Comments on: London Skyline Update http://edvaizey.mpblogs.com/2007/06/18/london-skyline-update/ MP for Wantage and Didcot Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:51:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: David Watson http://edvaizey.mpblogs.com/2007/06/18/london-skyline-update/#comment-11019 Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:23:23 +0000 http://edvaizey.mpblogs.com/2007/06/18/london-skyline-update/#comment-11019 The building that most damages the Tower of London is the dreadful Hotel building beside it, not a spectacular piece of contemporary architecture half a mile away on the other side of the river. But, of course, the hotel is not a tall building therefore it is absolutely ok. Now we hear the Regents hotel is going to be demolished and replaced. But, of course, the replacement building will not be tall, so it is perfectly ok. If English heritage and the like protested against the vandalism to the streetscape caused by these bland oppressive structures half as much as they protested against stunning buildings like the Shard and the Gherkin (both names, lets remember, intended to be insulting) then London would probably be a much better city for it. The building that most damages the Tower of London is the dreadful Hotel building beside it, not a spectacular piece of contemporary architecture half a mile away on the other side of the river. But, of course, the hotel is not a tall building therefore it is absolutely ok.

Now we hear the Regents hotel is going to be demolished and replaced. But, of course, the replacement building will not be tall, so it is perfectly ok.

If English heritage and the like protested against the vandalism to the streetscape caused by these bland oppressive structures half as much as they protested against stunning buildings like the Shard and the Gherkin (both names, lets remember, intended to be insulting) then London would probably be a much better city for it.

]]> by: Les Ferris http://edvaizey.mpblogs.com/2007/06/18/london-skyline-update/#comment-11018 Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:15:58 +0000 http://edvaizey.mpblogs.com/2007/06/18/london-skyline-update/#comment-11018 The Minerva building was not built because the developers wanted a single tenant to take the whole building, and made the mistake of trying to cater for the wrong people. Had they held out, JPMorgan could have been a strong contender for the building. I guess everyone you met is pleased that the tower has been replaced by a revolting bulky ground scraper that has all the architectural merit of a dogs bowel movement. I find it funny how The Leadenhall building, Bishopsgate Tower and Heron are all being built speculatively, yet you say 'there is no requirement for tall buildings' And again. If the Shard dominates, give us some cold, hard proof. Something that neither you, or anyone else has provided. A survey I did of an SE1 community forum found the residents who will have to live near the Shard to have an overwhelmingly positive view of the development. Neither you Mr Vaizey, or English Heritage, or UNESCO, will be living in the same borough as the Shard. If the residents there want it and the regenration it brings, you or any others have absolutely no right to deny it to them or the general public, based on some highly unfounded claims that it will 'dominate'. St Pauls dominated until all of the groundscrapers were built around it. Now THAT is a battle worth fighting, not some wild goose chase that will eventually make the nay sayers look silly when it is finally built and loved around the world. No doubt people like you will be trying to convince people that you loved it all along, and gave it your full support... A program is on BBC London tonight, called Building Britain at 10:35pm regarding this particular subject. Should be very interesting. The Minerva building was not built because the developers wanted a single tenant to take the whole building, and made the mistake of trying to cater for the wrong people. Had they held out, JPMorgan could have been a strong contender for the building. I guess everyone you met is pleased that the tower has been replaced by a revolting bulky ground scraper that has all the architectural merit of a dogs bowel movement.

I find it funny how The Leadenhall building, Bishopsgate Tower and Heron are all being built speculatively, yet you say ‘there is no requirement for tall buildings’

And again. If the Shard dominates, give us some cold, hard proof. Something that neither you, or anyone else has provided.

A survey I did of an SE1 community forum found the residents who will have to live near the Shard to have an overwhelmingly positive view of the development. Neither you Mr Vaizey, or English Heritage, or UNESCO, will be living in the same borough as the Shard. If the residents there want it and the regenration it brings, you or any others have absolutely no right to deny it to them or the general public, based on some highly unfounded claims that it will ‘dominate’.

St Pauls dominated until all of the groundscrapers were built around it. Now THAT is a battle worth fighting, not some wild goose chase that will eventually make the nay sayers look silly when it is finally built and loved around the world. No doubt people like you will be trying to convince people that you loved it all along, and gave it your full support…

A program is on BBC London tonight, called Building Britain at 10:35pm regarding this particular subject. Should be very interesting.

]]>