Talk:Canary Wharf

Bomb

The IRA bomb that killed two people was at South Quay, not Canary Wharf - after the foiled attempt to blow up Canary Wharf itself (following two equally large bombs in the City of London) security at the Canary Wharf development was tightened considerably, so the IRA instead hit South Quay, just to the south. Because most people (in Britain at least) have heard of Canary Wharf, there's a tendency to call almost everywhere on the Isle of Dogs Canary Wharf.

I'll also update the South Quay DLR station entry accordingly.

The whole article rather conflated CW and Docklands. CW was something that happened to LDDC not something they did. I've fleshed out the history, meaning that my vast amount of time working in or writing about the London property market wasn't entirely wasted. Icundell 18:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great job! The article looks much better now. honeydew 21:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice to be appreciated - and ta muchly for the copyedit jon on the Economic geography page. Wow, I left some howlers in there. Icundell 21:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tallest?

I may be mistaken, but i believe they are no longer the tallest buildings. I think that award has to go to the Spinnaker tower in Portsmouth. Can anyone confirm?

Someone is messing around with this. Canary Wharf does have the top 3 tallest buildings in the UK. The NatWest tower (or Tower42 as it is now) is NOT the tallest. Tallest buildings in the London are 1st - 1 Canada Square (235.1m); 2nd (equal) - 8 & 25 Canada Square i.e. HSBC and Citigroup buildings (199.5m) and 4th Tower42 (183m). (Source: http://skyscraperpage.com). The Spinnaker Tower is even shorter than these at 170m (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4326932.stm). I will try and edit the page accordingly, but I suspect that this is one of those where people will keep editing it back. Mister Ant 07:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I LOVE SEX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.123.37 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How high is it?

Can anyone put how high the building is and how much office space does it have ? [[User:Robin48gx|Robin48gx]Sat Aug 27 13:31:34 BST 2005]

Which building? Canary Wharf is the name for the whole development. 83.245.24.88 19:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See also

Does the see also section make any sense at all? Many of the linked articles have an almost identical 'see also' sections, so I guess the idea that all these cities have similar business/industial suburbs. If so they could all use a better introduction to the see also section. -- Solipsist 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

HafenCity in Hamburg, Germany is also more or less similar (in idea) to Canary Wharf -- 172.178.182.82 12:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Huge deletions

Where did Howard Dawber's additiosn go? Did someone just rv to the an ancient version? Icundell 12:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Banning of the protest march

The banning of a protest march in a major section of the capital is very important socially, economically, and in terms of basic human rights in a free democracy

The “despicable” banning of the protest march is an important point in the continuing story of the liberalisation of labour and the widening gap between rich and poor in Anglo-Saxon economies.

The trite drivel of the current page does nothing to tell the reader of the huge undercurrent of resentment that such high-handed treatment and oppression idiots such as those at Canary Wharf are causing.

The entry is truthful, accurate and topical. It is also part of the history of this ghastly development and the awful oppression of its poorly paid workers.

Yes, the Wharf has many hidden aspects. Gordo 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There are persistent rumours about the quality of the original building work and planning violations. For example there are claims that the LDDC failed to enforce planning controls so that 1 Canary Wharf is 3 stories higher than it should be and that the estate roads had been laid to a standard less than that that the Council (who become responsible for them at a later date)were required to reach.--Esthameian 05:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh? the planning application is a matter of public record. Three extra floors? So *that's* where Torchwood is. No need for "persistent rumours" about such utter drivel. "quality of the original building work"? That would be the (compared with the 25 year standard typically used in the UK - see for example Broadgate, already being redeveloped). And the roads on the estate are still operated by the estate. And the £1m per metre Limehouse Link is one of the few decent stretches of road in East London. But apart from that...Icundell 08:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"...100 year construction standard used throughout... " allegedly used - this is private sector work, so anything they claim is suspect

Copyvio?

Part of the section "The Idea of Canary Wharf is born" seems to be copied from [1], which states that copyright of the text is held by English Partnerships, having inherited the copyright of LDDC. Almost the same section is found in the article about G Ware Travelstead. Maybe someone should take a closer look at this. /130.243.135.41 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we have permission to use the LDDC text. Howard Dawber 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently you do, as you seem to be the one who added it to the articles. However, Crown copyrighted material, as I think the LDDC text is, is usually not allowed in Wikipedia. If English Partnerships agrees to publish the material under the GNU Free Documentation License or a compatible license, as described on the page Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission, the text can be included, but otherwise it will unfortunately have to be deleted. /217.208.24.136 21:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Canary Wharf protest

This comment should remain. Why remove it?

Reuters Plaza

Hello. Does anybody think that this image could make it onto the page? It kind of shows what the Canary Wharf area is like after work. By the way, the area with the clocks outside the station is called Reuters Plaza. The Blackfriar 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Added to the "Significance" section. There's a bucketload of POV in there that requires attributing. Specific examples:

• Canary Wharf is not just an office scheme. It has had impact at the local level, at the metropolitan level and, to a lesser extent, at the national level.
• At the metropolitan level, Canary Wharf was, and remains, a direct challenge to the primacy of the City of London as the UK's principal centre for the finance industry.
• In this respect, Canary Wharf could be cited as the strongest single symbol of the changed economic geography of the United Kingdom.
• Its symbolic importance was bleakly demonstrated...

