HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 1:07 AM
chicagogreg chicagogreg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 55
^ Well said
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 10:19 AM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
The towers under construction are included in the 15 skyscrapers of London that I've indicated (except those that are barely above ground level, of which there are two I believe).
Going over the figures again there are 14 towers over 150m+ already built and another 9 at various stages of demolition and construction (of which two have topped out):
Built (14): Shard, 1 Canada Square, Heron Tower, 8 Canada Square, 25 Canada Square, Tower 42, St George Wharf Tower, 30 St Mary Axe, BT Tower, Broadgate Tower, 1 Churchill Place, 25 Bank Street, 40 Bank Street, and 10 Upper Bank Street.
Under Construction (9): 122 Leadenhall (topped out), Diamond Tower (ground works), 1 Nine Elms Tower 1 + 2 (demolition), 52 Lime Street (demolition), 1 Blackfriars (ground works), 20 Fenchurch Street (topped out), Baltimore Wharf Tower (core rising), and South Bank Tower (near to topping out).

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
As for those approved and proposed, I remain skeptical about these numbers, as always. We've seen very high numbers of proposed and approved skyscrapers in London for the past 10 years, but the fact is only 15 have been built over a period of 43 years (13 over a period of 16 years). We shall see how many are really built in the next 10 years.
Skyscrapers are a relatively new phenomena to London; the primary reason historically being the height restrictions which stopped development above 100m. There was also major backlash from the failed post-war council estate tower blocks which associated high rise living with deprivation. For perspective; the idea of living above 150m didn’t become a reality until the completion of the Shard (2012-mixed) and the St George Wharf Tower (2013-all residential).

Prior to 2002 there were only three towers above 150m+ in London: the BT Tower (1964), Tower 42 (1980) and 1 Canada Square (1991). In the last decade (2003-2013) nine towers were completed: 30 St Mary Axe, 25 Bank Street, 40 Bank Street + Upper Bank Street (2003), 1 Churchill Place (2004), Broadgate Tower (2008), Heron Tower (2011), Shard (2012) + St George Wharf Tower (2013).

In the post financial-crisis environment, skyscraper development in London changed in two ways. The first is that most office schemes stalled; the Bishopsgate Tower (core partially built, funding issues), Riverside South 1 + 2 (complete to ground floor but reliant on JP Morgan), and 100 Bishopsgate (ground works, requires pre-let). Others such as North Quay Tower 1 + 3 can’t proceed until Crossrail is complete.

The second and most radical is the emergence of very large numbers of residential high rise tower proposals; as noted above living above 150m+ is only a recent development but that is now changing: 6 of the 9 towers under construction are residential. There are several factors behind the boom in residential skyscrapers including:
- Rapid population growth (100,000+ per annum).
- Escalating property prices which are amongst the highest in the world making lower-height projects less viable.
- Massive international demand to build & acquire London property due to instability and uncertainty across the globe, as well as the allure of London property.
- Chronic lack of building space due to the Green Belt, sight lines, conservation areas and most of the city already being developed.

As the demand for new housing continues to outstrip supply and London’s population continues to boom, the more pertinent question is not whether they will be built, but how many more will be built.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
Not really. Parks, woods, gardens, cemeteries, outdoor sports fields, and greenfields cover 27% of the City of Paris's territory (or 28 km²/11 mi² out of 105 km²/41 mi²). If we add the 3 inner suburban departments surrounding the City of Paris, which have more woods and parks than the city proper, particularly in the south-west and south-east, then it's 31% of City of Paris + inner suburbs (i.e. 239 km²/92 mi² out of 762 km²/294 mi²) that is made up parks, woods, gardens, cemeteries, outdoor sports fields, and greenfields. And beyond the inner suburban departments lie some very large royal forests (Versailles, St Germain en Laye, Montmorency, Rambouillet, Fontainebleau, etc.).
I wouldn’t be surprised if both cities have roughly similar proportions of open spaces; London’s Green Belt accounts for 25% of its area for instance. The differences between each city presumably come in the composition of the open areas (woodland in Paris, heaths/parks in London) and the distribution (very large solitary open spaces in Paris in contrast to London’s smaller but more abundant parks and garden squares).

