World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
General discussions about WHS www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / General discussions about WHS /  
 

Visual impact

 
Author elsslots
Admin
#1 | Posted: 26 Nov 2014 08:41 | Edited by: elsslots 
Was just reading Paul's review of the Tower of London, including the photos that show the visual impact of high rise buildings that surround it.

When I think of visual impact, I always remember the Independence Hall in Philadelphia. It really is a tiny building surrounded by skyscrapers:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/32282344@N08/4688153519/in/set-72157624121810433'

I can't find any critical comments on the increasing numbers of high rise buildings around that. The main concern seems to be air pollution.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#2 | Posted: 26 Nov 2014 11:04 | Edited by: Solivagant 
The night time view across the Thames from Greenwich towards Canary Wharf and the Docklands financial district has also changed somewhat over recent years!!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/solivageous/15262173224/in/pool-2700407@N24
Hubert Schnargl has a picture from behind during daylight as part of his review here http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/maritimegreenwich.html

But UNESCO never seems to have raised any question of impact of "sight lines" for this WHS - perhaps the combined power of London Docklands is too big even for UNESCO!

Author Khuft
Partaker
#3 | Posted: 26 Nov 2014 11:59 
Solivagant:
But UNESCO never seems to have raised any question of impact of "sight lines" for this WHS - perhaps the combined power of London Docklands is too big even for UNESCO!


My most shocking experience in this respect has been Macau, with the gaudy & gigantic casino Grand Lisboa overwhelming everything around it. Can't remember any major UNESCO complaints in that case either...

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#4 | Posted: 26 Nov 2014 12:21 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
It was interesting to read Paul's views on the Tower of London.

The growth of the buildings around it has coincided with my time in London, though the real changes have occurred in the past 3 or 4 years since I have stopped working in that part of the city.

For me I rather like the contrast between the ultra modern and medieval, and have though it one of London's charms. However I am starting to re-evaluate this, mostly because of the "Walkie-Talkie" building. It seems so cumbersome and intrusive that it has given pause for thought on other tall buildings in the area.

The other issue for London is that these tall developments are spreading along the river rather than being confined to certain areas of the city and docklands, in relation to WHS their impact is slightly limited.

Greenwich, the developments of the 80's and 90's across the river around Canary Wharf have pretty much become a part of the experience of visiting Greenwich.

Kew is a fair way outside the main zones with high rises, though the new ground of Brentford F.C. will be close by across the river, the stadium it self isn't going to be particularly intrusive, though a few of the attached buildings may be a little taller, they are a fair way away.

The one that UNESCO have followed through on is Westminster, I had my say on that a few months back.

Surely the worst offender is Macau though, that Grand Lisboa is one heck of an ugly building and makes the Walkie Talkie look respectful of its environment. Yet I haven't heard much condemnation from UNESCO about it.

===Sorry Khuft I didn't mean to copy you, just wasn't as quick in responding. I'm glad someone that has visited can confirm my view though ====

General discussions about WHS www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / General discussions about WHS /
 Visual impact

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message


 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