One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

errors in article

In the local opposition section, there seem to be several errors. the isle of dogs didn't declare independance in the 80's in protest at development, this actually occured in 1970.

Also, what's up with the sheep and bees? it sounds stupid, so i think this needs to cited or chucked asap!!!

there's probably more within the article, but i haven't the time!

if anyone has any thoughts, please let me know or i'll try to get rid of these bits over the weekend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamhopgood (talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New Image

New Image if any wants to update the page or add in

Ive added this in the Future section, highlighting how Canary Wharf is surrounded by new towers --Rockybiggs (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The history is a little misleading. The name "Canary Wharf" was applied to No. 10 Warehouse (30 Shed) of the South Quay Import Dock - built for Fruit Lines Ltd, a subsidiary of Fred Olsen Lines in 1952. They asked for the name to commemorate their Mediterranean and Canary Island Fruit trade. The prior history of the site can be found at:- The West India Docks: The buildings: warehouses, Survey of London: volumes 43 and 44: Poplar, Blackwall and Isle of Dogs (1994), pp. 284-300 HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased the section to reflect the history of the site. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology (2)

Why name everything according to Canada? Is it in the article and I missed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.157.129 (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not everything is named after Canada - Just Canada Square, as far as I know. Canary Wharf used to be docklands and a lot of the trade was lumber from Canada, I believe (on the other side of the Thames is Canada Water with docks named Quebec Pond and Canada Dock. Also, the original Canary Wharf developers were a company from Canada. This may explain the naming? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The original developers were from Canada. Kbthompson (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputing origin of name "Canary Wharf"

The article currently states: "Canary Wharf itself takes its name from No. 10 Warehouse (30 Shed) of the South Quay Import Dock. This was built in 1952 for Fruit Lines Ltd, a subsidiary of Fred Olsen Lines for the Mediterranean and Canary Island fruit trade. At their request, the quay and warehouse were given the name Canary Wharf." However an entry in The Times, August 19 1938, pg.18, Issue 48077, Col. A. Times Online article CS 302330643, stated that in the Port Of London Authority 29th annual report to March 31 1938 (it is assumed) Canary Wharf was built along with other improvements at West India Docks. I have not made any changes to the article as I realise that there may be a good explanation for the gap 1938-1950, possibly caused by wartime bombing. Aspdin (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the 30 shed was on the site of the new development - and was one of the first buildings to be demolished. The former Canary Wharf of 1936 was elsewhere - see. Whoops, I'm now reading that two ways - the original shed was built in 1937 (not 1952); and Olsen Lines moved to Millwall Docks in 1970 (again not 1952). I'll look at it again. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Right - three identical sheds - 32 built 1936-7 "Canary Wharf" - 30 and 31 built 1952-4. 31 was cut in half by the construction of the DLR; 30 became Limehouse Studios - and later was demolished for the development, west of the DLR. I hope it's right now - please take a look at the BritHist article and ensure I've now got it correct. Thanks. Kbthompson (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Under construction and proposed

Some of the heights are wrong, metres to feet conversion isn't correct. Ive corrected the height of the tallest Wood Wharf tower. Also, Two park place with an approved height of 286m? That is clearly wrong as it breaches the height limit of canary wharf by quite a bit. 93.96.157.98 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you correct it or delete it then? Unitpod4 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

National Gallery or informative article (?)

It's obvious that not every picture should be part of relating articles. But if there're no better ones - undoubtedly - Wikipedia's articles stay still more informative thanks even mobile snapshots... romazur (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed Picture

I've changed the picture back to the old one, its more more clear and gives a better perception of CW. If anybody wants the nighttime one its here: File:DocklandsNight.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayflux (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Transport

The transport section does not flow well as encyclopedic material. It requires a clean up, to be written as encyclopedic content, rather than fragmented sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whicter595 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Listing of tenants in the commentary

The listing of various tenants is making the commentary worst as it is now reading like fragmented sentences rather than worthy encyclopedic content. Space94856 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Surrounding developments - Wood Wharf and Columbus Tower

And I am fed up with editors removing content which has been in this article for a long period without seeking consensus first. This article is not about the Canary Wharf Group or the estate that they specifically own, but about Canary Wharf as a business district in the broad sense. That district has no precise boundaries and is capable of growth, irrespective of the ownership of the land. Wood Wharf, which is incidently part owned by Canary Wharf Group, will form a contiguous and seamless expansion of the Canary Wharf business district. The media generally describe Wood Wharf as an expansion of the Canary Wharf business district: [2], [3], [4].

The same comments apply to Columbus Tower: [5], [6], [7] Rangoon11 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

One would assume it pronounced like the little yellow bird (caNARy), but I've known someone with an identically spelled surname who pronounced it "CANary". Perhaps giving a pronunciation in the header would be warranted (ideally not rendered in IPA because fuck that).24.91.244.221 (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)