Millenium tower london

[tankmank 853]

The London Millennium Tower was one of several ideas for the site of the former Baltic Exchange at 30 St Mary's Axe, City of London that had been destroyed beyond repair by an IRA bomb blast.

The plan for the building was for it to be the tallest in Europe and the third tallest in the world at that time behind the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the Sears Tower in Chicago. If it were to be built now, it would be the fourth tallest, with the Taipei 101 building having been named the world's tallest building.

English Heritage had been one of the largest backers of the project until they withdrew their support amid trouble with Heathrow airport about the flight path. The project was eventually cancelled and the site sold to Swiss Re which created its headquarters designed by award winning British architect Lord Foster there. The glass rounded construction has become affectionately known as "The Gherkin" due to its shape and has won several awards for its innovation. There is still resentment however, by those who believed that a rebuilding of the Baltic Exchange would be the best option for the site and also those who had wished for the Millennium Tower

[GingerBlokey 30]

I prefer the Erotic Gherkin, it fits in better with the skyline and plus how much of an irristable target would that have been to Al Quaeda.

[tankmank 853]

I think if that was built it would mean there could be even taller buildings in london mabie even the tallest in the world

[jvlm.123 0]

Just a question: How tall would it have been?

[callagrafx 3]

I see the Wiki Snipper is alive and well LOL

London does not need to be scarred by NY style skyscrapers...it would decimate a genteel skyline and cause havoc with air traffic to Heathrow...across London City is the main descent path as the main runways are east-west orientation.

What is the obsession with height? Why does a building need to be so tall in the first place?....only one answer: Greed. A square acre of land can generate billions of pounds in rental revenue in a short space of time.

[SimFox 801]

Callagrafx: I agree with you in the part where you wonder why should building be tall to be good, but disagree on the part of reasons why soooo tall structures are built. Money couldn't possible be reason, beyond some height construction and upkeep at present day technology and real estate prices become prohibitively expensive. For instance there isn't any economic sense in Burj Dubai what so ever! It is built purely as status thing - look mine is bigger then yours type of thing.. (London Got it's phallic symbol now, and so did Barcelona) One reason for not building such a huge structure in place like London- the cost of it. Don't forget who and at what salaries building Burj Dubai and in what conditions. If you move this project to London cost would go up 30-50% and when you already start with a price tag running into few billions that could be just too much to make economic sense, another problem building of this size require whole new infrastructure to support it, and London's one is already at the stretch. Increase in size after some point makes many things almost impossible!

[tankmank 853]

Originally posted by: jvlm.123 Just a question: How tall would it have been?quote>

 

it would of been 386.00m tall

[SimFox 801]

Tankmank: if it to be only 386 m tall how did you managed to place it on 4 place in the world?

[tankmank 853]

i copied and pasted that info from wiki

And here is another building the green bird it is in vision . the height will be 442.00m

                       and another one in vision citygate ecotower at 485.00m

[callagrafx 3]

@Simfox: I was using the cities of NYC, Tokyo and HK as my reasoning, where land is at a premium and in short supply. London has enough space to grow out, not up.

It is true that building costs are high but then the revenue generated will far exceed the costs, even after adjusting for inflation. Developers do not build multi-billion dollar buildings to play "keep up with the Jones's"...they're in it to make money....the more floors, the more space you can rent out, simple economics. The "my building's bigger than yours" syndrome is mainly restricted to the playground and abstract discussion.

[GingerBlokey 30]

Originally posted by: callagrafx I see the Wiki Snipper is alive and well LOL

London does not need to be scarred by NY style skyscrapers...it would decimate a genteel skyline and cause havoc with air traffic to Heathrow...across London City is the main descent path as the main runways are east-west orientation.

What is the obsession with height? Why does a building need to be so tall in the first place?....only one answer: Greed. A square acre of land can generate billions of pounds in rental revenue in a short space of time.quote>

I totally agree, I love London for it's modest skyline, it gives it culture and style and this building would have totally destroyed this. I also like the way that the Docklands provide a contrast to the city, even then the buildings there fit in with their surroundings.

[SimFox 801]

Callagrafx: you assumption although based on solid economic principal of supply and demand is way to simplistic to be accurate.

