Thanks.:)

Originally Posted by Newcastle Guy
The eiffel tower is only 300m? To the top of it's spire/antenna?



It is 300m + antenna, see Emporis.

Jef, I gave a link to the official website of the Eiffel tower, no need to refer to Emporis...

well. antenna usually takes as a part of the tower. so 324m.

as of official sites... messeturm site says there are 70 floors, when there are no even 63.

I dont think antennas count, i never thought of the one on top of the old WTC as structural height.

antenna is not takes to a count on buildings.

Coth make up your mind!

and then go away, we haven't mentioned M***** or R*****

and then go away, we haven't mentioned M***** or R*****

that's a bit rude. So what if there is a tendency to mention one's own developments to compare and contrast. I sometimes do that talking about Lumiere in Manchester's Eastgate/Inacity and Beetham threads, but only to draw attention to similarities etc etc and comment on the exciting times ahead, not willy waving, which all seems rather pointless.

well. antenna usually takes as a part of the tower. so 324m.

as of official sites... messeturm site says there are 70 floors, when there are no even 63.

the shard will actually have 82 floors but 16 of them will be for use of the buildings radiators only

^^ :lol: :lol:

I second that motion, just go away Coth

why should i? if you starting comparison, then expect that someone will take a opposite side.

@and-r
definitely, there is no 16 levels radiator in messeturm

Roof Height (AGL) 305.78
Pinnacle Height (AGL) 310.00
Pinnacle Type Spire
Roof Height (AOD) 309.98
Top Floor Height (AGL) 244.00

james, what are AGL and AOD?

above ground level and above ordinance datum (above sea level)

what exactly is messeturm??? i thought you where talkinig about london bridge tower. that is what this threads supposed to be about

It's a skyscraper in Frankfurt. He was trying to make the point that official websites aren't always gospel in terms of the facts they display.

For instance, if you'll forgive me using another off topic example, Canary Wharf often describe One Canada Square as 800ft tall when we know it is actaully, if memory serves me correct, 777ft (?).

why should i? if you starting comparison, then expect that someone will take a opposite side.

@and-r
definitely, there is no 16 levels radiator in messeturm

I am sure this matter has been raised before, but why does your sig say Federation tower..(what federation is that?)Tallest building in Europe? Europe is a democratic region..that is in Moscow?

mulattokid i really don't think it's wise to start a conversation about the 'definition of europe' in here. I would argue that (a) Moscow is in Europe and that (b) your definition of 'Europe' as a 'democratic region' simply isn't true, on all sorts of levels.

And so... Coth, i wouldn't respond to it either.

If you fancy a debate on the definition of Europe then let's do it elsewhere (perhaps through PM's).


I personally cannot wait for the shard to be visually complete. It will pull the whole skyline together, add that soar, and tip the London vista into a truly spectacular high rise ensemble.

I am sure this matter has been raised before, but why does your sig say Federation tower..(what federation is that?)Tallest building in Europe? Europe is a democratic region..that is in Moscow?

1. Europe is a continent. EU is not whole Europe. Not even half.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
2. Russia is democratic since 1991.

1. Europe is a continent. EU is not whole Europe. Not even half.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
2. Russia is democratic since 1991.

Can't argue with him on that one. Moscow is considered to be in Europe (not E.U.) in fact all Russia up to the Ural Mountains.

who actually cares about russia anyway. the majority of it is in asia (in land if not in poulation terms) and scientifically europe is a subcontinent anyway (eurasia) which russia could be easily drawn out of.

and-r
i suppose you just too young and haven't been in school yet. so you don't know who are slavics.

yawn! save it for someone who cares

I love London Bridge Tower, it's pretty.

pretty? its amazing it will completely raises the bar for both british and eu architecture

Well yes I agree...

...I like talking about the Shard...let's continue with it...and not talk about anything else

one canada square has higher floor levels than messeturm. infact if you stuck a crown on it the same size as messeturm it would be taller!

Some pics of the model. with Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London.
The building adjacent to the Shard London Bridge is the new London Bridge House.
Also from architect Renzo Piano.

http://i11.tinypic.com/34rzy8g.jpg

Amazing.

Haha, I was literally about to say the exact same DarJoLe.
It really is though. And I tell ya, the work better start getting underway next year or there'll be hell to pay.

That really is a sight. I can't wait.

From the first pic, would Guy's appear directly behind London bridge house?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Guy's has been conveniently removed from this model.

he pulls it out of the bag again.

look at Ken, he seems rather chuffed. Clearly recognises the strategic importance of such a building, and also that actively lobbying and supporting such a scheme gives him massive kudos with us (he probably doesn't know that though ;) )

1. Europe is a continent. EU is not whole Europe. Not even half.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
2. Russia is democratic since 1991.

Someone should tell the Russians then ;)

that wierd ariel thing has disappeared from the model... hmmm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Guy's has been conveniently removed from this model.

they havent missed it out theyve just not taken that area of land in to account, its just the area immediately around LBT they bothered to show, but yes as you say, rather convienient.

That model is awsome and just goes to prove what a landmark this building will be for London.

I think ken deserves a round of applause for this, if it were not him, this project would be in trouble:applause:

Oh, and can we please stop inviting that twat COTH on to this or any other UK thread.
Next time I go on the range, i'll pretend that the Roy Orbison look a like that we normally shoot at is COTH.:bash:

It will be interesting to see how the new London Bridge Station works with the Shard? Its huge isnt it??

London is building some nice looking towers, especialy this one, i like it, my favorite project in London

It really looks good, if there was anyone silly enough to have doubts about this project, the model would surely get rid of them, shows the project in a very good light :yes

Marketing the Tower in the London Property Magazine (sorry if someone already mentioned)

http://www.thelpr.com/property.php?id=57

dont know if you guys have seen these before but theres some amazing renders on the shardlondonbridge site
http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/information/downloads/lowres/SP028_0004029_WinterGarden.jpg
http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/information/downloads/lowres/SP028_0004088_InternalLobbyView.jpg
http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/information/downloads/lowres/SP028_0004091_officeInteriorUpdated.jpg
http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/information/downloads/lowres/plaza%20view%20(final)(highres).jpg
http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/information/downloads/lowres/SP028_04.jpg
http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/information/downloads/lowres/SP028_0004031_HoverView.jpg
http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/information/downloads/lowres/SP028_0004087_ExteriorLobby.jpg
http://www.shardlondonbridge.com/information/downloads/lowres/Shard_panorama_from_top.jpg

I've seen them, but never that big! Amazing, especially the one from the viewing platform:D

:drool:

Is the construction of this tower still on for mid 07 to 08 ?

