New London tower
-
@unknownuser said:
It will appear in an episode of 'Spooks' (MI5 for folks in the states) where Adam (if he is still alive) meets an ex KGB spy at the base of it and y'all will fall in love with it.... end of controvesy.
lol as if you watch spooks!! its an awesome tv show.
its like the english 24! 
-
Oliver I most certainly do, it shows on Thursday nights on our local PBS channel KERA at 9pm.
The last episode that aired was when the nuclear triggers have made their way to Iran, leaving a cliffhanger as always. (how far behind y'all are we?)
-
When Paris’s Universal Exposition opened in April 1889, insults were already bouncing off its centerpiece, Gustave Eiffel’s cast-iron tower. In many quarters it was regarded not as a wonder and marvel but as an outrage.
Today it's the pride of most Parisians, was the 'Eye of London' embraced at first? is it now? are people warming to it? -
Oh . .. I think London has enough to be proud of. Sir Norman's enormous Gerkin is symbolic enough, is it not?
-
As I have written before, I for one like the structure, but that is a subjective view as the tower is intended to be both art and structure. If you don't like it, and for whatever reason, then fine, but your opinion is also subjective. No one is saying it is 'good' (how can a work of art be good or bad - it is either liked or disliked), although a lot of people are saying that it is 'bad' from their own view point as designers. In brief, it is not what they would have designed. I think the design is interesting, although its presentation (model, rendering) pretty awful. I get the feeling the presentation was put together in a hurry for dear old Boris to talk about.
I do not know how they arrived at the winner, but one assumes that it was through some sort of opinion pole involving 'the man on the street'. If that is the case, then the British tax payer (or a significant number) favour the design.
All the comments so far can pretty much be summarised by 'it's a piece of shit'. Surely, someone can put forward a reasoned argument against its construction, but not one based solely on personal taste in buildings and structures, or is that all there is to this discussion? David_H posted an image of the Gerkin, a building I do not particularly like, but to others it's iconic.
Just a few thoughts, and not directed at anyone in particular.
Regards,
Bob -
Bob
As a man on the street and, unfortunately, a British tax payer, I can honestly say that, as usual, the majority were not given the opportunity to vote for a favourite, nor even see the alternatives for that matter. I for one, in this recession, do not think this structure should be even considered for construction on the basis of cost alone. History will prove that it will come in at least 50% over budget and as a previous poster said in this thread, ignored by people after the olympics is over. We as a nation are already diverting millions of pounds from regional sporting budgets to support the building of London based olympic venues and we as regions (N. Ireland) will not get the benefit of them after the olympics have been and gone. What will it bring to the nation / capital - arguments, mostly about its cost and why should something that cost millions generate that argument - build something from scrap iron, made by people on the dole costing a fraction and let the luvvies fight about its artistic merit.
-
personally im with bob, i think it will be a much more impressive piece of architecture when your stood underneath it rather than looking at a tiny, and rather badly done, render (although some of the material in the bbc vid looks a lot better.)
And as for the cost, what a bargain. That sort of money is pissed away left, right and center so to see it being used to build something as striking as this seems like a very good use for the money.
-
The only thing i would like to see striking it is a demolition ball - no that would it mean it would have to built so scratch that !
-
Dermot,
Brilliant suggestion!! Attach a demolition ball to the top and you have the mother of all bar skittles. Now we're getting somewhere!
For our Americans cousins http://www.mastersgames.com/cat/pub/table-skittles.htm
Regards,
Bob -
so.
they'll spend 19 million on that...but the Athletes that make up the UK team could use the money in the form of facilities to train in.
hmm. shows where the priorities are.
-
@khai said:
so.
they'll spend 19 million on that...but the Athletes that make up the UK team could use the money in the form of facilities to train in.
hmm. shows where the priorities are.
There's probably been at least a few hundred million been spent on athletics training facilities over the last decade.
-
and they always need more.
what will this tower do for them? something to run up and down ?
-
@khai said:
so.
they'll spend 19 million on that...but the Athletes that make up the UK team could use the money in the form of facilities to train in.
hmm. shows where the priorities are.
apparently, much of the cost is being covered privately..
@unknownuser said:
The cost of the 1,400 ton steel structure has been put at around $30 million, although most of the bill is being picked up by steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal who, like Kapoor, is India born, but resides in the British capital.
-
Hi,
i like the Gerkin construction. Also the new London Tower seems to be a interesting construction. It would be interesting to replicate this tower with Sketchup.
-
Looks like a tricky one to model, too elaborate for the 'model this' section I'm afraid.
-
@khai said:
and they always need more.
what will this tower do for them? something to run up and down ?
This tower will hopefully be one of the iconic structures which helps to build a successful Olympic Games. It will give visitors to the game a fantastic vista over the Olympic Park and over towards the London skyline.
Billions will be spent hosting the games. Hundreds of millions have been spent for athletic facilities throughout the UK. To suggest that spending £20m or so on an iconic tower means that the priorities lay away from athletics is ludicrous.
-
With reference to Jeff Hammond's comment, the tax payer will only have to pay 3 million. Extract from article:
" Financing deals have been signed between principal backer Lakshmi Mittal, the steel magnate, who has committed £16 million towards the £19.1 million cost, and Mr Johnson who dreamed up the project. It is hoped work will begin within weeks on what officially will be called the ArcelorMittal Orbit"
So, that's okay then, or is it? Perhaps Mr. Mittal had a job lot of steel he couldn't get rid of.
Bob
-
Already a Wikipedia entry:
-
@johnsenior1973 said:
@khai said:
and they always need more.
what will this tower do for them? something to run up and down ?
This tower will hopefully be one of the iconic structures which helps to build a successful Olympic Games. It will give visitors to the game a fantastic vista over the Olympic Park and over towards the London skyline.
Billions will be spent hosting the games. Hundreds of millions have been spent for athletic facilities throughout the UK. To suggest that spending £20m or so on an iconic tower means that the priorities lay away from athletics is ludicrous.
really? I'm from the UK before I moved to Canada...and they were complaining about facilities being closed because of budget cuts..... on my mail route (was a mailman) I personally saw 4 locations either shut down or be 'temporarily' closed due to no money.
so I'll be 'ludicrous' and suggest the money can be better spent. sorry if that's a problem..
-
Mittal will probably provide at least half of the cost of this tower. The rest of the cost of the tower will probably be recovered by spectators paying £10 to go up the tower during the games.
The Olympic Games is now getting lots of publicity just over this tower.
The Olympic Stadium is being done on the cheap. Compared to the facilities at Beijing and the stadia in South Africa, they haven't even bothered trying to compete. Judging from the renders (and I accept they might not be accurate) there seems to be very little else that is being done to make the area visitor friendly.
I think ATM very few people like this tower. But what if the actual tower actually does look magnificent and makes a profit? Even if it looks as bad as it does in the render but makes a profit, isn't whining over the waste of money slightly daft if there has been no waste of money?
Advertisement