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
Lol @ using 'population change per sq km'. Of course London will come out on top compared to NA cities still expanding their territory. 85% of Toronto's population growth occurs outside the 'City of Toronto' boundary. I imagine the same is true for LA and Houston. Gotta wonder how gullible some people are when they argue that Toronto only grew by 133,500 people 2000-2011.
I’m not certain that we should be congratulating growth anywhere in the world that is typically characterised by sprawl and low-density neighbourhoods which have poor connectivity to the city and substandard public transportation, whilst in the process destroying countryside and agricultural lands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
It's also quite misleading when they used the land area of London (and Toronto), but total area (including water) for the American cities. Which wouldn't have much of an effect on the numbers for Los Angeles and Houston, but in New York's case its area is over one third water. Its land area is only 784 sqkm.
The London figure is for total area, so includes areas of water (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, canals, docks, wetlands, etc…, although not as much as New York) and the Green Belt (which accounts for around 25% of London’s area).
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2017/11/06
London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2017/11/06
London General Update Thread updated: 2017/11/06
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 12:31 PM
Pretext Pretext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by nito View Post

Skyscrapers are a relatively new phenomena to London; the primary reason historically being the height restrictions which stopped development above 100m. There was also major backlash from the failed post-war council estate tower blocks which associated high rise living with deprivation.
Thankfully a lot of the Major Post War Concrete Social Housing Estates in London are also now being redeveloped.

The Aylesbury Estate where the film Harry Brown was filmed is currently being demolished as part of a £2.5 Billion redevelopment of the area, whilst in recent years the grim South Acton Estate where 'Only Fools and Horses' and which was used in 'Del at 16', Scenes from 'Welcome To Sarajevo', 'The Bill', 'Minder', 'The Inspector Lynley Mysteries' and the remake of 'Brighton Rock' in 2010, has now been demolished. What are film makers going to do now??.

The Elephant & Castle is seeing a multi billion pound redevelopment including the demolition of the Heygate Estate, the Kidbrooke Estate/Ferrier Estate is also being demolished, as is Robin Hood Gardens and numerous other estates throughout London.

And what are they building in place of the concrete blocks of flats with - housing. So it's gone full circle and back to houses and proper communities.

If London doesn't watch out there will be no where left for film makers to set their grim violent and often idiotic nonsense. Then again the fact that film makers just use the same concrete estates again and again and again just shows how unimaginative they are, and how a distorted vision of London and indeed the UK is often portrayed by the film industry and media.

From This



To This


Last edited by Pretext; Mar 21, 2014 at 12:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 12:53 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by nito View Post
Going over the figures again there are 14 towers over 150m+ already built and another 9 at various stages of demolition and construction (of which two have topped out):
Built (14): Shard, 1 Canada Square, Heron Tower, 8 Canada Square, 25 Canada Square, Tower 42, St George Wharf Tower, 30 St Mary Axe, BT Tower, Broadgate Tower, 1 Churchill Place, 25 Bank Street, 40 Bank Street, and 10 Upper Bank Street.
Under Construction (9): 122 Leadenhall (topped out), Diamond Tower (ground works), 1 Nine Elms Tower 1 + 2 (demolition), 52 Lime Street (demolition), 1 Blackfriars (ground works), 20 Fenchurch Street (topped out), Baltimore Wharf Tower (core rising), and South Bank Tower (near to topping out).
BT Tower is not a skyscraper, just as the Eiffel Tower is not a skyscraper either. As for 122 Leadenhall and 20 Fenchurch Street, they have already passed 150 meters, which leads to the figure of 15 skyscrapers for London that I indicated in my previous post.

Regarding the 7 other skyscrapers "under construction", the only one I had missed was South Bank Tower, which is not far from reaching 150 meters, so London will soon have 16 skyscrapers. Apart from that one, only 1 is really rising above ground, and the other ones are either at ground works or just at a demolition stage, and in London we know that doesn't necessarily mean they will effectively be built (think Riverside South for example), so I wouldn't call them under construction yet.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 1:03 PM
Pretext Pretext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 277
There are a lot of tall building currently either under construction or approved in London, however most relate to areas well away from the tourist areas of the West End.

The building boom is concentrated in London's mainly in the once dilapidated east of the city and the City of London and it's fringes, which together account for 77 per cent of the new skyscrapers, with Tower Hamlets (East), Lambeth (south), Greenwich (South), Newham (East) and Southwark (South) having between them 140 of the 236 towers.