Simply amazing renders!

Fantasic renders, seen a couple of them before......but my god, they took a while to materialize (and I have broadband!).

How amazing will it be to be where that dude is in pic No.5?? I mean, the view of the city cluster at night is gonna be just...tear-worthy!!

Btw, is it possible for someone to add in the other towers on the 6th rendering??

:cheers:

^^ And the public viewing point half way up the tower should be very similar to that view :eek:

Imagine being in the shard and looking out on:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/bish.jpg

hope they hand out hot towels

http://www.magix-photos.com/mediapool00/54/48/6F/30/77/16/11/DA/85/15/20/23/52/27/29/83/oma/10/EB1EF3B08ACB11DB83C5889252273AB1.jpg

Bit smaller:)

http://www.magix-photos.com/mediapool00/54/48/6F/30/77/16/11/DA/85/15/20/23/52/27/29/83/oma/10/EB1EF3B08ACB11DBA17775E852273AB1.jpg

Keep in mind this is missing 3 150m+ buildings

Fab renders!! It seems like I've been waiting for so long to see this darn thing go up!!

Amazing renders! But you will need the computer screens to the left of pic no.3 to veiw them properly. And wasnt their going to be some public galleries at the top of the shard? because those veiws would be amazing!!

Wow, they are great. LBT and Bishopsgate are gonna have a relationship accross the water like the International Finance centre and UCC6 in Hong Kong.

Its such an elegant tower. I love the fact that despite its height it manages to fit into its surroundings so comfortably. I'm as excited about the prospect of watching the construction process as the I am about the tower itself. How often do you get a chance to watch an iconic megastructure like this being built in your home city?

great reders! shame thou that the view will be wrecked by a glareing ommision, that is the telephone tower.

^^Who knows, now that it has been called in for a public enquiry

Oh i didnt know that! thankgod, lets hope it doesnt get PP is truely the most ugly building and will wreck the view of the city please god may they not give it pp.

Yes the only problem about all this is the fact that Ruth Kelly called it in. She recently had a stunning skyscraper in Liverpool turned down for some of the stupidist reasons.

I feel even if fenchurch tower had been as beautiful as the shard she would have called it in. That is not good news. I think we will have a better view of her overall perspective regarding Londond projects if she also opposes the 165m tower 100 Bishopsgate.

why could see oppose a smaller tower, that would be built inbetween several taller and more conspicious giants -- a bit foolish, i would say. I doubt even she would try and do that lest she recieve the notoriety of "woman who hates skscrapers' -- i.e, it would look like she had a personal vendetta against them that wouldn't serve her well in terms of career or reputation.

^^Exactly

Oh blimey she's a memeber of the Opus Dei group, and skyscrapers would represent all evil on God fine earth, she's gonna cause problems. she a wet dream for EH.

What are you guys talking about?Whats happening is everything alright with the Shard?

Note how bloody hideous Plantation Place looks in those cross-river renders. It's an enormous mistake, that much is clear already

What are you guys talking about?Whats happening is everything alright with the Shard?

They're are talking about the Walkie Talkie. Shard is fine.

PwC have finaly found a new HQ & fittingly as its nearly the end of the year all the reasons for stoppking LBT from starting are now resolved.

Shame they didn't choose 201BG though.

- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- -

PricewaterhouseCoopers is to agree terms to move to More London on the south bank of the Thames.
15.12.2006

A final decision was expected before Christmas to move to the building, which is the PWC’s board’s preferred option for its 400,000 sq ft (37,160 sq m) London headquarters.

The accountant had considered UBS’s Watermark Place in the City and its shortlist included British Land’s 201 Bishopsgate.

Several offices will be consolidated at More London, including Plumtree Court and Southwark Towers, which will be demolished to make way for the Shard tower.

PWC has found short-term accommodation until the site is developed (news, 17.11.06). It will move to three separate offices in City fringe locations, taking a total of up to 200,000 sq ft (18,580 sq m) on leases that expire in five years or less.

PWC will take more than 100,000 sq ft (9,290 sq m) at the St Martins-owned Hays Galleria on Tooley Street on a sublease from Lloyds TSB.

It will also take almost 20,000 sq ft (1,858 sq m) from Marylebone Warwick Balfour Business Exchange at 6 Hays Lane in London Bridge City and a third letting of around 50,000 sq ft (4,645 sq m) at Shell-Mex House near the Strand.

Jones Lang LaSalle advises PWC; Knight Frank advises at More London.

Meanwhile, law firm Speechley Bircham is close to deciding on its office move. Land Securities’ New Street Square is the favourite.

Any idea when they will taking the various lettings?

I presume it will be over the course of the new year till mid year 2007.
Moving a firm that big is not something that could be done overnight. The logistics behind it would require some big thinking!

However, that's my prediction. I we recieve exact dates from PwC themselves.

Any idea when they will taking the various lettings?

They will move in July / August 2007.

FAO and_r

Please scale your pics down! My ickle laptop was fubar after trying to load those monsters *takes a deep breath*

Cheers.

Heaven forfend; looks like they are serious about building this thing....

Full Planning Permission

Location: LAND BETWEEN GREAT MAZE POND & LONDON BRIDGE STREET, LONDON, SE1
Planning Case File Number: TP/151-G
Proposal: Construction of temporary footbridge following the partial removal of existing footbridge and repositioning and alterations to remaining footbridge section to enable continued access to St Thomas's Hospital during the development of the London Bridge Tower site
Ward: Grange
Community Council: Bermondsey
Environmental Impact Assessment Status:
Conservation Area: Borough High Street

Date Received: 15/12/2006

Heaven forfend; looks like they are serious about building this thing....



They always were serious about building this project!

This means enabling works are about to get underway.

