Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine
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
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
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
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
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).