LONDON | London Bridge Tower - "The Shard" | 1,017 FT / 310 M | 87 FLOORS - Page 25

Fabb · #**481** Posted **Nov 27, 2010, 12:51 PM**

Congrats to all the photographers here. It's a pleasure to watch this beauty rise.

wjfox2004 · #**482** Posted **Nov 27, 2010, 4:37 PM**

London skyline from Old Kent Road:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarflon...9135/lightbox/

muppet · #**483** Posted **Nov 27, 2010, 5:21 PM**

^ya mean the London City skyline, not Canary Wharf

turbosnail · #**484** Posted **Nov 27, 2010, 6:23 PM**

London Skyline from Old Kent Road by sarflondondunc, on Flickr

chest · #**485** Posted **Nov 27, 2010, 11:29 PM**

on a very grey winters day the reflective quality of the cladding is starting to show

turbosnail · #**486** Posted **Nov 28, 2010, 10:42 AM**

^^ That's the one!!

Zensteeldude · #**487** Posted **Nov 28, 2010, 4:26 PM**

I decided to stop in and educate myself on the subject of this forum and I must say I'm impressed. London is getting a first rate tower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneWorldTradeCenter

Wow, why is the core much taller than the floors?

The Shard uses slip-form construction for the core. This method, sometimes called "continuous pour", avoids one of the weaknesses of a concrete structure. The seams between pours.

A grain silo being built using slip-form construction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_6_5bZFIL0

(Tower One at the WTC overcomes this weakness with massive amounts of rebar and the "erecting steel" encased within the core walls.)

Obey · #**488** Posted **Nov 28, 2010, 4:51 PM**

The glass is unreal in that last pic

nito · #**489** Posted **Dec 1, 2010, 12:08 PM**

Photo taken by Will Pearson (www.willpearson.co.uk) over at SSC.com

RobH · #**490** Posted **Dec 1, 2010, 8:26 PM**

Go to Will Pearson's website guys, the true resolution of this image is incredible; if you thought the photo above was good...

Zensteeldude · #**491** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 12:08 AM**

WOW, there are some great pics of London on his website. Anyone else notice the large number of construction cranes visible in the 360 view ?!?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
The Shard project has a price tag of $3.8 billion USD, well be 310 meters (1,017 feet) high (total hight) and is set to be the tallest building in London, and therefore a very significant landmark. And has 11,000 metric tons (12,125 short tons) of structural steel.

What I am scratching my head over is this. Tower One at the WTC is expected to cost $3.2 billion USD. The top of the parapet is 417 meters (1,368 feet) and set to be the tallest building in New York and therefore a very significant landmark. And has 40,823 metric tons (45,000 short tons) of structural steel.

Tower One costs less yet is OVER built like a battleship, where as The Shard is built rather conventionally with cost in mind at every aspect yet costs more ?

Am I missing something ?
(Please in no way interpret this as a criticism of The Shard, I think it's going to be one of the finest towers in the world when finished.)

uaarkson · #**492** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 2:03 AM**

Yeah, that is kind of weird. I guess New York is just a little bit better at penny-pinching.

Degsy · #**493** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 1:18 PM**

I think you have your figures wrong.....

Total cost of the London Bridge Development, which is the 310m Shard and the 80m 'Baby Shard' which is in the final stages of site preperation and about to start construction...is about £1 Billion ($1.6 Billion).

Zensteeldude · #**494** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 9:07 PM**

OK, the $1.6 billion USD sounds like the right figure. The source that quoted $3.88 billion USD must be wrong.

Thanks for the info.

Lecom · #**495** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 9:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zensteeldude

I decided to stop in and educate myself on the subject of this forum and I must say I'm impressed. London is getting a first rate tower.

The Shard uses slip-form construction for the core. This method, sometimes called "continuous pour", avoids one of the weaknesses of a concrete structure. The seams between pours.

A grain silo being built using slip-form construction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_6_5bZFIL0

(Tower One at the WTC overcomes this weakness with massive amounts of rebar and the "erecting steel" encased within the core walls.)

Seems like much of London's high-rise construction uses the tall standalone core approach, like One Churchill Place a few years ago.

Zensteeldude · #**496** Posted **Dec 3, 2010, 10:04 PM**

Yes, it is a far more common method throughout the world these days. It's a very good approach when one wants something strong, but goes up fast. It does have two drawbacks though, it has to be a 24/7 operation so one needs three shifts of workers, the other drawback is the connection of the floor structure to the core is not as strong as with the core second method. In other words, floor beams have to be placed inside pockets cast into the core wall and secured with either embedded anchor bolts or with threaded rod and a product like Hilti's HY-150 concrete adhesive.

Don't get me wrong, the core first method is quite strong enough for a city like London with little chance of being hit by a damaging earthquake and little chance of being struck by a hurricane. (The two greatest threats to tall buildings.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

whiteford · #**497** Posted **Dec 4, 2010, 3:58 AM**

fantastic tower. brilliant all around.

chest · #**498** Posted **Dec 5, 2010, 8:35 PM**

at last some sunlight...concrete part of the core is now almost at full height,

Thefigman · #**499** Posted **Dec 6, 2010, 10:35 PM**

Took this one Saturday 04DEC2010 from the top of the Eye in London.

Not the best day weather wise, but you can still see how this building will really stand out.

Photo by me

colemonkee · #**500** Posted **Dec 7, 2010, 6:35 AM**

So does it turn into a steel core after a certain level? Because the concrete part is only at 69 or 70 if you count the scaffolding. So shouldn't there be 17 floors left?