Let's imagine for a moment that you're an all-powerful mayor, with total power and control over all planning and redevelopment. If you could change the heights of any tall buildings in London - existing or proposed - which ones would you change, and how tall/short would you make them? :)

I would make OCS the original 65 storeys or whatever it was going to be before Prince Charles stuck his nose in.

One America Square would be around 30 storeys, and the Gherkin would be thinner and taller at 52 storeys.

I'd raise the height of Bishopsgate back to its original design, and lower Heron back to its original height as it had better clarity with Tower 42 at this height.

I would lower the heights of North Quay similar to the Bank Street towers, however make at least one of the Bank Street towers (probably Upper Bank street) slightly taller to give that area of the Estate a difference in height.

wow, this is a thread i actually considered starting at one point- my prayers have been answered. ok, here are my proposals, people may find them mad, but im a height addict.

London Bridge tower: This one really can stand alone, and will look like an oblisk from many miles away as it stands, so excessive height i feel wouldent be too opressive, i'd like to see this be about the height of the original proposal- perhaps slightly taller at about 385m-410m

Bishopsgate tower: will set the precedent for how tall towers in the city are for decades due to its central pinnacle location, to allow for truely dizzying height and to ensure that the amazing design is seen by all:
360m

Swiss RE: as it stands the current proposals will soon bury it, no matter how attractive it is it wont add to a skyline if it is obstructed by others, i think this would of been much better if about the height darjole mentioned, roughly
230m

Ledenhall: in my dreams, the whole bar of london skyscrapers is lifted, and to allow the skyline to make sense as per bishopsgate's original design, this must become about 250m

one canada Square: had 10 floors lopped off the top, it would of been a much more significant building had it had these floors, and it would of been a whopping 275m roughly

pan peninsula: londons 'true skyscraper' count is less- simply due to these people taking away a small spire, lets make this at least 150m, so we can have better lookign stastics than our rival cities.

51 lime street: would be just slightly taller, about 4 floors added to each 'step' so that the wall at the front was just slightly taller than the roof of lloyds, so it steps up and away from it, making it about 141m

51 lime street east: what a waste of space. the design isnt good enogh to say i just want it taller, but, for the sake of raising density, make it about 80m. I actually feel its not big enough at ground level.

Guys tower: again, this is a tad contraversial for me to suggest this just for stastics sake, but it would be the worlds only skyscraper hospital tower if it had just ONE more floor, making it about 151m.- (id like to add that if i was all powerfull it would be reclad as per LBT renders)

100 bishopsgate: despite the boring design... in the world i have created above it would fit in much better if it was about 210m, but ultimately id like to see another striking, taller design in this place, (possibly supertall) (but perhaps 6-8 bishopsgate is a better spot for that)

Crossharbour: i believe the original design had more public space and was 171m, that sounds nice, sod tower hamlets mater plan for the scaling down of developments as you go down the isle of dogs, lets have that mini manhattan people occasionally talk of.

If all the above changes did happen, i dont think much damage would occour in relation to spoiling londons heritage, but it would make london a properly recognised skyscraper city in europe, with a lot of towers being taller than the average new york standard, and having one all important true big one. (well two actually)

I would make OCS the original 65 storeys or whatever it was going to be before Prince Charles stuck his nose in.



I so wish the same- Had OCS been the orignial 60-65 stories when it was built the whole issue of height limits due to the airport would be redundant as they wouldn't have had much case to argue if there was a ruddy great 60-65 tower already built. Also the CW area has largely been planned with OCS as the pinnacle, as a result were left with stumpy towers ala Bank St. Imagine if OCS was 10 storeys taller & all the rest were 10 storeys taller so HSBC & Citibank would be 50storeys, bank st 40+, the resi towers 50+ etc etc

1. I would put a height cap on all new development in London (like in Paris) and define a few clusters (which could expand dynamically over time) where such cap does not apply for buildings as long as they are skyscrapers. The height cap on any new development would be lower than what it is today. The result is that the development of these awful groundscrapers would come to a halt. Today you barely see the Gherkin when you walk around on the south bank. Skyscrapers need to soar from the surrounding urban fabric and not be hidden by bulky over-bearing groundscrapers.

