If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by John on January 26, 2007, 8:46 am
>
>
>>> Look at this:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma4lBz_ArNw
>>
>> Our local planners have just finally done an about face on height, after
>> decades of "height = bad/always", implemented in the most mind-numbingly
>> thoughtless way, but it's not all good news. The idiots have switched
>> their focus (now they're all green), but they are still around, screwing
>> things up, and we have a whole generation of almost-tall buildings that
>> are stumpy-looking like in the video.
>
> See what I mean....
>
> "A SKYSCRAPER planned for Liverpool's waterfront will be reduced from 37
> to 30 storeys, following scathing criticism in a report by the Commission
> for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3cnej9
>
> The city planners, UNESCO, English Heritage and CABE all stick their oars
> in. Would you develop in Liverpool?
>
> A stumpy city emerges.
It appears London do what the hell it likes, while other cities cannot.
London must not have direct competition.
<http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/46LondonBridgeTower_pic1.jpg>
Ironically a Liverpool company is building this "Shard of Glass", but unable
to build such a building in their city.
<http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=46>
|
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on January 26, 2007, 9:24 am
>
>>
>>
>>>> Look at this:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma4lBz_ArNw
>>>
>>> Our local planners have just finally done an about face on height, after
>>> decades of "height = bad/always", implemented in the most mind-numbingly
>>> thoughtless way, but it's not all good news. The idiots have switched
>>> their focus (now they're all green), but they are still around, screwing
>>> things up, and we have a whole generation of almost-tall buildings that
>>> are stumpy-looking like in the video.
>>
>> See what I mean....
>>
>> "A SKYSCRAPER planned for Liverpool's waterfront will be reduced from 37
>> to 30 storeys, following scathing criticism in a report by the Commission
>> for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)."
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3cnej9
>>
>> The city planners, UNESCO, English Heritage and CABE all stick their oars
>> in. Would you develop in Liverpool?
>>
>> A stumpy city emerges.
>
> It appears London do what the hell it likes, while other cities cannot.
> London must not have direct competition.
> <http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/46LondonBridgeTower_pic1.jpg>
>
> Ironically a Liverpool company is building this "Shard of Glass", but
> unable to build such a building in their city.
> <http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=46>
I have seen the future! Turn back before it's too late!
|
|
Posted by HVS on January 27, 2007, 5:41 pm
On 22 Jan 2007, Michael Bulatovich wrote
> Our local planners have just finally done an about face on
> height, after decades of "height = bad/always", implemented in
> the most mind-numbingly thoughtless way, but it's not all good
> news. The idiots have switched their focus (now they're all
> green), but they are still around, screwing things up, and we
> have a whole generation of almost-tall buildings that are
> stumpy-looking like in the video.
When I was in Toronto about 5 years ago, I took a picture of a sort-
of-medium-height building (downtown; probably around Wellington St W
or Front Street, visible from a south-west angle) which at its top
had the most undecided collection of references.
I can probably locate the picture, but you may well know what I'm
talking about: a very standard tower to about 6 or 8 floors below
the top -- and then finished off with what for all the world looked
like a re-used design for a suburban house or something.
It was really, deeply, weird...
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
For e-mail, change harvey to harvey.van
|
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on January 27, 2007, 7:37 pm
> On 22 Jan 2007, Michael Bulatovich wrote
>
>
>> Our local planners have just finally done an about face on
>> height, after decades of "height = bad/always", implemented in
>> the most mind-numbingly thoughtless way, but it's not all good
>> news. The idiots have switched their focus (now they're all
>> green), but they are still around, screwing things up, and we
>> have a whole generation of almost-tall buildings that are
>> stumpy-looking like in the video.
>
> When I was in Toronto about 5 years ago, I took a picture of a sort-
> of-medium-height building (downtown; probably around Wellington St W
> or Front Street, visible from a south-west angle) which at its top
> had the most undecided collection of references.
>
> I can probably locate the picture, but you may well know what I'm
> talking about: a very standard tower to about 6 or 8 floors below
> the top -- and then finished off with what for all the world looked
> like a re-used design for a suburban house or something.
>
> It was really, deeply, weird...
>
It doesn't immediately come to mind, Harvey. What's "medium height"?
--
MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca
|
|
Posted by HVS on January 28, 2007, 4:52 am
On 28 Jan 2007, Michael Bulatovich wrote
>
>> On 22 Jan 2007, Michael Bulatovich wrote
>>
>>
>>> Our local planners have just finally done an about face on
>>> height, after decades of "height = bad/always", implemented in
>>> the most mind-numbingly thoughtless way, but it's not all good
>>> news. The idiots have switched their focus (now they're all
>>> green), but they are still around, screwing things up, and we
>>> have a whole generation of almost-tall buildings that are
>>> stumpy-looking like in the video.
>>
>> When I was in Toronto about 5 years ago, I took a picture of a
>> sort- of-medium-height building (downtown; probably around
>> Wellington St W or Front Street, visible from a south-west
>> angle) which at its top had the most undecided collection of
>> references.
>>
>> I can probably locate the picture, but you may well know what
>> I'm talking about: a very standard tower to about 6 or 8
>> floors below the top -- and then finished off with what for all
>> the world looked like a re-used design for a suburban house or
>> something.
>>
>> It was really, deeply, weird...
>>
>
> It doesn't immediately come to mind, Harvey. What's "medium
> height"?
Sorry -- I meant "medium" for the general height of the buildings
it sat amongst; average for that part of the skyline (as opposed
to notably taller, or clearly low-rise).
I'll see if I can dig out the picture.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
For e-mail, change harvey to harvey.van
|
Page 7 of 7 << first < 1 2 3
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Iconic Tower rejected | January 21, 2007, 5:29 am |
| Gateway Art Tower | November 21, 2008, 9:15 am |
| Eiffel Tower at Night (video) | January 27, 2007, 11:12 pm |
| Eiffel Tower timelapse film | June 12, 2008, 1:42 pm |
| Re: Eiffel Tower: Formula, Patrick Weidman? | June 5, 2008, 12:42 am |
| Re: Eiffel Tower: Formula, Patrick Weidman? | June 5, 2008, 1:02 am |
| Re: Eiffel Tower: Formula, Patrick Weidman? | June 5, 2008, 7:07 pm |
| Time-lapse Video of Eiffel Tower at Dusk with Moon | August 18, 2007, 5:08 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap