The Eiffel Tower

for anyone who likes this topic have a look at www.skyscrapercity.com


tons of stuff about tall buildings there

I wish I was more attractive like Dagless.

I have been on there occasionally to browse the forum. There are some really interesting informative posts on there.

for anyone interested in tall buildings, these are currently being built in London, in their early stages, but actually being built

the shard, 310 metres





the pinnacle 288 metres

I wish I was more attractive like Dagless.

ooohh, both look very nice!! About time London got some tall, attractive looking buildings. Do you have any information on estimated date of completition? 30 St Mary Axe (gherkin) is probably one of the ugliest buildings out there, everytime I see a programme on London and it focuses on it I cringe.

now the gherkin is one of my favourite buildings, funny how people differ on stuff like this


not sure of completion for the other two, about three years I would estimate

I wish I was more attractive like Dagless.

how come we dont have huge sky scrappers, is there a height limit on what we can build over here!!  cos they look awesome.  its the one thing that london misses out on having that big city feeling like new york, with massvie buildings!

odog


how come we dont have huge sky scrappers, is there a height limit on what we can build over here!!  cos they look awesome.  its the one thing that london misses out on having that big city feeling like new york, with massvie buildings!

I have always thought the same thing, would be great if London had one massive iconic skyscraper about 2000ft high. It draws a lot of tourism and creates a lot of interest which is better for our economy. From what I understand, the reason we don't do it is because it's very expensive and it isn't a necessity. In New York for example, skyscrapers are the way the city has always been, why break tradition?
 
But I definitely agree with you, these new skyscrapers look promising but we need a massive one to make London even better! 

symzie

Mobster


Crystal Palace is the area and the rest are boroughs.

Has Crystal Palace declared itself an independent republic? Is it not in a borough anymore?

Anyway the TV mast in the picture is the Croydon Mast, the Crystal Palace mast, the one you're thinking of is the other end of Crystal Palace Parade - the other side of the park.

Nah (I had to check cos I wasn't sure LOL), the Croydon Mast (aka Croydon Transmitting Station) is the one up the road in Upper Norwood and within the borough of Croydon and is outside the park. The one actually within the park grounds, although securely fenced off as you'll know, is what we think of as the mast but is technically called 'Crystal Palace Transmitting station'. Baring in mind we could see the steps in the foreground of the pic you posted.

According to wiki is was, prior to the construction of One Canada Square, Canary Wharf and is 719ft tall.

On a 'fan' site (I know...) they have a pic of the both which they describe as 'This shot was taken from Mitcham Common, 4-5 miles to the west of the Crystal Palace site
and shows both Crystal Palace and Croydon masts.' Pic below:


Just checked: the main part, inc the bigger mast, are within Bromley.

OFFICIAL BULKPOWDERS.CO.UK REPRESENTATIVE

 
My Grip book - click here and buy one

tuc biscuit


for anyone interested in tall buildings, these are currently being built in London, in their early stages, but actually being built

the shard, 310 metres

I walked past this the other day. Its right beside where my cousins live. They are currently putting in the foundations/basement. Looks huge! Guys hospital is already  massive and this is at least twice the height! Gonna be very good for the surrounding area

Zimmer fest continues!!!! Chevaliers de Sangreal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5FyRZbqfeM 
 
 

 

tuc biscuit

now the gherkin is one of my favourite buildings, funny how people differ on stuff like this

Affectionately known as the butt plug in our household

One of the main reason for London not building skyscrapers is because it would allegedly ruin the iconic skyline such as the Houses of Parliament and St Pauls.  I can see the need for some tall(er) buildings but not sure about true skyscrapers as I am not sure it is what London is really about. 

I did read somewhere also that the foundations in the soil under London would not support a super structure but I can't remember whether that was just on one proposed project or central London as a whole?

"A tight pant wearing bum lover from a popular training forum."  Daz FP
There's true hero worship, right there!! 

It is mostly clay so I'd think not. New York is because it's practically an island.

OFFICIAL BULKPOWDERS.CO.UK REPRESENTATIVE

 
My Grip book - click here and buy one

The Home Insurance Building which was built in 1885 in Chicago, Illinois is considered to be the world's first skyscraper as it was the first building entirely supported by a steel frame.

The Home Insurance Building was originally ten stories measuring 138 feet and another two stories were added in 1890.