Great - wonder if you can get shard teeshirts

From Marc Schanne

http://i10.tinypic.com/2psr2th.jpg

This means enabling works are about to get underway.

However, lets not start an official thread till demolition :banana:

Or you know...actual construction :bash:

oh pls not another argument about that....

oh pls not another argument about that....

at least one year of an 'Official Southwark Towers Demolition thread' please! No mincing around thinking otherwise!

Yeah, there we go. It wont be too long before the construction threads, we've been sitting around for 3-4 years without much at all, another 6 months wont hhurt us

we should keep this as the shard pre demolition update thread (official). no russian tower news is welcome or poundbury for that matter. ;)then have an official demolition thread at somestage.

fuck knows what we'll talk about but anyway..

excuse my ignorance but which of the three towers are they demolitishing to create the shard?

the middle one, Southwark towers.

o good im glad its not one of the other two.

^^ You like Guy's then?

This is how tall it should look. And even then that's me being very generous and i've forgoten to add another 50m (as I just did guy's * 2, n guys is around 125m):

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/392/untitled1copyzg1.jpg

Anyone fancy a render from this angle?

I think it's actually the better of the three! Glad the one on the left is also slated for demolition though.

to be honest i really dont mind Guys. its by far the least offensive of the three. doesnt it have a marble affect cladding? it certainly does nt stand out like a saw thumb

as for the large tower,far right, i quite like it, but im a fan of large brutal concrete structures, i really love the barbican. as for this one i love the over hang and its bleak appearence.

i used to get the train into liverpool st from east london everyday and i loved the way it stood out amongst the rest, as a looming dark monolith defying the shiny glass and aluminium of the city. its almost like its a massive gun turret proclaiming, this is south london ,keep out you capitalist pigs.... im jus been silly now, but i genuinly like it.

again jus my opinion and understand how its not to everyones taste!!!!
i do think some examples of early highrise need to be kept, if not only to make the new nes stand out more!!!

The tower to the right is Guy's though...

to be honest i really dont mind Guys. its by far the least offensive of the three. doesnt it have a marble affect cladding? it certainly does nt stand out like a saw thumb

as for the large tower,far right, i quite like it, but im a fan of large brutal concrete structures, i really love the barbican. as for this one i love the over hang and its bleak appearence.

i used to get the train into liverpool st from east london everyday and i loved the way it stood out amongst the rest, as a looming dark monolith defying the shiny glass and aluminium of the city. its almost like its a massive gun turret proclaiming, this is south london ,keep out you capitalist pigs.... im jus been silly now, but i genuinly like it.

again jus my opinion and understand how its not to everyones taste!!!!
i do think some examples of early highrise need to be kept, if not only to make the new nes stand out more!!!

Are you sure you have these the right way around mate?

It goes (left to right):

London Bridge House - Southwark Towers - Guy's Hospital

...or at some point in the future:

Baby Shard - Shard - Guy's Hospital

http://i10.tinypic.com/2psr2th.jpg

well which ever 1 the big one on the left is, i mean the 1 on the right!!!!

Isn't "the one on the left" being demolished to make way for the smaller tower London Bridge House?

Nothing special by all means, but:

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1491/untitled1copyws6.jpg

whoah! lol, it's the general impression that counts ;) I think it fit's in like a treat!

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/46LondonBridgeTower_pic9.jpg

i have found a magazine with a big article about the shard in it. i would write it up by my posts dont show up. if this one does then il write it up and post it to you guys if youve not already seen it :)

some information on Shard, you probably know most of this already

some info on shard london bridge
TAKEN FROM URBAN BUILDING NUMBER 2 NOVEMBER THE FIRST

written November the 1st

Seller property group, on behalf of Teighmore ltd, Today announces that £196m of interim development finance has been secured for the initial construction phase of the 72- story Shard London bridge and London bridge house scheme. The overall development, known as the London Bridge Quarter, comprimises a total of approximatly 1.6m sq ft of mixed-use space around London Bridge station. The development will be in two buildings - the iconic SHard London bridge and the adjecent New London Bridge House, both of which have been designed by the internationally renowned achitect Renzo Piano.

This interim financing pakage is being provided by a syndicate of banks led by Nationwide Building Society. part of the £196m facility has been used to fund the purchase of the PWC occupational lewase of southwark towers - the 1970's building that will be demolished to make way for the Shard. Teighmore is equally owned by Seller, CLS Holdings plc and CN Ltd (for and on behalf of the Halabi Family Trust). Teighmore has now exersized its option with PwC Requiring the global accounting practice to vacate Southwark towers by the end of 2007. However, agreement has been reached for earlier access to the building, which will allow certain enabling works to be undertaken. This will enable Developer to deliver the Building ready for occupation between 210 and 2011.
The interim financing follows on from last month's announcement of a key pre- letting to transport London (TFL) which is leasing 190,000 sq ft of offices on the lower floors in the Shard on a 30-year lease. a further 200,000sq ft has been pre-let, on a 30year lease, to Shangri-la Hotels for the creation of a luxury hotel on floors 34-52 in the Shard.

Irvine Sellar, Chairman of Sellar property Group, said: "this represents a significant step forward for us. we can stand demolishing the existing building towards the end of next year and deliver the completed project between 2010 and 2011. this financing for the construction phase of the project." Sten Mortstedt, Exclusive chairman of CLS Holdings plc an equal partner to Teighmore, said: "with this financing in place we can secure vacant possesion from PWC and move one step closer to delivering the Shard before the London olympics in 2012. we have to pre-let close to 50% of the scheme's commercial space - a remarkable achievment."

Project team
Architect: Renzo piano building workshope
Developer: Sellar property Group
Project Managers: MACE
Structural Engineer: WSP/ Cantor Seinuk
Service Engineer: ARUP MEPC
Quality Surveyor: Davis Langdon LLP

sorry if you guys already knew this information.
did any of you see anything new?

sorry if you guys already knew this information.
did any of you see anything new?

Mant thanks!! I do not follow this thread religiously and that is an excellent update for me on the progress.

no problem :)
glad i could help

http://i3.tinypic.com/495ya11.jpg

Went for an afternoon walk, southwark towers looks alot better at night.

I must admit. Upfront, close and personal they look a hell of alot better.
Still rather have the Shard than this though!