The rest will be largely in boroughs such as Croydon (South), Battersea/Nine Elms in Wandsworth (South) or other such areas which are seeing major redevelopment and investment such as Wembley/Brent Cross (North West), Brentford's Great West Quarter (West), Royal Park (Old Oak Common (North West)), Paddington Basin (Central) etc.


London's Glittering Spires Nearly 250 Highrise Developments Planned For The Capital - The Independent

London skyline will change forever with nearly 250 high rise developments planned for the capital

Canary Wharf is set to double in size and become family friendly

London's 200 new skyscrapers offer sleek high-rise homes

Last edited by Pretext; Mar 21, 2014 at 1:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 1:18 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by nito View Post
I wouldn’t be surprised if both cities have roughly similar proportions of open spaces
I wouldn't be surprised either. I didn't mean that Paris had more greenspace, but I was just mentioning that because it runs contrary to the perception that Paris has far less greenspace than London or Berlin. Not that it's only foreigners who have this perception. The Parisians themselves tend to have this perception, which shows just how myopic people can be. Forests located at the eastern and western extremities of Berlin (think around the lakes at Spandau for instance) count as Berlin's greenspace, but for some reason the Parisians don't even think of their Bois de Meudon, Forêt de Fausses-Reposes, Parc de Sceaux, etc., which are as close from the center of Paris as Spandau is from the center of Berlin.

Once I brought a Dutch friend who lived in the 17th arrondissement of Paris to the ponds in the middle of the Forêt de Fausses-Reposes, and he was blown away by the beauty and bucolic aspect of the place, so close from central Paris. He had never thought such a place existed. Most Parisians never venture beyond the Périphérique, it's beyond me. It's as if the Londoners never ventured beyond zone 1 of the Tube.

This pond is only 12 km from the Louvre Palace in central Paris, entirely surrounded by some of the wealthiest and most beautiful suburbs of Paris. For comparison, Spandau is also located exactly 12 km from the Brandenburg Gate in the center of Berlin. In London, this area would be approximately inside Richmond Park, same distance from the center.



2 years ago with Minato Ku we discovered this incredible English-style park (picture below) in the Eastern suburbs of Paris which most Parisians probably ignore. It's far larger than what you can see on this picture, and to me it's the most beautiful park in Greater Paris. It's 18 km east of Notre Dame Cathedral. In London we would be in Dagenham East. In Berlin we would be near the Müggelsee lake in East Berlin. In Paris, it's simply not on the mental map of the city that people have.

__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine

Last edited by New Brisavoine; Mar 21, 2014 at 1:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 2:11 PM
Pretext Pretext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 277
The percentage of public green space (parks and gardens) in London stands at 38.4% of all land in London, whilst London has over 3,000 Parks and many hundreds of beautiful green city squares and gardens. So London is a hard city to beat in terms of green space.

Video Link


Video Link


Video Link


Video Link


Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 2:50 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
Forests located at the eastern and western extremities of Berlin (think around the lakes at Spandau for instance) count as Berlin's greenspace, but for some reason the Parisians don't even think of their Bois de Meudon, Forêt de Fausses-Reposes, Parc de Sceaux, etc., which are as close from the center of Paris as Spandau is from the center of Berlin.
But that's just the thing. These spaces are on the periphery, well to the southwest toward Versailles. There are plenty of forests around Versailles, but those are comparable to the 3,500 acres of so of green space comprising Richmond Park and Wimbledon common to the southwest of London.

In Paris the biggest parks inside the Peripherique are the Jardin du Luxembourg (55 acres), Jardin des Tuileries (70 acres), Champ de Mars (60 acres). And I guess there's the Parc des Buttes Chaumont (61 acres), up in the 19th where no one goes.

Compare that to London's main Royal Parks - Hyde Park (350 acres), Ken Gardens (275 acres), Regent's Park (395 acres). Then you have smaller ones like Green Park (47 acres) and St James Park (57 acres). These are right around the West End, in the heart of the city.

Farther out but still very accessible, and really comparable to the Bois de Boulogne or Bois de Vincennes, you've got Battersea Park (200 acres), Greenwich Park (180 acres), Victoria Park (210 acres), Clapham Common (220 acres) and Hampstead Heath (790 acres).