Plus your assumption that all extra floors come at fixed additional rate (and also they maintenance) are wrong, After certain height at present building technology Skyscrapers become economically not viable, cause any additional floor takes rentable space away from every floor beneath it as structural elements need to be reinforce to support additional weight and wind pressure. So total rentable space in 200 storey office tower could be smaller then in 70-80 storey tower of same footprint. (this number is approximation just to show my point) so to offset this smaller rentable area premium will have to be charged for the privilege of having (dubious) pleasure of having office on 200^th floor. Question is how much premium would market support. People are renting space hot just for the fun of it (well may be some in Dubai) but to make money of it. So maximum rent payable is limited by the return this space can generate. This is main point you are missing from you equation. So there should be very strong need indeed to justify some astronomical rents.

As of developers building to get return, well Some do. Why do you think Burj Dubai is built in Dubai, but not in Hong Kong, NYC, London or anywhere else for the matter of fact?  And do you know who are developers of it? Have you seen budget of the project? And any estimates on return? If you did, please let me know. Cause I in all honesty do not believe in solid economics behind it, it is more like casino game to me…

 

Tankmank: well wikipedia know for good quality of it’s information, but I guess one should be critical about anything one sees anywhere on the internet and not only. Quite a few times I have found that even such a paragon or reliability as BBC passing some dodgy info around.

Somehow article conveniently forgot, or chosen to forget (which in this case same thing) about Jin Mao and Citic Palza, but of course those are in China, and we all know (it is poor, backward, country and all it’s achievements are because of slave labor blah-blah-blah, what else western media writing about it…

 

BTW I really love that Green Bird thingy… it is looks like something from porn store!!

[callagrafx 3]

I never said they came at a fixed additional rate...and there is no way on this planet that a building like the Burj Dubai would be financed if there were no guarantees of return on investment....people don't have that kind of money to blow. Capitalism and the accumulation of wealth are the single biggest drivers in the development of property, pure and simple.

I was over-simplifying to make a simple point...there is no point in going into epic detail about a single building...I was speaking in general terms.

[SimFox 801]

Apart for your admirable and strong beliefs do you have any other credible information on Burj Dubai financial status? I find it curious as you go on yourself, but as soon as asked a direct question prefer not to continue... Finances of Burj Dubal and also of many other projects in Dubai are very-very shady, at any rate huge chunk of it comes from pockets of ruling family and they idea of what future returns should be. but if you look and date available from verifiable sources you'll see picture far from one you may see on documentaries (more like TV Shop programs really) on Discovery about all the wonders of Dubai and it s transition to new economy. Share prices of EMAAR – developer of Burj Dubai in last 52 months saw highs of 29,1AED but today are valued at only 11,7AED I think this share price development speaks for itself, at any rate company is a pocket entity of ruling sheik. Company has only (at this scales it is ONLY) 59000 shareholders and profits of only 0,8Bln dollars (which is record for them as they state on the site) for first half of current year, but manages somehow to invest astronomical sums (Burj Dubai complex alone said to take 20 billion and then 26 billion for the project in Saudi Arabia, plus 4 billion investment in retail, plus another 5 billion for investment in healthcare. (do you add those ?) doesn’t it sound a bit fishy?

There is a reason why such a mega structures aren’t built in places really hard pressed for space, but built in Dubai where huge space is occupied by tiny population.

[callagrafx 3]

why, oh why are you fixating on a building in Dubai? Please read the second paragraph of my last post....I stated I was speaking in GENERAL TERMS, not specifics.

I really have no desire nor the time to get into a semantic debate on the finances of a building I could care less about in a city I will probably never visit. The thread topic is about LONDON, UK...a city I am very familiar with as I lived there for 10 years.

Apart for your admirable and strong beliefs do you have any other credible information on Burj Dubai financial status? I find it curious as you go on yourself, but as soon as asked a direct question prefer not to continue...quote>

Please indicate where in amongst your thesis on the construction of the Burj Dubai there is a direct question aimed at me, apart from asking me to speculate on why the Burj Dubai is being built in Dubai, which I read as a rhetorical one.

If you (and it appears that you do) have a love affair with this eyesore, I suggest you start your own thread, so as to remain on-topic.