I wish we could get both...I hate losing one to gain one. I hear what people say about 'soare', but 1CS stood alone for years...it has not diminished in stature now it is a centrepeice.

So true, the Shard is world class. I bumped in to Ken at city hall the other day. He told me he was very excited. He not the only one :banana: :banana:

wow, u bumped in to ken? wow didnt realised he roamed about with the masses, v cool.

wow, u bumped in to ken? wow didnt realised he roamed about with the masses, v cool.

yeah well he gets the Jubilee Line to and from work (he lives someone near Kilburn AFAIK, unless he's moved) everyday so thats a good place to bump into him :D

im sure he lives in willisden green

Yeah I think he lives in the Willesden/Cricklewood area. I've seen him getting off the tube at London Bridge a couple of times now. Probably the only decent polititian left, in my view.

Days after reports that the Unesco requires City to cancel the construction
of the Shard of Glass - Transport of London is rumoured to be under pressure to cancel its prelet which would de facto cancel the project - another bad news likely to cancel the project has emerged. Partners would go to the court once again. This would trigger further delays and would also jeopardize the funding.

From the Financial Times. Published: January 12
https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://www.ft.com/companies/property&location=http%3A//www.ft.com/cms/s/168a09ea-a1e2-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html
Row breaks out over the Shard of Glass
By Jim Pickard, Property Correspondent

A bruising row has broken out between the partners behind London's Shard of Glass project, set to be the tallest skyscraper in western Europe.

It is understood that Simon Halabi, the property tycoon, is incensed that partners Irvine Sellar and CLS are trying to charge him £28m for "project management" fees on the Shard and a neighbouring office block.

More news in the article.

:ohno: here we go again......

Days after reports that the Unesco requires City to cancel the construction
of the Shard of Glass - Transport of London is rumoured to be under pressure to cancel its prelet which would de facto cancel the project - another bad news likely to cancel the project has emerged. Partners would go to the court once again. This would trigger further delays and would also jeopardize the funding.

From the Financial Times. Published: January 12
https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=http://www.ft.com/companies/property&location=http%3A//www.ft.com/cms/s/168a09ea-a1e2-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html
Row breaks out over the Shard of Glass
By Jim Pickard, Property Correspondent

A bruising row has broken out between the partners behind London's Shard of Glass project, set to be the tallest skyscraper in western Europe.

It is understood that Simon Halabi, the property tycoon, is incensed that partners Irvine Sellar and CLS are trying to charge him £28m for "project management" fees on the Shard and a neighbouring office block.

More news in the article.

I'm hopefull that the court thing will go OK like last time, but TFL are under pressure to cancel their pre-let? Where did you find this out? It's the first I've heard.

That is bad news. Well, rumoured anyway. In anycase I hope they don't let themselves be pushed around. The rents are cheaper. Haven't they already signed a contract? I wasn't aware you can just pull out of a contract.

Seriously where did you hear the rumour Jef?

Beyond. A. Joke.

Of course, Ken is under pressure to pull out of the contract signed with the consortium: Unesco, "Grass not Glass" campaign, Conservatives, Greens, etc.
We already knew Halabi decided to pull out of the project last year and commissioned BH2 to find a buyer of its share. This equity partner has still to be found. The row that has now erupted about the fee is just another hurdle.
I am completely fed up with this saga and I don't even want to think what could yet happen before construction eventually starts, if ever.

F**K SAKE!! whoever is behind this will perish under my hand!!

"Of course, Ken is under pressure to pull out of the contract signed with the consortium: Unesco, "Grass not Glass" campaign, Conservatives, Greens, etc."


^^ Oh, alright that's not quite as bad as I had thought. I highly doubt he will.

What about being green though, I thought the project was environmentally friendly?

And they got a good deal on the rates too.

This is a farce of epic proportions, and the people who are trying to stop this project deserve nothing more than utter contempt.

So I guess we will be getting groundscraper then?

Poor Shard, too good to be placed in the mortal coil :fiddle:

pardon my ignorance, but is the main reason for this unesco interferance/paranoia? Thats what stopped us in liverpool getting our 50 storey stunner :ohno:

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm feeling kind of numb right now. It's like hearing about some famous actor or somebody who's died. In fact, not just died - but been murdered.

This project is "the one" that would truly redefine the capital's skyline, a landmark that would symbolise 21st century London and show the world what we're really capable of. It would leave an architectural legacy for centuries. So much time, money, and effort has been invested just to get this far. It would be the cruelest injustice for this project to be cancelled.

It has to be built, it absolutely has to. Without exaggeration, it could easily make the top 10 most beautiful skyscrapers in the world. I think it would be an absolute, utter disgrace if this project was stopped. I wish there was something we could do - form an action group, a petition, or something... but I doubt we can really influence anything.

I agree. I feel a bit sick to be honest.

I know it's all up in the air, nothing's been confirmed, and nothing has actually happened, but it's not sounding good. Any more delay on this project from it starting later this year will mean it won't be complete by the Olympics, which is for me the most important two weeks London will ever face this century when the world's spotlight is on the Capital.

It was bad enough when Minerva was confirmed cancelled. This will be ten times as worse.

Hold on - lets get some perspective here.

a story that nobody has read in the FT about one of the partners complaining about a 28m quid management fee. I would bloody complain if i was being charged that amount. Its not an article about it being cancelled.

Jef - where did you here this rumour ???

Indeed, the article does not say it is cancelled. The FT article says Halabi is preparing for another legal battle with Selllar and CLS Holdings. Of course, Halabi could still sell its stake in the project and Sellar/CLS have pre-emption rights. But Halabi may hold on and is prepared to do so. Do not underestimate this man and his vehicle Buckingham Securities. He owns a.o. the Aviva Tower, Kings Reach Tower, and many other large office developments in Central London. He is the 13st richest man in Britain. His stake in this project only is estimated to be worth 100 million pounds. If he does not want to go ahead or to sell his stake, he won't. It is as simple as this. Still it does not mean the Shard will never be built. It can be delayed or replaced by something else following Minerva example. I am also curious to know what Gothic thinks about this.

