Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by funky, Jul 18, 2007.
Worst anarchist ever.
I doubt that Crusty the anarchist believes in the unrestricted power of large corporations when he's lobbing a brick through MacDonalds on Mayday.....
Who the hell is Crusty?
Wouldn't he be too worried about his exisistential crisis of not actually being real to throw a brick through a window?
ROLL ON DEVELOPMENT. London is miles behind the likes of Sydney, New York and Hong Kong, and Paris does the whole OLD WORLD CHIC THING much better.
That's gone now. Even so, Moscow has some of the most beautiful historical buildings of any European city (except maybe St. Petersburg and Rome), so I could see the argument against skyscrapers there, where they would look a bit incongruous, which they JUST DON'T in London.
On the TRANSPORT ISSUE, closing the tubes at midnight IS ridiculous, but at least we have night buses and taxis. Going out in Moscow meant you either had to be back home by 1am when the tubes shut down or you were out until 6 AM!
London is NOT Sydney, New York or Hong Kong , all three of which are relatively new. If people wish to move to one of these places then fine, rather than trying to spoil the UK's capital.
I knew the Hotel Russia was up for demolition , I'd hope they are replacing it with trying to recreate some of the medieval churches that were demolished to build the thing.
I don't think they would spoil it. The skyline is PRETTY DRY AT THE MOMENT
I agree with Sebastian Flyte.
All these modern buildings are horrible. Buckingham Palace, the Houses of Westminister - they are completely at odds with London's centuries of heritage.
St. Paul's Cathedral - PAH. I preferred the one the previous 9 versions. What the hell is that massive dome doing there? We don't need it, just because we can now make domes.
Victoria Embankment? Ridiculous - I preferred the thames when it was wider and cholera infested.
Very droll. Although the original St Pauls was indeed a superb gothic building judging by the drawings of it that I''ve seen.
I'm well aware that London has evolved and changed.
So why should your London of 30 years ago be the one that remains fixed forever? Let it keep evolving and changing.
There is a difference between evolving and being swamped with skyscrapers whose purpose is functionality and which dominate and change the whole nature of a city.
Anyway I'm off to Salisbury tomorrow , not a skyscraper in sight, just the Cathedral tower
Talk about a building without a purpose.
This is probably true but it's not unusual - buildings as big as the ones in Canary Wharf tend to get taken over by one large corporate company and they buy/rent the space for themselves, with the view that they will eventually expand. A lot cheaper long term than having to move 4000 people into a big building in 5 years
My company owns the entire 9 floors of the Hammersmith roundabout and about three of the floors are half empty. It's just the way it is, doesn't mean other companies don't want skyscrapers of their own
London has become the gateway between North America and Europe/Middle East - and with China and India coming on board the demand is only likely to increase. It's the main reason why our economy continues to boom in the face of global uncertainty...
I must admit, I am a born and bred Londoner, and am immensely proud of London: it is easily in the top flight of all cities across the globe in most areas, and stakes a reasonable claim to being the worlds second "international" city, after New York. NY, being the economic heart of the US, obviosuly dominates as a regional nexus of culture, commerce, travel, trade, etc. (bonus points to me for using the word "nexus" on Moopy), but it can be argued that London runs a fair second, in terms of commerce, services, culture, etc. London acts as one of the major international transport hubs (matched only by NY, Dubai and Singapore), and arguably beats NY in the provision of international financial services.
I think the City is one of the best assets that the UK has now: and want to see London competing on the international scene in all areas: in the provision of world class transport, and in architecture as well, esp since the 2012 Olympics are coming up. I want to be even MORE proud of London: to have it striving to be the best in ALL areas: it is the "flagship" of the UK in a way, in how it is viewed on the international scene, and I think should be viewed accordingly. Big glass skyscrapers are a big part of this: people might bemoan that they ruin the character (what rot: do you really want to promote London as having a backward personality, more interested in preserving relics of the past than in moving confidently into the future: there is a balance to be made, but some people are taking it a bit too far), but they are themselves an integral part of Londons character: as a confident player on the international scene: the location of business often depends a lot on prestige...
I don't want to see some previously piss poor city like Shanghai (which until 50 years ago was a dump) overtaking London as a centre of commerce/culture, just because of the lethargy of "Little England" syndrome, promoting market towns and churches/cathedrals over common sense...
Manchester is easily the fastest growing after London. They have plans drawn up for about 10 skyscrapers/towers at the moment. Some good blueprints. I'll see if I can find them
Everyone is pretty much spot on about the transport. But it has its good and bad points.
First of all - our underground network is the best in the world as far as central city travelling goes. OK forget the prices and the signal failures - when it works, you can get from A to B easier than in any other city and it's extremely difficult to get lost on the tube (unless you have to change at Bank. Then you're on your own).
Sure, NYC is five times as big but try getting from West 20th to East 50th without having to change three times. And what's with the letters and numbers? FUCKING CONFUSING.