[jvlm.123 0]

Originally posted by: tankmank i copied and pasted that info from wiki

And here is another building the green bird it is in vision . the height will be 442.00m

                       and another one in vision citygate ecotower at 485.00m

quote>

 

I don't like either of them... Why do most so called "modern" buildings need to have a curve in them...?  Some of this is okay... But I prefer traditional "skycrapers"...if there is such a thing.

[ILL Tonkso 1,236]

Well London is passing the supertall barrier anyway, the London Bridge Tower will be way up there in the Supertall catagory Oh and the millenium tower was a lot taller than 400 meters.

[p4p3rc1ip 2]

London Millennium Tower my butt! The Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth is the real Millennium Tower.

[callagrafx 3]

Originally posted by: ILL Tonkso Well London is passing the supertall barrier anyway, the London Bridge Tower will be way up there in the Supertall catagory Oh and the millenium tower was a lot taller than 400 meters.quote>

And so the start of the end of London...still, if there weren't supertalls, what would you BAT?

[adpbns777 0]

Building upward can also somewhat be viewed as a more sustainable solution to urban sprawl. With increasing population worldwide coupled with greenhouse gas emissions, building cities outwards is only going to perpetuate problems that currently exist. By centralizing sources of residences or jobs, you improve the efficiency of mass transit, since the principal behind mass transit is a common source of population moving towards a common destination. In the very near future, for the first time in human history, more than half of the world's population will live in urban areas. By 2050, 60% of the world's population will live in urban areas. While this thread is particularly about London, and Western European cities aren't showing the predicted growth that the rest of the world is showing, I guess it wouldn't really matter to London. As for the rest of the world, building up is a more sustainable practice than building outward. In 1950 there was one megacity (population above 10,000,000). Today there are about 10. By 2015 there will be over 20, and it will subsequently increase in the future. Most of this growth will occur in Asia, Africa, and Latin and South America, and a little bit in the U.S. (due to immigration, not birth rate as is the case with the rest of the world). So it is understandable that these cities are building upward in preparation for the near future.

[tankmank 853]

London is the most populated city in the eu within the city limits at 7,000000 and berlin is second with 3,000000 so mabie up might be better .i don't personally Hate the green bird and citygate they are hidious and would ruin london's skyline 4eva and while you are talking money heres a fact more u.s dollars are exchanged in london then nyc more euros are excanged in london than the whole of Europe so just think about it for a while

[ILL Tonkso 1,236]

Grreen Bird, Citygate, they are visions, this means they arent proposed to be built, they wont be built. Anything classed as a vision is a no go.

[tankmank 853]

I didn't know that and yay

[montrouge 2]

Originally posted by: tankmank London is the most populated city in europe within the city limits at 7,000000 and berlin is second with 3,000000 so mabie up might be better .i don't personally Hate the green bird and citygate they are hidious and would ruin london's skyline 4eva and while you are talking money heres a fact more u.s dollars are exchanged in london then nyc more euros are excanged in london than the whole of Europe so just think about it for a whilequote>

 

Moscow was the first populated city in Europe with 10 millions inh

The third city could be greater Paris with more 6.5 millions inhabitants

All big european cities propose a lot of Skyscrapers

Moscow Paris Milan Rotterdan Frankfurt Madrid Warsaw ...

In la Paris la Defense 15 towers between 200 and 400 m was planned or approved

London should build more skyscrapers.

[tankmank 853]

i agree montrouge

[jvlm.123 0]

Dublin, Ireland's "Millennium Tower"...



It was built...

But, at a mere 52 metres/17 stories, it is no comparsion to the London tower...

[villagemayor 0]

At least Dublin's millenium tower has great views to the water. Its that the name of the building?

[jvlm.123 0]

No, it has a few names:

Millennium Tower (most commonly in conversation)

Charlotte Quay (most commonly used in addresses/planning applications/etc..)

Charlotte Quay Tower (same as above)

[MrFingers 0]

i was under the impression london's bed rock was clay and therefore not firm enough to support the foundations of a world ranking sized skyscraper.

[ILL Tonkso 1,236]

It is, but new technology has had its effects London IS building this....