Well that fucking ruin's my day. What the hell. Following this whole project has sucked the life out of me. I am trying to move back to london from the US, something like this makes me think twice. London's the best city on the planet but it always seems to be held back from it's full potential. Very, very depressing. I hold out hope but am getting really sick of even following this without any construction.

Note the final paragraph.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=11269854&postcount=163

One other point why would Tfl be told to cancel a pre-let as they are getting a good deal on the offices so it can't be a financial decision which leaves the UNESCO reason & then who in government can order Tfl not to take the lease- Isn't Ken in charge of Tfl not some nameless minister.

The tower of London is a great landmark but is it realy worth all this? One old castle to prevent the city for building modern "castles". I bet some people were shocked when St Pauls cathedral (the old one) was built. Who would want a 150m spire in London??

If the worst would happen I think you Londoners should really fight for this tower until nothing more can be done.

then who in government can order Tfl not to take the lease- Isn't Ken in charge of Tfl not some nameless minister.

It's in Ken's interests to comply with UNESCO. He won't be re-elected if he loses the Tower Of London it's world heritage status for the sake of skyscrapers in London.

It would be a massive media story across the world and he would be demonised by even many of his supporters.

Gothic, can you come and clear all this up please.

:gaah: right, that's it. i'll meet you all at 5.30pm outside london bridge station and we'll personally drag the current occupiers out, blow the thing up, and start laying some foundations.

ridiculous.

Note the final paragraph.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=11269854&postcount=163

One other point why would Tfl be told to cancel a pre-let as they are getting a good deal on the offices so it can't be a financial decision which leaves the UNESCO reason & then who in government can order Tfl not to take the lease- Isn't Ken in charge of Tfl not some nameless minister.

Nobody ever said planning permission will be cancelled. I said there are intense lobbying behind the scene and that Ken who is in charge of TfL is under pressure to cancel the TfL prelet in the Shard. This would de facto imply that the project is cancelled. Different means. Same outcome. That's politics. I did not say it will happen either. ;). I want to see the Shard being built.

It's in Ken's interests to comply with UNESCO. He won't be re-elected if he loses the Tower Of London it's world heritage status for the sake of skyscrapers in London.

It would be a massive media story across the world and he would be demonised by even many of his supporters.

Yes, this is exactly what I think. But Darjole is better at explaining it than I am. :)

I dont want this building ever built...For one it will ruin the views from my back garden in Plymouth....and seriously impact on the Town hall in Leeds

Gothic, can you come and clear all this up please.

Jef is more reliable than Gothic these days.

For fucks sake what is this UNESCO bollocks, where the hell did it come from? Why cant businessmen behave and appreciate beauty?! He probably eats £20 million for breakfast.

Oh I wasn't questioning Jef's reliability...I was merely waiting for another view on the subject, and Gothic may present us with something to think about.

Umm, I think some people are over reacting a little bit.

People want Ken to pull TFL out of the deal. He doesn't want to, obviously.

People say this may lose the tower of London it's world heritage status. I don't think it will:

A culture department spokesman has admitted it would not be possible to "row back" on permission for the Shard of Glass. He stressed that permission for the development was granted after a public inquiry which considered the environmental impact, adding: "Our response to these criticisms will be that our planning controls are among the most sophisticated in the world. As a result we are pretty confident we will not be placed on the danger list."

I think people will see how stupid this all is. The Shard does not disrupt any views. It's as simple as that.

I don't think Ken will bow down to this. It is basically BS and lies. If he does, then I will lose all respect for him, as to be honest there is absolutely no reason to do so.

Nobody ever said planning permission will be cancelled. I said there are intense lobbying behind the scene and that Ken who is in charge of TfL is under pressure to cancel the TfL prelet in the Shard. This would de facto imply that the project is cancelled. Different means. Same outcome. That's politics. I did not say it will happen either. ;). I want to see the Shard being built.

Its like the Battle of Britain all over again. I'm definitely going to write

Did anyone see the full page spread of all the towers going up in london in the free paper 'this is london' was very positive and was full of beautiful renders that Im sure wow d most of the readers.

I don't think Ken will bow down to this. It is basically BS and lies. If he does, then I will lose all respect for him, as to be honest there is absolutely no reason to do so.

I think the least we can do as people who have followed THE skyscraper for London for goodness knows how long is to show our support for Ken by writing to papers and the mayors office

It's in Ken's interests to comply with UNESCO. He won't be re-elected if he loses the Tower Of London it's world heritage status for the sake of skyscrapers in London.

It would be a massive media story across the world and he would be demonised by even many of his supporters.

So true, the Shard is world class. I bumped in to Ken at city hall the other day. He told me he was very excited. He not the only one :banana: :banana:

^^ Remember this was just a few days ago. It seems Ken is still adamant, unless he is just a blatant liar.

who reckons that EH is behind this UNESCO scam? They must be quite well linked in terms of communication I would have thought. If so they aint getting my money any more, the scum

The Shard which by the way is pure class when it comes to 'scraper design will offer 5 star views over a medievel castle and is the the other side of the river. Unesco should be concentrating on the fact that tourist's experience of the Tower is spoilt/hampered by a four lane highway with trucks hurtling along it. Maybe Unesco should be complaining to the government that the road should be in a tunnel and they should spend some money on infrastructure rather than bleating on about iffy sight lines at the best.

The news story of today was that the row between the
developers themselves and their pending legal battle about
the Shard (at least EH/Unesco are not reponsible for this).

I expect the developers problems won't take too long to sort out, they have got a project to hurry theselves up with. The quciker this starts the less time we have to worry.

I think the one thing I am worried about, is that PWC see all this going on, and decide to just sit back and see what happens. If they don't get out, I swear I'll go down to London and protest outside the damn building

PwC will leave.

the Evening Standard is reporting that the management fee row has gone to private arbitration...Halabi feels he has paid £23m too much for management fees.

There will be no court battle. The independent arbitrator will rule in favour of one side or the other in the near future which both sides will abide by.

They came to this arrangement after the last battle they had to save on huge legal fees and bad publicity for the project (heaven forbid!).

This is a side issue to the development and as such will not effect the project as a whole.

I hope you're right that the FT report is wrong.

