stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,611
- Reaction score
- 1,348
In Camden.
For all the supertall fanboys and fangirls, Google London!!!!!
- Thread starter stellarfun
- Start date
In Camden.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
100x better than Foster's suburban Apple ring mess & the Googleplex.
Glad to see Google embracing the urban environment.
Glad to see Google embracing the urban environment.
Last edited:
Is Google's new Mountain View headquarters urban? Is Apple's new London headquarters (at Battersea power station) not embracing the urban environment?
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Fair points. I just hate the ring and was excited to see something urban from a tech company. You're absolutely right that the Apple London HQ is pretty damn awesome & integrated into the urban environment.
Guess it's more of a "this side of the pond" thing than it is about the companies.
In Camden.
I don't really understand the snarky title of this thread. There is a supertall building visible right in the middle of this picture.
Also here are the Top 20 tallest buildings currently U/C or Proposed in London.
Capture by David Z, on FlickrSo I ask again, what was the point of your stupid title? Trying to be clever when, in fact, it proves that you have no idea what's going on in London?
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
I don't really understand the snarky title of this thread. There is a supertall building visible right in the middle of this picture.
Also here are the Top 20 tallest buildings currently U/C or Proposed in London.
So I ask again, what was the point of your stupid title? Trying to be clever when, in fact, it proves that you have no idea what's going on in London?
The point is that you can have a good building (and iconic one at that) without it having to be a supertall. It's pretty obvious.
Nobody is going to build a supertall in Camden. That's like saying Malden Center needs a supertall.
On the other hand London is building huge (by their standards) in The City and Canary Wharf. Basically, they are going big where they are supposed to be going big, and being more contextual in the surrounding neighborhoods. They are having their cake and eating it too, while we threaten to derail projects in the heart of downtown due to a few extra minutes of early morning shade.
London has more 600'+ currently U/C than Boston has total (including 1 Dalton). It's not like this project is all they are getting, or going up in a key spot in lieu of a tall possibility. Totally apples and oranges compared to Boston's situation.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,098
- Reaction score
- 477
Where did you get that notion? This is next door to King's Cross. South Station+DTX+Government Center all smooshed together is a more apt comparison than Malden Center. True there are no tall buildings in the area, but that is kind of the whole point...
Just curious, have you been to London?
Yeah, I have been twice, including to Camden because my friend lived near there. I don't remember any tall buildings in the area. The first time I stayed at a hostel in King's Cross.
King's Cross also barely has any tall buildings. It has the Harry Potter train station which is amazing, but the skyscrapers mostly are in "The City" and Canary Wharf.
It looks like Camden is about 5 miles from the City Centre and 9 miles from Canary Wharf:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Lon...1857a5e4a41!2m2!1d-0.0235333!2d51.5054306!3e0
Camden to The City is a very similar distance as Malden Center to North Station (under 6 miles if you don't take the highway):
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Mal...7057818603a!2m2!1d-71.062118!2d42.3664016!5i2
As an addition to my last post, London also isn't right on the coast so the buildup from the main skyscraper areas is able to extend in every direction, unlike Boston. So maybe in terms of available land area, I should be talking more about Melrose than about Malden. On the other hand, London is obviously the (wayyyyyyy) bigger city, so let's call that a wash.
Interestingly, London's skyline didn't pass Boston's in size until about 2 years ago. Boston still had the much better skyline when I was last there in 2007.
Interestingly, London's skyline didn't pass Boston's in size until about 2 years ago. Boston still had the much better skyline when I was last there in 2007.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,098
- Reaction score
- 477
Maybe we are talking past one another, so I'll try to start fresh. Google is building an office for 4,000 employees and they chose to build a massive landscraper in a hip/up-and-coming area atop a transit hub with immense capacity. The point of the thread title is that this building is awesome and will likely become a landmark icon despite not being a skyscraper. The greater point, distilled down, is to poke fun at the folks who can't see past the number of feet tall a building is.
Can you see the greatness of this building and the choices made by Google? Or perhaps do you think they would be better served by a skyscraper in The City or Canary Wharf?
Can you see the greatness of this building and the choices made by Google? Or perhaps do you think they would be better served by a skyscraper in The City or Canary Wharf?
So I'm trying not to get all caught up in this tall vs short or w/e but could someone help explain why this is going to be iconic? I've never been to London so I'm unsure about the area but this building is very very long, which I've seen a lot of people complain about those types of building on here because it divides areas and creates a wall where normal citizens, not google employees, have to walk around to get to the other side. What makes this building so different from the hated 'long buildings' here in Boston such as 10 park plaza and that building across from government center plaza? That park on the top of the building looks cool in the render but don't most people here complain about those in renders because they are almost always a gimmick and never turn out great in real life?
Anyways not taking sides on the arguments about iconic, just wondering why some of you guys think this is iconic when to me it looks like a gimmicky community divider. My background is computers not architecture or city planning so maybe I am looking at this the wrong way.
Anyways not taking sides on the arguments about iconic, just wondering why some of you guys think this is iconic when to me it looks like a gimmicky community divider. My background is computers not architecture or city planning so maybe I am looking at this the wrong way.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
The thread title is a little strange. New Google London HQ would have sufficed.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,098
- Reaction score
- 477
The backside faces the train tracks, so there is nowhere to go to on the other side. In this particular case, being a long undivided landscraper is not a problem.
Lots of information and drawings here:
http://camdocs.camden.gov.uk/HPRMWebDrawer/PlanRec?q=recContainer:2017/3133/P
As for why this might become iconic, I suppose icons are in the eye of the beholder. But don't you think the building is very distinctive? It'll be one of the first things people see when they emerge from the train station and it establishes the entire streetwall for a block leading to Granary Square.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Hot damn, thanks for that link. Good stuff.
The reason the building is stepped is because of max zoning height changes along the length of the property.
Plans (click to enlarge):
Last edited:
Ahhh okay that makes more sense. See I don't know that area at all and it didn't look like it was right next to train tracks.
So yeah I guess I take back my statement about dividing a community. Hopefully the top park comes out good, which now that I've seen the document, will be a pretty sizable park. Will it be open to the public?