turns over several billion pounds a year. I just don't "get" it I guess. I'd rather the money was spent on improving the delapidated state of London's streets, buildings, underground, roads (quality), parking etc... That would do a lot for making London modern IMO - NY is spotless in comparisson and it's just had the infrastructure and space for developing the way it has, I think London just doesn't need the same style.

 

[dirtydog]

I'd rather the money was spent on improving the delapidated state of London's streets, buildings, underground, roads (quality), parking etc...

You do realise these new towers are being built with private money, not that of taxpayers?

 

[fini]

UPDATE

Doubt falls on whether Boris actually had the most votes

while hundreds of screens set up by vote scanners showed almost meaningless data to observers, London Elects admit that the system was likely to be recording blank ballots as valid votes.

Link

 

[Lysander]

I wouldn't pay attention to any of the lefty twaddle put out by an organisation called the Open Rights Group.

 

[Dolph]

UPDATE

Doubt falls on whether Boris actually had the most votes



Link

Well, except (a) the article doesn't say or imply that, and (b) the article is from a pressure group opposed to electronic voting or scanning.

Nice try, but a complete fail and misrepresentation of the article's purpose and message. Furthermore, it makes no distinction between possible error votes for Boris or for the other other candidates.

 

[fini]

Well, except (a) the article doesn't say or imply that,

It says that votes were counted from empty ballet papers, which automatically must put in to doubt the election results.

and (b) the article is from a pressure group opposed to electronic voting or scanning.

That's certainly not the Open Rights Groups main agenda. I accept that is their current view on the issue though. If you read the report you will see that it is the election officials, not ORG, who admit the equipment was counting blank ballets.

Furthermore, it makes no distinction between possible error votes for Boris or for the other other candidates.

That's why I said doubt not proof. The results are no longer accurate and in an election that was (reasonably) close that means there's no way of knowing who should have won.

@Lysander - I wouldn't really call ORG lefty at all. They're mostly concerned with DRM, piracy, net neutrality and that sort of thing. They've recently got involved with e-voting mainly because it doesn't seem to be working properly where it's been trialled. They advocate that existing rights should be followed into the digital world - not necessarily for an increase in rights. For that reason I'd say that they were politically neutral.