I dont want this building ever built...For one it will ruin the views from my back garden in Plymouth....and seriously impact on the Town hall in Leeds
You can't see London Bridge Tower from Plymouth.

I am not surprised that this has been cancelled. I have doubts about The Leadenhall Building and Bishopsgate Tower to.

youve been waiting for this havent you :lol:

I hope you're right that the FT report is wrong.

I always look on the bright side. I'm like JamesC in reverse.

"Always look on the bright side of life!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0)

I am not surprised that this has been cancelled. I have doubts about The Leadenhall Building and Bishopsgate Tower to.


it has not been cancelled.

looking at the current trend I do see a rather dark future for new skyscrapers in the city of london though - they better hurry up and build leadenhall, heron and bishopsgate before a major policy change. they could be the last major skyscrapers in the city of london for a long time.

You can't see London Bridge Tower from Plymouth.

I am not surprised that this has been cancelled. I have doubts about The Leadenhall Building and Bishopsgate Tower to.

You're an idiot.

just released, breaking news, EGi:

"Sellar responds to 'inaccurate' press speculation"

It is getting hot... shares aredown, Sellar tries to calm down the market....

goodness it is amazing how anything of great beauty ever got built by humans!

Fuk me, what the hell is going on here?? I am just thoroughly pissed off now! How much more crap will this tower have to go through before it gets built??

It is so frustrating to think that it might be cancelled, because a bunch of ignorant NIMBYs and gutless idiots can't see beond their own asses!

I am tempted to hop on a plane right now and come to London to stage a bloody protest!

Jef is more reliable than Gothic these days.

why hasnt gothic commented on this lbt bollocks? because its BOLLOCKS.
some people ken to cancel the TFL pre-let of LBT, by some people we are talking here about his political enemies. TFL would have to pay a large sum of money in a penalty if they were to do so to the developer, this would be politically embarassing to ken and expensive for london. ken puts great store in LBT being his legacy and has put london's money where his mouth is.
the tower has full planning permission, developers want to build it, it has pre-lets in the form of hotel and office space, some of the apartments have been successfully sold. there is no way of rescinding planning permission awarded. the scoping reports show that the impact on the ToL WHS are minimal. the whole thing is a complete non story.
why do you think newspapers and the media report this? because its sensational and people will buy more copies as a result. just look at the sheer number of replies to this thread in the past few hours. ive written for the press plenty and it's so very easy to manipulate things - as a good example watch the scene in "how to get ahead in advertising" where richard e grant's character destroys a newspaper report on a drugs bust.
so what do we have? well "some people" are trying to get TFL to cancel their pre-let. by some people that would be perhaps 10% of those involved compared to the 90% who are not trying to get it cancelled and support it. the press naturally report on the negative side of the story creating a misleading impression by omission of the full facts. the tower "may be cancelled". then again it may not...
you could spin it another way as a journo - "row breaks out at TFL over LBT lease... inter-departmental warfare... etc etc". the only reason this is even being reported is because the E/S doesnt like ken. they are trying to make it into a stick to beat him with - "look at the evil mayor bulldozing our history."
some people, mostly barbie loving girls, also want LBT painted pink, shall we have a nice rumour going round this forum next about that? i wish people would stop leaping on every little crap piece of rumour going around, this place is as bad as an apple fan boy forum on the new iphone.

You can't see London Bridge Tower from Plymouth.

I am not surprised that this has been cancelled. I have doubts about The Leadenhall Building and Bishopsgate Tower to.

... OK...

1. He was joking

2. It hasn't been cancelled, and in all honesty it probably won't be

3. Demolition is underway for Leadenhall and Bishopsgate

00:13:27.72,00:13:30.49
"The police took away a bag containing 15 grams...

00:13:30.56,00:13:32.82
"of cannibis resin.

00:13:32.89,00:13:36.62
It may also contain a quantity of heroin."

00:13:36.70,00:13:38.82
[Bagley] Or a pork pie.

00:13:38.90,00:13:40.83
I beg your pardon?

00:13:40.90,00:13:44.84
I said, the bag may also have contained a pork pie.

00:13:44.91,00:13:48.24
I hardly see a pork pie's got anything to do with it.

00:13:48.31,00:13:51.64
All right. Then. What about a large turnip?

00:13:51.71,00:13:54.20
It may also have contained a big turnip.

00:13:54.28,00:13:56.88
- The bag was full of drugs. - Nonsense.

00:13:56.95,00:13:59.25
The bag was full of drugs! It says so!

00:13:59.32,00:14:01.55
The bag could have been full of anything...

00:14:01.62,00:14:04.02
pork pies, turnips,oven parts.

00:14:04.09,00:14:06.58
- It's the oldest trick in the book. - What book?

00:14:06.66,00:14:09.22
The distortion of truth by association book.

00:14:09.30,00:14:11.26
The word is "may."

00:14:11.33,00:14:15.06
You all believe heroin was in the bag because cannibis resin was in the bag.

00:14:15.14,00:14:19.60
The bag may have contained heroin, but the chances are 100 to 1 that it didn't.

well someone somewhere is playing dirty in all of this and to put such a glorious creation in jeapordy just for some personal tit tat, jealousy or greed is pretty depressing

thats business though. big boys games, big boys rules.
i dont think people here have a single idea of just how pr works and the negative sowing of stories. all it takes is one phone - call to the right journalist and next thing its front page of the local newspaper and some rentaquote councillor is getting on his high horse over it. the black arts of p.r indeed. pr is very much about attacking and embarassing your enemies too. ive done it in the past against companies that have fucked me off and watched forumers then bang on about the end results of it once the story has gone negative without them having a clue as to the reality behind the story.
in this case we have a coalition of heritage bodies, the evening standard and rival politicans. all they care about is their own agendas. newsflash to the naive. the rich and powerful are rich and powerful because they dont care about anything or anyone but their own interests. they will fight to protect those interests in the name of necessity. you're witnessing it here first-hand and you know the really sad thing, youre believing it!

the problem is there seem to be some truth to most rumours.

saying it's all bollocks is like saying it's all true or the project is cancelled.
only ppl involved in the project know the whole truth.

true it is stupid to completely panic over a rumour but the hard reality is that all of these projects are pretty fragile until they physically exist in bricks n motar so any negative spin, even if people are suspicious of the validity, could put a project in trouble by tipping the balance or creating an unstoppable knock-on effect.

could put a project in trouble by tipping the balance or creating an unstoppable knock-on effect.
which is why people here should stop speculating over bullshit. if you care about it, stop fanning the flames.

only ppl involved in the project know the whole truth.
yeah unless of cuorse they have contracts exchanged. consider this... TFL pulls out, shard cancelled, shard developers would then sue TFL for loss of earnings - think of the loss from the hotel, residential sales, all the development money wasted and so on. i dont think TFL have a spare £600 million which could easily be the loss for the developers and a figure ive heard quite a few times.

