Template talk:UKSkyscrapers

Comments

I am unsure about this template. This can develop into something larger and may need a completely different format or style.

Also, at present, it only has skyscrapers in London and not any buildings outside of London, unlike what the template title seems to suggest.

Finally, what is the "British Skyscraper Series"? I have not come across this. I think this template needs an analysis or evaluation. - Erebus555 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Height cutoff?

I am confused. There have recently been some removals of building entries from this template as the respective buildings were "too short". Is there a defined height minimum for inclusion? If so, this should probably be worked into the template somewhere, similar to the layout used at Template:Buildings in San Francisco. Cheers, Rai•me 04:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term skyscraper does not have a specific minimum height, although is usually considered to be 150 metres (492 ft). But seeing as the UK has very few highrise structures of this height that are complete, under construction or proposed, I think this height limit is a bit too high. Maybe 100 metres (328 ft) would be a better height limit and would also allow this template to be expanded further. Thoughts? - Erebus555 (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would suggest that the 150 m rule should be imposed here. That is the definition of a skyscraper to most in the "skyscraper world" (except the Americans who say 500ft, which is about 2 m more). There are plenty of skyscrapers of 150m+ in the UK built, approved or proposed. Anyway, if the lower limit was put down to 100 m the template would end up being too big. David (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw – that's 150 m to the roof, not the top of some random spire! David (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if individual cities themselves have their own "skyscraper boxes" they can then include highrise buildings of between 100 and 150 metres. But this is the national box and should be kept to the "elite few" if you know what a I mean! David (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree that that is necessarily the "definition of a skyscraper". As long as a building "stands" out and rises higher than other structures in its vicinity, it could easily be considered a skyscraper. Using 150 m as the cutoff is fine, but I still think that it should stated, as we cannot expect the readers to infer that < 150 m ≠ skyscraper. After all, the definition given at skyscraper is:

A skyscraper is a very tall, continuously habitable building. There is no official definition or a precise cutoff height above which a building may clearly be classified as a skyscraper. However, as per usual practice in most cities, the definition is used empirically, depending on the relative impact of the shape of a building to a city's overall skyline. Thus, depending on the average height of the rest of the buildings and/ or structures in a city, even a building of 80 meters height (approximately 262 ft) may be considered a skyscraper provided that it clearly stands out above its surrounding built environment and significantly changes the overall skyline of that particular city.

. Cheers, Rai•me 12:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if we end up allowing this list being a free-for-all based on what local conditions are like we will have someone from a small town posting their local church onto it. And why not? Church spires are "skyscrapers" by that definition you just gave in many places in England. We need to have a cut off point and it's got to be reasonably high enough so that the list is concise and so that the real, tall skyscrapers of the UK are not devalued by being listed with some 60s tower block of 62 metres. David (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think listing a building due to it's impact on it's surroundings would lead to a free for all. This could lead to the likes of the Boyd Orr Building in Glasgow being included when its height is relatively unimpressive compared to other highrise structures in Birmingham, London or Manchester. However, I still stand by my point that the cut off limit should be reduced to allow the table to be 'beefed up' a little. Especially, considering that several of the buildings in the template as it is are below the 150 metre mark. - Erebus555 (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but then divide the table into "highrises 100m-150m" and "skyscrapers 150m+" in a similar way to the San Fransisco example given further up this discussion. David (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that we should include all skyscrapers by any standards; I was just saying that one's definition of a skyscraper will certainly not always be "a building higher than 150 m". I am in favor of a cutoff point, but it should be noted somewhere on the template. Church spires and "local skyscrapers" should be added on individual city building templates, not the national UK one. I agree with Erebus; enlargening the template would be a good idea. This is actually rather small as far as skyscraper templates go. But dividing the template isn't really necessary; it is already divided enough with all of the cities, and having two sets with each set then having more subidivions would look too messy, IMO. Cheers, Rai•me 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody keeps adding Liverpool's West Tower to the template and it really should not be on there. It does not even make it onto the List of tallest structures in the United Kingdom and if the list was expanded then the completed list would have to carry on with Broadgate Tower, One Churchill Place, 25 Bank Street, 40 Bank Street and 10 Upper Bank Street all within London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshii (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 April 2008

West Tower DOES make it on to the List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom – according to that list it is the 12th tallest building in the country, so deserves to be included in this template. Kneale (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent

I have to say this template is riddled with inconsistencies. Several of the proposed buildings are smaller than Liverpool's West Tower yet this is deemed too small for inclusion. Following on from this how exactly can the 13th tallest building in the UK not be considered a skyscraper, as the term is relative and in the UK it IS a skyscraper. Another thing, why are 25 Bank Street and 10 Upper Bank Street in London, not on the list of completed skyscrapers? After all they're both over 150 m. --Daviessimo (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added those two, I think 150 m is a sensible cut-off as it is accepted by many as the definition of a skyscraper, below that is more of a high rise. I have also stipped out the sub-150m proposed buildings to make it more consistent like you requested. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe there is something that can be added which lets people know that only buildings over 150 m are included, like a clarifying point on the left hand side.--Daviessimo (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It might not look ideal but at least it avoids some confusion and conflict. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 08:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Daviessimo (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Sunderland

There has been an investment recently secured to build this skyscraper in Sunderland, England. The building standing at 328ft and 33 storeys (99 metres) will be the largest in its city and in its region of North East England. I know the qualification for a skyscraper to get on the template is to be over 150 metres. Despite being significantly smaller than that requirement, does the fact that the Spirit of Sunderland tower will be the largest in its region when built support a notable enough warrant for it to be on the template? Routerone (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What belongs on this template?

I have removed Piccadilly Tower from under construction as including it here stretches the definition of "Under Construction" to the point where it is just misleading. The only thing that ever happened on this tower was that the cleared the site. By all accounts planning consent expired a good 2.5-years ago at which point it doesn't really belong on the template at all. I have left the other "on holds" for now as I don't know the details of these but can at least see from the pictures that something had start to come out of the ground.

At the same time I will flag up the "visions" section. Which looks suspiciously like a fantasy skyscraper section. Of these I have looked at:

Vector Arena Tower – scheduled for completion in 2003. Described by Emporis as cancelled [1]
Castlefield Quay Tower – proposed as a vision for at least 7 years. A quick check on Companies House suggests that developer is in receivership.
Victoria Gateway – vision for at least 6 years. The best I can find is that it is actually in MB of Trafford rather than the city of Manchester.

If we are going to include every Skyscraper that has ever proposed in this section (the logical conclusion), it is soon going to be over-crowded with relatively un-notable schemes that were never likely to have been built even in the boom days. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the same thoughts about Citygate Ecotower which I've been trying to update, but I've come to the conclusion that it was probably just an architect's idea looking for a backer. Not very notable, like many of these visions. Seaweed (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'visions' (terrible name) section is just a list of speculative suggestions. Only two have articles, and neither seems to be proceeding. Pit-yacker's checks above show that many of these are just fantasy. As most of the entries are unverifiable and extremely unlikely to ever be built, I've simply removed the section. Buildings can be added once they at least apply for planning permission – which shows that they're a serious suggestion. Modest Genius ^talk 10:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]