London's skyline is a growing mess (Commentary)

[chris08876]

I'm liking the topography of London. I always thought London was relatively flat, but I noticed that it has some pretty steep hills in the distance. Interesting.

The diversity is incredible. Its on par with New York in its incorporation of historical architecture with 21st century. Does a great job of it too. I think Londoner's will grow to love it eventually, and not see it as destroying the past.
Also, so many cranes. It will reach that nine million projection easily at this rate.

[10023]

London has some topography, though it's in a river valley. Not mountains (there aren't real mountains anywhere in England, only in Scotland), but enough hills that there are vantage points.

For example one of the most famous views of London is from Primrose Hill north of Regent's Park:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primrose_Hill

[muppet]

view from Greenwich over the East End aint bad either

[LMich]

The view to the left on that same hill, which captures the City, is an even better vista for me:


London Skyline (City of London) by stephanrudolph, on Flickr

The bend in the river really allows your eye to travel along it to its destination.

[10023]

^ this isn't from the same hill. Yours looks like it was taken in Greenwhich (southeast). Primrose Hill is north.

Greenwich Hill also has a good view of Canary Wharf:

[Austin55]

That picture mark posted reminds me of Tokyo

[FMIII]

Originally Posted by LMich

I like a skyline that tells a long, diverse story. London's does that for me; it's a sexy, beautiful disaster of a skyline.

I stongly agree. What is great about the London skyline is that it has almost a natural feel. It gives the impression that each building follows its own maturation process and can morph, overnight, into something different.
It gives the impression that the city is "alive" and grows organically, without any external interference.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by FMIII

Datz some Pyongyang shit right der.

[MonkeyRonin]

Parliament Hill is my favourite vantage point. You have just about the entirety of Inner London laid out before you, and it makes the extent of the construction boom quite apparent. Nice, tranquil spot to spend an afternoon too.



2057b by Mơמkƹ͛ƴ∆ґơɲiɲ, on Flickr

[Austinlee]

Oh noes... CHANGE!! Everybody panicc!

[Austinlee]

London Skyline: Needs moar ferris wheels. WHEEE!

[Jdawgboy]

I think London has one of the most interesting and unique skylines of any city on Earth and I love the Ferris Wheel!

Interesting checking this thread out, there is a thread in the Austin, Tx sub-forum that discusses a tall observation type tower and the idea of a Ferris Wheel was floated around.

Having protected corridors is a pretty good thing. We have several Capitol View Corridors here in Austin, and they have done wonders in shaping our skyline including taller skyscrapers than we would have had without the corridors. London's skyline has much more character than a city where all the towers are clumped in one area.

just for the sake of the conversation check out the photoshopped picture on the thread.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=209787

I can't wait till our new BA direct flight begins next month linking Austin and London. Planning a trip soon.
Cheers!

[10023]

The great thing about the black and white photo above is that it shows you how the runway at London City airport lines up with the gap between the Canary Wharf and the City.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by 10023

The great thing about the black and white photo above is that it shows you how the runway at London City airport lines up with the gap between the Canary Wharf and the City.

What are the chances of the City Airport being shut down? It doesn't seem particularly useful. Meanwhile its sitting on a whole bunch of valuable land, and could open up a good part of Tower Hamlets to higher density development with the flight path gone.

[muppet]

^it's actually expanding. The city gets about 140 million air passengers a year, the highest number in the world, through 6 international airports (there are 17 smaller domestic ones), but dramatically needs to expand if it wants to maintain it's position as a crossroads between the New World, Europe and the rising Asia - currently being threatened by Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Madrid. These other airports have made bounds in connecting with the new markets in Asia whilst London is squandering it's chance dithering about where to put the expansion(s), heavily influenced by nimbyism and the reality of constant noise levels. Also Istanbul, current destination-du-jour of global tourism is now building a 150 million capacity airport, to add to it's two other international ones.

[10023]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

What are the chances of the City Airport being shut down? It doesn't seem particularly useful. Meanwhile its sitting on a whole bunch of valuable land, and could open up a good part of Tower Hamlets to higher density development with the flight path gone.

Not useful my ass. BA has Business/First only flights to NYC from there and that airport is a dream (it's tiny and all business travelers).

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by 10023

Not useful my ass. BA has Business/First only flights to NYC from there and that airport is a dream (it's tiny and all business travelers).

I'm thinking of its utility in a societal sense rather than how useful certain users may find it - namely the fact that it serves only 2% of London-area air passengers in a year. With expansions of Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, it could be shut down with no detrimental effect to air traffic in London.

It's a lot like the Island Airport in Toronto. Handy to have, but not the best use of the land and ultimately of negligible importance.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Datz some Pyongyang shit right der.

edit

[10023]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I'm thinking of its utility in a societal sense rather than how useful certain users may find it - namely the fact that it serves only 2% of London-area air passengers in a year. With expansions of Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, it could be shut down with no detrimental effect to air traffic in London.

Stansted and Luton aren't substitutes for City. They are for discount carriers... much too far from central London to be practical for business travel. I took a (personal) flight from Stansted once and I'll never do it again.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if it's only 2% of passengers, it's a higher percentage of air traffic revenue (mostly Business/First fares) and very important to businesses headquartered in the Docklands (which are really quite a long way from Heathrow). So the airport is important economically, and London is a very capitalist city.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ this isn't from the same hill. Yours looks like it was taken in Greenwhich (southeast).

I think you misunderstood. I was replying to muppet, who had already posted the shot you posted. The shot I posted was taken from Greenwhich Park, also. It's basically a pan to the left and zoomed from the shot muppet posted, I believe.