And Paris is a fucking nightmare too. You may as well WALK. Madrid is pretty good, but then it was based on London's system...
The main thing is basically the availability. For such a large city, the tubes finish too early, the trains are unreliable, the cabs are sparse at night, and the buses are slow as hell. Of course it all boils down to being such an incredibly old city - our roads just aren't cut out for so many buses and bus routes. So it's catch 22. But when you consider we are the worlds transport capital - we need to do SOMETHING
Look at the statistics:
Heathrow - world's busiest airport
Clapham Junction - Europe's busiest train station
World's largest bus network
We really should be BETTER EQUIPPED
Being proud of a country's economic and financial success is only one thing. The 'Little England' attitudes which you bemoan simply amount to love of other aspects of this country's culture, heritage, tradition and beauty besides those related to 'business' 'financial centres' 'transport hubs' and similar criteria in which you seem to measure success.
I don't see why this country should seek to emulate Shanghai , there is far more to England than business.
i've been lost at bank more times than i care to REMEMBER
As I've said many times before, Bank should have it's own POSTCODE
I swear it takes me 10 minutes to change from the Central line to the Circle.
And don't get me started on that spiral staircase.
We can't survive on heritage alone and you know it.
What a cool image!
They also need to get rid of having two separate stations with the same name. It confuses the hell out of tourists. Hammersmith line's Shepherd's Bush should be called something like "Shepherd's Bush Green" to distinguish it from the central line station. They're a 10 minute walk apart. Bakerloo's Edgeware Road should be called "Bell Street" because people always go there looking for the main District/Circle/Hammersmith lines and you can't connect from there. It's CONFUSING - I've never understood why.
FABULOUS. I love SKYSCRAPERS
They should build a 90 story one in London like this one in Malaysia
for the same reason I can't wait to finally go to Dubai
Time for another edit, methinks. I see the Janet Jackson profile had "she also has a rare 3 octave vocal range" in the first paragraph.
I THOUGHT that projector had a shot of Wikipedia.. I know that student's have cited it as a reference in their essays now.
I love the Petronas Towers - although as a tourist you can only go up them to the bit in the middle.
The Menara Tower is right next to them - although as it sits on a hill it has a higher vantage point. Cool bananas as one of my idiot colleagues would say.
I've always thought the point about cities is that they should live, breathe, change and grow like we do - I fully understand that Glasgow's not in the same league as the places discussed here but one of the things that I LOVE about it (esp compared to Edinburgh) is the energy it derives simply from its changing profile. Granted some changes are hardly laudable but that's almost part of the process i think.
They'll build them up only to have them threatened with being blown up if the current state of affairs continues for the next five years
Your wish is granted as of next year, of course. Once the big shopping development is completed and the 'Wood Lane' station added to the Hammersmith & City line, the old Shepherd's Bush station will become 'Shepherd's Bush Market' - with the Central Line station retaining it's name.
oh I didn't know that! I did hear that there might be another H&C station being added, which makes sense with the new shopping development (which incidentally is apparently the biggest shopping complex in an urban landscape in the whole of Europe)
Although it does mean my already SLOW journey time to Hammersmith is going to get even SLOWER :Oi:
Where's the MEGA-MOSQUE?
oh and East Berlin is FABULOUS
I'm a bit late
OK here are the planned Manchester ones:
Inacity Tower, 188m, Construction Begins 2007
Quay Point Tower 1, 175m, Construction Unknown
Chapel Wharf Tower 1, 125m, Construction Begins 2007
Manchester just seems to be building and endless stream of ugly apartments from what I've seen.
well, it is the North.
Well, in this overcrowded world the future are high buildings!
Or would you prefer HUGE cities with very small, oldfashioned buildings? Without nature at all? Me not.
And I wouldn't call them ugly at all. Some buildings might be ugly, but most of them are really exciting. So impressive.
I also love the mix of old and new. It makes the old buildings even nicer in some cases. The Potsdamer Platz has got an very old building inbetween. Love that mix. The old building would be one of many old buildings in Berlin, if it wasn't inbetween those buildings. It's just lovely.
I'm very lucky for London and love those pics. I thought London would have problems with space. I'm glad that London found ways to build up a cool skyline for the future.
Is that just a weird picture of the chapel tower? It looks like the perspective is all weird
I love the Quay Point one! That Manchester one is a bit of an eyesore though .. and is Inacity Tower the worst name ever?
And i love the Petronas towers!
Do you actually know th history of Berlin? It seems you don't!!!
Unter den Linden was mostly destroyed after the war. Most of those buildings, which are "ok" in your opinion, are re-build and modern buildings. (after 1989/90)
And Potsdamer Platz was border area between west and east. There was a lot of space for making a modern centre. I'm more than happy about the fact that they haven't build small, ugly, modern stuff on this free space!!!
Have you seen Seb's version of the European Map? I doubt he would claim to be the world's best Historian...