So, if the shard ruins it, lets demolish the Gherkin, and Tower 42, Guys Hospital, TOWER BRIDGE! Lets just demolish everything in London built since the war shall we? That will keep them happy :)

I dont think they realise, London is a CITY not a MUSEUM, DOOOOY!

They have:

the plot
the design
the planning permission
the pre-let
the departure date confirmed by last tenants
the cash in place to build it.

They are all set to make a fortune by building this tower. The issue over the 23 million will be resolved as it's in all their interests for the tower to go ahead.

The issue with UNESECO is nonsense, the lawsuits would be huge if the planning permission is withdrawn and the fact it got safely through a public inquiry means the Government would look like idiots if they had to do a U-turn.

I doubt such a major development as this is going to be cancelled. I've got my reasons, which are:

a) At present, London Bridge is a fucking shithole for a major London interchange. To think this is one of few stations that will have a high capacity, redeveloping this area in time for 2012 only makes sense becuase some serious money is to be made out of it.

b) I never believe shit from the Evening Standard. They comment on everything in London that's near high rise. For fucks sake, if they can't get the heights of Skyscrapers right, what makes you think the report is true?

c) Too much money has been put into to this project. They've gone WAY past the point of no return. For me, the point of no return was 2 years ago when they could have cancelled the project if they wanted to. They didn't.

d) If they do cancel, they'll have to pay huge payouts to Shangri La Hotels and TfL (providing TfL have signed on the dotted line)

e) This tower is part of the "master scheme" for the area. The tower combined with the new London Bridge station makes this project literally difficult to cancel.

If everybody belived things in the papers the world would of ended along time ago!

The Financial Times is not used to report "bollocks".

At the press conference that was held this afternoon, Irvine Sellar has responded to this report and has called it "inaccurate". However, it has not been made clear the extent to which the report is "inaccurate". He did not deny all allegations.

It remains that Halabi and his vehicle is not willing to go ahead himself with the scheme. It means that somebody has to put 100 million pounds on the table for the scheme to go ahead. The bank loan facility that has been secured so far can only finance the demolition of the Southwark Towers.

Just for the record Jef, I said the ES was bollocks.

b) I never believe shit from the Evening Standard. They comment on everything in London that's near high rise. For fucks sake, if they can't get the heights of Skyscrapers right, what makes you think the report is true?

You're right. The Evening Standard is not reliable. The report came from the Financial Times. The European paper version of it was on my table this morning with the headline.

d) If they do cancel, they'll have to pay huge payouts to Shangri La Hotels and TfL (providing TfL have signed on the dotted line)

They (who?) won't have to pay huge payouts to Shangri La because it is not a "pre-letting", instead some sort of "arrangements".

I thought Shangri La were a prelet. Does the fact that they are not mean they can withdraw their interest and go elsehwere if the internal pressure really does get on their tits?

oh perhaps i`ll just go to sleep for 2 years, wake up and run down to Southwark Bridge!

I Think we are just over reacting here about the whole thing.

Yes there probabaly is some truth about the row with Halibi in the FT, but this will be resolved, it always is.

The whole thing about UNESCO is as Gothic says, BOLLOCKS, given the choice between losing billions of pounds by having large financial institutions move out of the city because the can build an office there, or the million or so quid a year the tower makes, I think people will see sense.
As i have said here before most people don't even know who the fuck UNESCO are, let lone worry about the tower being off it's poxy list.

I thought Shangri La were a prelet. Does the fact that they are not mean they can withdraw their interest and go elsehwere if the internal pressure really does get on their tits?

The Shard was due to host the first Shangri-La hotel in Europe with opening in 2009 initially. Because of the delays (2009->2010->2011), the Board of Shangri-La decided last year to go somewhere else to open their first european hotel: Paris. Whether Shangri-La will stick to the Shard will depend on any possible further delays rather than anything else, I think.

To be honest, so what if Halabi backs out. Firstly, I don't think he will, he is just trying to bargain for a larger slice of the pie. Like anyone would.

He, and Nationwide & Singer & Friedlanders, CLS and Kaupthing Bank know that they will make a killing out of this development.

More ES rubbish. LBT will happen, it has the finance. The way the London office market is going the extra space will be needed anyway. There is a lot of 'hot' money at the moment, lots of petrodollars that need investing... look at the cash that has gone into the Heron and Bishopsgate Towers... vast amounts of money. London is the place to be right now.

Gothic will agree with me on this one... if Halabi exits the consortium he'll be the loser. There are plenty of other banks/individuals who would plug the £100 million gap. I read Estates Gazette this week and the editorial is talking about rents north of £65 sq ft in the City and 140, yes £140 world record breaking rents for Mayfair. This is brinkmanship/bargaining of the cheapest order... nothing more, nothing less. Quite frankly it is rather unprofessional/pikey of Halabi at this stage of the development imo.

I look forward to this tower being built..... I fully expect Southwark Towers to be scaffolded by the end of the year.

To be honest, so what if Halabi backs out. Firstly, I don't think he will, he is just trying to bargain for a larger slice of the pie. Like anyone would.

Halabi commissioned bh2 to find a buyer last year. He does not want to finance the Shard. This has been made clear to the partners and published.

More ES rubbish. LBT will happen, it has the finance.

In fact, it is the Financial Times. LBT does not have the finance. It is the demolition of the Southwark Towers which has the finance.

I look forward to this tower being built..... I fully expect Southwark Towers to be scaffolded by the end of the year.