London also has more squares and parks in the urban core. Compare central Paris (https://goo.gl/maps/Gw0OW) to central London (https://goo.gl/maps/r6GgY) with maps on the same scale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 4:01 PM
Greavsie Greavsie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
Yes, by far. Try walking around London wearing sandals. Your feet end up black.
its your own daft faut for wearing bloody sandals!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 4:19 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
There are many cities with cultural influence in the world, not just two. That's what I challenged. It's a completely self-centric vision of the world. The world is far more than the Anglosphere. There are various cultural zones or spheres in the world, some more populated than the entire Western world. And each zone or sphere has its own culturally influential cities. London or NYC are completely meaningless for billions of human beings, just as Beijing or Cairo are completely meaningless for other billions of human beings. And yet each of them is also meaningful for billions (or hundreds of millions) of other human beings, just as are several other cities like Paris, Tokyo, Moscow, São Paulo, Mumbai, Istanbul, Seoul, and several more. You can't sum up the cultures of the world (which thanks God are still quite varied and heterogeneous despite globalization) with only two cities.
Stop putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say that those cities summed up the cultures of the world. I said that they were more influential than any others. Conceptually, think of this as the difference between a plurality and a majority.

As you said the world is too diverse for any city to be the "majority", but if you were to rank global cities by influence, NYC and London would be at the top of that list (certainly if modern history is included).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 4:32 PM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greavsie View Post
its your own daft faut for wearing bloody sandals!
Got a problem with Birkenstocks? That's what I wear in warm weather if you must know, and so do millions of other people - even in Europe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 4:38 PM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Maybe if it's rained and you step in a puddle. And what are you doing walking around in sandals anyway? Try wearing respectable shoes.
Aside from certain parts of West LA, Los Angeles is filthy. There is no part of London as dirty as the LA Basin south of I-10 or East LA.
What a nasty response...almost as nasty as London's streets. See my comment above before you assume that my shoes aren't respectable. LA is nowhere near as old and filthy as London - why are you defending London so strongly? London is a great city and doesn't really need anymore martyrs. I lived there for a year and, yes, wore my Birkenstock's often just as many other Londoners do, but that's somehow a point of contention for you.

LA might be dirtier as far as litter, but London streets and sidewalks are just dirty, period. I'm sorry if that offends you - it apparently does. But you seem to be easily offended and love arguing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 4:39 PM
TarHeelJ TarHeelJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Stop putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say that those cities summed up the cultures of the world. I said that they were more influential than any others. Conceptually, think of this as the difference between a plurality and a majority.

As you said the world is too diverse for any city to be the "majority", but if you were to rank global cities by influence, NYC and London would be at the top of that list (certainly if modern history is included).
You NEVER put words any anyone's mouth, do you? Another example of your endless arguing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 5:02 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelJ View Post
Got a problem with Birkenstocks? That's what I wear in warm weather if you must know, and so do millions of other people - even in Europe.
If you're asking... yes. The only thing worse are Crocs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 5:03 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
But that's just the thing. These spaces are on the periphery, well to the southwest toward Versailles. There are plenty of forests around Versailles, but those are comparable to the 3,500 acres of so of green space comprising Richmond Park and Wimbledon common to the southwest of London.
In Berlin the forests are also on the periphery, yet people think of Berlin as a green city, not Paris. That was my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
In Paris the biggest parks inside the Peripherique are the Jardin du Luxembourg (55 acres), Jardin des Tuileries (70 acres), Champ de Mars (60 acres).
You've forgotten the Parc de La Villette (136 acres), the Jardin des Plantes (58 acres), the Parc Montsouris (38 acres), the Parc de Bercy (35 acres), the Parc André Citroën (34 acres, one of my favorites), the Jardin des Champs-Elysées (34 acres), and many smaller ones (Parc Monceau, with only 20 acres, is a Parisian favorite, most resembling St James Park in London, but personally I find it too crowded, although it is really beautiful).
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
And I guess there's the Parc des Buttes Chaumont (61 acres), up in the 19th where no one goes.
Uh, what?? In fact LOTS of people go to the Buttes Chaumont. It's full of people when it's sunny. The population density around the Buttes Chaumont is 27,423 inh. per km² (71,024 per mi²). North-eastern Paris is the densest part of an already very dense city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
Compare that to London's main Royal Parks - Hyde Park (350 acres), Ken Gardens (275 acres), Regent's Park (395 acres). Then you have smaller ones like Green Park (47 acres) and St James Park (57 acres). These are right around the West End, in the heart of the city.
Bois de Boulogne is more or less like Hyde Park in London in terms of location, but far larger. It's only 2 Métro stations from the Champs-Elysées, and it's surrounded by Haussmannian Paris and La Défense, so it feels quite urban. I used to live 3 streets from Hyde Park (I lived in two different locations in London), and now I live 3 Métro stations from the Bois de Boulogne. I've run in both parks every week, and Bois de Boulogne feels as central and urban on its edges as Hyde Park, except it's much much larger. For me these two parks are the best of all the cities where I've lived. Love to see the skyscrapers of La Défense peering above the trees when I run at the Bois de Boulogne. There's nowhere else in Europe where you can have that almost North American feeling of a city.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 5:42 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,660
I suppose I should clarify that when I say Hyde Park is more central than the Bois de Boulogne, it's because the true "center" of London is the West End, not the City. Hyde Park is a mile from Piccadilly Circus. Sure it's the same from the Arc de Triomphe for to the Bois de Boulogne, but is that really as central? From the 2/3/4/5/6 arr. it's a ways.