It was demolished in 1931.

"A tight pant wearing bum lover from a popular training forum."  Daz FP
There's true hero worship, right there!! 

Mobster


Just checked: the main part, inc the bigger mast, are within Bromley.

It's not Bromley, it's Crystal Palace. 

LOL

OFFICIAL BULKPOWDERS.CO.UK REPRESENTATIVE

 
My Grip book - click here and buy one

Mobster


It is mostly clay so I'd think not. New York is because it's practically an island.

It is an island.
 

And that's why they go up rather than out.

OFFICIAL BULKPOWDERS.CO.UK REPRESENTATIVE

 
My Grip book - click here and buy one

tall building struggle in London, due to many factors, getting planning permission being a main one, maintaining heritage (think English Heritage stick their oar in), there are many various 'sight lines' that can't be covered, Boris Johnson isn't a big fan of tall buildings and Price Charles hates them too and often puts pressure on

I wish I was more attractive like Dagless.

peagreen


The Home Insurance Building which was built in 1885 in Chicago, Illinois is considered to be the world's first skyscraper as it was the first building entirely supported by a steel frame.

The Home Insurance Building was originally ten stories measuring 138 feet and another two stories were added in 1890.

It was demolished in 1931.

 
lovely building
 
 
Oriel Chambers in Liverpool is quite significant too, it was the worlds first metal framed glass curtain walled building, built 19 years before the building above in 1866.
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriel_Chambers
 
 

I wish I was more attractive like Dagless.

CalderaVII


Speaking of impressive structures...

Burj Dubai 818 m (2,684 ft)

 

The Burj is pretty cool espcially now the dancing fountains are working, in fact the smaller building next to the Burj opn the right  i'll be in there in about an hr for a few sociable.

 PB's 1RM

Deadlift 270kg  Start BF%25     Start Weight 100kg
Bench   130kg  Current BF%19 Current Weight 93kg 
Squat    210kg  Target BF%10-12

Dick Dastardly


in fact the smaller building next to the Burj opn the right  i'll be in there in about an hr for a few sociable. 

 

your a $%^$£"£$% 

Zimmer fest continues!!!! Chevaliers de Sangreal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5FyRZbqfeM 
 
 

 

I'm pretty sure that because the foundations in London are clay, there is a limit to how much they can support. I think New York foundations are granite, so they can support a lot more.

tuc biscuit
 
Oriel Chambers in Liverpool is quite significant too, it was the worlds first metal framed glass curtain walled building, built 19 years before the building above in 1866.
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriel_Chambers
 
 

Great building.  For it's time the amount of glass frontage would have been out of this world.

A fully paid up spokesperson for Big Oil and board member for the illuminati, posting from a tropical tax haven.  Caution: Posts may not have any moral content.

Omario

I'm pretty sure that because the foundations in London are clay, there is a limit to how much they can support. I think New York foundations are granite, so they can support a lot more.

Now you have said that it seems to ring a bell about the foundations needing massive pile foundations to even reach stable soil, which would explain what I seem to remember.  If it is clay the heavier the building, it could keep sinking.

Isn't Loz_86 an architect, maybe he could shed some light?

"A tight pant wearing bum lover from a popular training forum."  Daz FP
There's true hero worship, right there!! 

Omario


I'm pretty sure that because the foundations in London are clay, there is a limit to how much they can support. I think New York foundations are granite, so they can support a lot more.

As per my post re London and yes NY is Granite (mostly).

OFFICIAL BULKPOWDERS.CO.UK REPRESENTATIVE

 
My Grip book - click here and buy one

Personally, they should look interesting and not be a big stick, with a smaller stick on the top!

Lead guitarist and vocals of a one man band...

With I think no exceptions they're all designed by males and so, it has been argued, phallic in the extreme. Look at the kudos the architect gets for being 'the tallest'. 

Regarding actual design - they're limited by material limits and the effects of wind etc. If, as per the ones in Saudi, you're limited by a lack of bed rock you have a massive plinth and a thin tower. Foot print is the limiting factor in NY and clay here.

OFFICIAL BULKPOWDERS.CO.UK REPRESENTATIVE

 
My Grip book - click here and buy one

In Prague there is a replica of the Eiffel Tower that is not that tall but the top of it is the same height from sea-level as the Paris one because it is built on a hill.

Pain is just weakness leaving the body