2. I would have as clusters CW, the City and a few others, such as E&C.

3. If would give LHR permission to build R3 and T6, build Crossrail and reclassify the City Airport as urban development land, which would made the owners close the airport immediately (there is much more money in the land if it can be constructed on). This would allow the tallest skyscraper on this planet to be constructed in CW. CW needs a pinnacle.

4. I would set a minimum width-height ratio for skyscrapers.

CW would have looked like Cesar Pelli's tower in Charlotte built at the same time if it had stayed at 60 stories.

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2006/04/454656.jpg

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2004/06/268458.jpg

I would add 50m or so to St Helens to get it in line with the heights of similar post modern scrapers in Chicago.

I'd shrink Aviva (it just gets in the way) and raise Gherkin, Leadenhall, Willis, Heron to be within 25m the height of Bishopsgate Twr

I was also planning a thread simlar to this... bizarre. I'd make One Canade Square the height it was originally proposed, if not taller, at a good 250m plus. I'd stretch up 99 Bishopsgate to around 150m, and do something similar with Ontario tower :)

I would make the Euston Tower 100m taller and give it black cladding like St Helens. Also UCL hospital tower would be 150 tall. I think if Swiss Re was thinner and taller it would look terrible, but if it was 200m and the same fatness then it would look great.

LBT- 340m
Bishopsgate Tower- 307m
1 Canada Square- 250m
Swiss Re- 200m
Multiplex Living Tower- 170m
Pan Peninsula- 165m
Crossharbour-150m
Willis building- 140m

Well, there's some of 'em

I'd make Guy's Hospital 145m shorter.

LBT- 340m
Bishopsgate Tower- 307m
1 Canada Square- 250m
Swiss Re- 200m
Multiplex Living Tower- 170m
Pan Peninsula- 165m
Crossharbour-150m
Willis building- 140m

Well, there's some of 'em

You have said very similar things to me newcastle guy, i couldent agree more!

Virtually every so called skysraper in London is too short and stumpy. Canary wharf was a huge lost opportunity- the three main towers should all be at least 320m- 360m. I think 300m is a good basic guide hieght for London.

I would leave everything as it is and start a new completely new city for the lovers of talls. Stratford and the Olyimpic village would hae towers spreading Eastward of magnificent size, with an open international invitation to build the most environmentally sound buildings almost without height restriction.

The plans would have also to include free public transport facilities, limited underground parking, minimun roads, a significant wildlife corridor alongisde the public green spaces and highrise housing for local people and workers at luxury specification.

i'd make guys hospital 140 metres shorter,

1 CS 280 metres

another 20 metres on swiss re

I wouldn't change SwissRe. I like how it's the same height as T42.

i wouldnt change swiss RE either. or leaden hall or bishopsgate lol. Id eradicate beetham from living memory, make LBT about 100m taller and willis about 50m taller.

One Canada Square at 65 floors you say?
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/Cwhiegyhtchanges.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/Cwhieghtchanges.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/CWheightcahnges.jpg

And including my suggestions for the CW area:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/CWheightchanges.jpg :D

Having seen it for so long at it's 50 storey state it does seem like it's 'stretched' ast 65 storeys, but you can't argue that it doesn't soar like that.

I'd say 1CS should be 300m and should rightfully be Europes tallest until it was over taken by LBT.

everything in CW 50m taller, including whats going up at the moment so it becomes much more difinative on the skyline, leadenhall 50m taller as well, bishopsgate back to 307m+ and everything else in the city at least 25m taller

The Shard - i wouldnt limit it.... the design allows it to go as high as 400

OCS - is out of central london - the whole point being so that it CAN be stupidly tall.

1CS - 250m
LBT - 350m
Bish - 307m
Heron - Current Height
Euston Tower - 150m
Willis - 160m
Park Lane Hilton - 150m

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1893/londonal9.png

Changes:
LBT > 350m
Bishopsgate > 307m (I don't think anybody can argue that it doesnt look better at 307m - too stumpy at 288m)
Willis > 150m
Heron > 200m (addition of spires)
1CS > 250m
10 Upper Bank Street > 210m

Oh god, Broadgate looks so much better with two spires...

10 Upper Bank St also looks sooo much better at 210m. Unlike others, I actually like this building anyway, but it looks all the better taller. Could easily fit in New York.