And maybe that's the difference. Because of history (not least WWII), both London and Berlin are oriented toward their western districts. Berlin's Tiergarten IS the center of town, between the postwar center of life around the Ku'damm and the historical center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 6:03 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
didn't say that those cities summed up the cultures of the world. I said that they were more influential than any others.
And that's very subjective. That's your subjective view as an Anglophone Westerner.

Is NYC more influential than Cairo for an Arab? No. Is London more influential than Shanghai for a Chinese? No. China alone has more inhabitants than the entire Western world, so why should NYC, London, or Paris be considered more influential than Shanghai, Beijing, or Hong Kong?

It's nearly impossible to rank things that are subjective. All we can measure is quantifiable things like the number of people, and on that metric the West is less populated than China, India, or the Muslim world.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 6:08 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by IIan View Post
Haha, some comments on this thread are hilarious...

The only better skylines in the states are Chicago and New York, the rest of the cities can't hold a candle to London. Those tiny CBD's surrounded by parking lots and dead suburbia are not comparable in any way to London's main skylines located in a real liveable and dense city.
Yes... look at all of those parking lots and dead suburbia surrounding Philadelphia


http://tia.photoshelter.com/image/I0000aB7LJBr7SKw


http://www.flickr.com/photos/teesha/


http://imagicdigital.com/2012/08/aer...city-district/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 6:23 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
I suppose I should clarify that when I say Hyde Park is more central than the Bois de Boulogne, it's because the true "center" of London is the West End, not the City.
Yes I know, but it's the same in Paris. The center of gravity of the city has shifted west. Porte Maillot, at the north-eastern corner of Bois de Boulogne, is very much like Marble Arch, at the north-eastern corner of Hyde Park, in terms of centrality. The richest French people live just west of Porte Maillot (in Neuilly), just as the richest British people also live west of Marble Arch (in Notting Hill, Kensington).

The only difference is the southern side of Hyde Park (Knightsbridge) has more centrality in London than the southern side of Bois de Boulogne. But for the northern side it's roughly the same in both cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
And maybe that's the difference. Because of history (not least WWII), both London and Berlin are oriented toward their western districts.
I would say it's the same in Paris, due to history too: first the king relocating to the Louvre and Palais Royal area, then to Versailles, which led to the development of the rich parts of the city around Faubourg St Honoré (right bank) and Faubourg St Germain (left bank), and this momentum survived the fall of the monarchy and return of government to Paris from Versailles. In the late 19th century-early 20th century, the Opéra-Madeleine area was the true center of Paris. Later on, the creation of La Défense reinforced that western tropism.

If Paris had been an Anglo-Saxon city, its skyscraper financial district, its "downtown" area, would be from Opéra to St Lazare station to Arc de Triomphe. In fact it almost happened. Following the example of NYC, they tried to build some skyscrapers around 1910 on Place de l'Opéra, but it was blocked by conservationists. I posted some fascinating articles published in the NYTimes at the time a while ago regarding that.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2014, 6:47 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 14,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
The only difference is the southern side of Hyde Park (Knightsbridge) has more centrality in London than the southern side of Bois de Boulogne. But for the northern side it's roughly the same in both cities.
Not to drag this on and on (I hope you're enjoying the discussion too)... but doesn't the fact that Hyde Park has central neighborhoods on all sides, and Bois de Boulogne doesn't, make the former a "central" park and not the other? Hyde Park is within (and surrounded by) the central part of London, while Bois de Boulogne is adjacent to the central part of Paris.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.