Minerva Building
The Minerva Building was a planned building in the City of London. It was first proposed at the turn of the millennium by the real estate developers Minerva plc. Over time, the plans changed several times. After some planning, it would become the tallest building in London with 53 storeys and 243 meters height to antenna. After the building permit was issued, the project due to financial difficulties of Minerva plc 2006, all set. Instead of the representative Minerva Building stands today with the 67 meters height significantly smaller St Botolph's at this point.
Prehistory
In place of the construction in the early 2000s, two buildings were: St. Botolph 's House and Ambassador House. St. Botolph 's House was a comparatively inconspicuous office building mid-height of the 1960s. Ambassador House was a similar building from the early 1980s, served on ten floors as combined parking garage and office building. Both buildings together had almost 18,000 m² of floor space.
After it had never been allowed in the City of London to build skyscrapers, this changed to the new millennium. In particular, the Labour Mayor of Greater London, Ken Livingstone, was an advocate of this building. According to Livingstone, it was necessary that London is about 15 to 25 large additional skyscrapers got to were its status as a world city. After a skyscraper had been a long, public strongly contested plan procedure finally approved in July 2002 with the 183 -meter Heron Tower in the City of London, the way seemed clear for more skyscrapers in or near the City of London. Even before the plans for the Minerva Building was built as well as the planning for the 180 -meter high London Gherkin. Around the same time with the Minerva Building began the flow of the 310 meters high Shard London Bridge on the south side of the River Thames opposite the City of London.
Location
The building would have been in 138 Houndsditch in Aldgate district in the northeast of the City of London. The coined by office buildings of London's villages has essentially still its medieval street pattern, in which the Minerva Building would have had to insert.
The building would have been in the vicinity of the listed St Botolph's Aldgate and would also have been in direct line of sight of the Tower of London. Especially the latter made in the following years repeatedly heated debate. The Tower of London has the status of a World Heritage Site. The Policy also includes sightlines that make it clear to the formerly imposing stature of the building and from certain perspectives allow free unobstructed view of the Tower. The Minerva Building had the nearby Tower dominates clearly and visually reduced.
Accessible it would have been on the Aldgate Underground Station, which was directly opposite the prospected building site. The metro station Liverpool Street station and Fenchurch Street Rail Station are each 400 meters away from the building site. Within 15 minutes walk the London Under Ground, National Rail, Docklands Light Railway and the public buses had been reached. The predictions of the planner to more than 50 % of the traffic for the Minerva Building on the U -Bahn stations Aldgate and Aldgate East would have expired, which presumably would have to be upgraded for it.
History
Original plans up in the sky
Originally planned Minerva at this point a 14-story building, a building permit is issued for the 1999. This would have been only a few floors higher than the previous building on this site. Already this building was designed by Nicholas Grimshaw and was in its shaping a small version of the later planned 217 -meter building. In 2001 Minvera applied for a 36 - storey building with 159 meters height. After the attacks of September 11, finally revised Minerva planning principle. This level planning grew up 53 floors at 217 meters. Along with the antenna, the building would have a total height of 243 meters.
In 2004, the City of London approved the construction. The agreement was at a time in the already heavily to the London skyline, the sightlines - was fought - especially to St. Paul 's Cathedral and the Tower of London. Neither Ken Livingstone still the responsible Minister John Prescott of the Labour Party used their appeal right granted by the Building them.
The loans for peerages scandal
In March 2006, became public that the former Minerva boss David Garrard of the Labour Party had donated 200,000 pounds a few months before the decision on the opposition. Gerrard had previously Labour borrowed 2.3 million pounds and was considered later with a seat in the House of Lords. Gerrards and the loans of other new Lords as Chai Patel, Barry Townsley or Gulam Noon led to the loans for peerages affair in 2006.
Minerva in financial problems
As early as 2005 began Minerva other properties for 600 million pounds to sell in order to pay debts. This year, the company was still looking for a co-investor, the construction costs, estimated would endorse 200 million pounds, the Minerva Building. But this time it said already that it would be concentrated in the near future on smaller objects that could be finish faster.
The project was unusual because the construction company Minerva is a small company that in 2006, the year of Bauabbruchs, 30 employees had. In the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, the Company had in each case a negative business results. In 2005, Minerva was also the only major real estate company, whose share price negatively developed. The Minerva Building was the largest project in which the company has ever tried. Also in mid-2006 Minerva looked for a partner who was able to co-finance the construction. In September 2006, Minerva explained the project finally failed and began the development of a smaller building. In the Annual Report for 2005/2006 Minerva called the significant resources that would need the construction of the building, as well as the major risks that would result from the construction with it. Both requirements had proved to be too large for the relatively small company Minerva.
Even in 2006, Minerva managed the financing of the smaller building. Since 2010 is at the original planned location, the St Botolph Building. Designed also for Minerva by Nick Grinshaw building is substantially conventional and has 14 floors significantly smaller than the previously proposed Minerva Building in its design. The usable area is still about half of the originally planned area. In contrast to previously proposed pure office building about half of the area to be let in St Botolph Building. The office space is thus a quarter of what was once the expected.
Proposed construction of
The building was designed by Nicholas Grimshaw. In addition to the narrow main building with 217 meters height, it would have contained a second wing with 22 storeys at 100 meters above sea level. The Minerva Building should resemble four open books, which face each other. Thus, it would have been a total of eight different facades in an asymmetric building and acted very differently to the viewer depending on the viewing angle. The prominent front view of the main tower would thereby acted as a more contemporary and edgy new edition of New York's Flatiron Building. The planning authority used as lean and angular for construction in their descriptions adjectives.
The building would include retail on the ground floor, office space and a restaurant on the 49th floor. The restaurant would have been standing in line with the building codes that consider public access to the upper floors of tall buildings in London desirable. A total of 157,000 m² of floor space were provided, of which 142,000 sqm of office space, 2000 m² for retail, nearly 3000 m² for restaurants and some 10 000 m² for service use, such as home environment, parking, elevators, etc.
The building should provide jobs for 10,000 people and a parking garage for 355 bicycles, 96 motorcycles and 33 cars (including 13 disabled parking spaces ).
Public concerns
The actual approval of the building was in the hands of the Corporation of London, the Government of the City of London. The Mayor of Greater London as well as the British government had given the important significance of the building but veto rights.
The Greater London Authority emphasizes in her legal planning advice, the positive relationship between Tower and River Thames, which would further emphasized by an impressive skyline in Hntergrund. Conservation organizations such as English Heritage or Historic Royal Palaces, which manage the Tower, or the UNESCO clearly see this differently and speak out against a dominant skyline, which would deprive the Tower of its optical effect. UNESCO, the United Kingdom has repeatedly cautioned about the status of the Tower as a World Heritage Site, as developments such as the Minvera Building threaten to impair the effect of the urban landscape permanently.
The authorities plan - Corporation of London and Greater London Authority -, arguing that the tower is clearly already in the midst of office buildings and a modern city. Everything spoke against the Minerva Building, already spoke against the Heron Tower and 30 St Mary Axe ( the Gherkin ) that dominate similar place lying to the Tower. Both buildings had been approved before the Minerva Building, and various preservationists had positive comments about 30 St Mary Axe. Advocate the construction highlighted the architectural quality that would have been a significant improvement over the old office buildings at this point.