They will indeed. PwC will leave and Southwark Tower will be demolished. Nobody ever said the opposite. It does not mean the Shard will be built. This is what the FT report was all about.;)

Here is the response to press comment from the developer itself. It is confirmed a row has erupted between the partners and that Halabi will not finance the Shard (he commissioned bh2 to find a buyer, SPG and CLS have pre-emptive rights), see end first paragraph. CLS states they remain committed to the project. Of course, it will depend on the outcome of the pending legal battle. For those who ever doubt it, I am a reliable source of info ;). Sadly in this case. Although it does not yet mean the end of the Shard, it does not sound good at all.

http://www.clsholdings.com/clsholdings/presscentre/rns/regulatorynews_item.jsp?ric=CLI.L&ref=13096

For immediate release: 12 January 2007
CLS Holdings plc
Response to Press Comment

The Board of CLS Holdings plc (CLS) wishes to point out some inaccuracies in
the article entitled "Row breaks out over the Shard of Glass," published in the
Financial Times this morning.

Firstly it is not correct that CLS and Sellar Property Group (SPG) wish to
charge Simon Halabi £28m for development and project management' fees
on the Shard and the adjacent 600,000 sq ft redevelopment of New London
Bridge House project, for which planning consent was recently obtained.
This figure covers a significantly wider brief and represents the combined
development fees to be charged to the consortium by SPG and CLS in their
roles as developers of the Shard and New London Bridge House, of which
Halabi's Trust, SPG and CLS will each bear a one third share.

Secondly the article implies that CLS and SPG paid Halabi £12m in an out of
court settlement. That is not the case. In fact Halabi's Family Trust paid £
3.2m to CLS and SPG to purchase a one third interest in New London Bridge
House. It is believed that Halabi's Trust may have been paid a substantial sum
by his trustees' insurers, however neither CLS nor SPG had any involvement in
that arrangement and can therefore not confirm that this substantial payment
has been made.

Thirdly, the evidence of Mr Hussey on behalf of the Halabi Family Trust has
been rejected by the London based expert. Independent experts whose evidence
has been submitted have fully substantiated the proposed development fees.

The consortium remains committed to delivering two world class buildings in
conjunction with a modern infrastructure for the London Bridge Quarter.
-End-

Fuck sake, can't these money grabbing bastards just all get along!

Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

One thing though, Why would a large bank such as Nationwide finance only the demolition of a existing building, surley it will expect some return on it's investment, what possible return could it get from a demolition.
It must be playing some part in the construction as well

Why would a large bank such as Nationwide finance only the demolition of a existing building, surley it will expect some return on it's investment, what possible return could it get from a demolition

The return is incorporated into the pricing of the bank loan facility.

I am not quite sure why everybody is so excited. So, OK they are fighting it out in the press, but what else is new?

And with regards to Unesco, they may not like it but it is too late. Even if Livingstone/TfL pulled out it would not be so hard to find another leaseholder and those rates. If you do not believe me check the rates in Gherkin at this moment of time. Anyway, Unesco know they cannot change it and all they are doing is taking in a strong negotiation position. If you want to get £10 from someone do you ask for £10? Come on, you ask for £50. That is what Unesco is doing. Unesco will be happy if a plan is made up to address replacing the eyesore of the Tower Thistle, if the Daleks are cancelled and that is it (because Minerva has already been cancelled and Fenchurch has been called in). Westminster will use Unesco to fight Doon Street and Blackfriars, but those were already pretty unlikey anyway.

This Unesco episode will make everybody a bit more serious about planning, which is a good thing. As I have argued before, London needs to get serious about its cluster policy. Define your clusters, make sure bodies such as Unesco are on board) and then developers have certainty and many more skyscrapers will follow.

And people can continue to moan about Unesco, but let's not forget the main reasons why this is happening, this being one of them:

http://static.flickr.com/75/201306840_ea8997d8ec_b.jpg

... and this being another one:

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/imageuploads/1164572767_80.177.117.97.jpg

Lol - trust JGG to join the debate by bringing up his two pet hates. JGG we know you hate More London & Pottersfields but leave it in the right thread.

^^ Just joining the general trend of digression of today. :) And yes I feel passionate about this...

Which was UNESCO threatening skyscrapers in London as they reckon they effect the setting London such as LBT which has been widely reported in the worlds press. No mention in the worlds press or UNESCO about 40m high office blocks that have already been built ;)

Me only been away one day and the projects in tatters. It was a nice dream why it lasted. A least theres some hope with Canary Wharf.....

Maybe someone can explain the above statement in English. The only part that I understand is "The consortium remains committed to delivering two world class buildings in conjunction with a modern infrastructure for the London Bridge Quarter. -End-" Sounds pretty positive to me....

I wish this tower would just get built! I can understand the frustration investors have with this project, its taking way too long, due to that private institution in the existing building causing this project so many delays. Its SO annoying!

So I guess there's little chance of this tower being built by 2012?

What's wrong with this shitty country? Why does it take so long and so much hassle just to get anything done?

Anyone who possesses a brain should be able to tell that this tower would enhance London massively and not damage it. Anyone would think London was some small historic village, not a world city by the way some people act.

Why is there such panic regarding whether LBT will be built? UNESCO is not a threat to LBT despite some press reports. LBT went through the full planning permission process, is popular, very well designed and works are due to start relatively soon. LBT does not threaten the heritage values of the Tower of London at all, or views of the Tower from the river, or the immediate surroundings/buffer zone of the Tower!

The reporting regarding cost sharing of the LBT project by the partners may be acrimonious, but no-one has an interest in a failed project which would profit no-one, least of all the financial stakeholders. This project is moving forward, finance and occupants are lined up and I look forward to seeing the demolition works start this year.

shit. Fingers crossed (again).

Fuck sake, can't these money grabbing bastards just all get along!

No..thats why they are so financially successful...sh**ing on each other to get to the top! :)

Which was UNESCO threatening skyscrapers in London as they reckon they effect the setting London such as LBT which has been widely reported in the worlds press. No mention in the worlds press or UNESCO about 40m high office blocks that have already been built ;)

Don't believe everything written in the press, even the world press. ;) In all honesty if Unesco is truely concerned about the Shard and skyscrapers going up in the City, they are inconsistent with their previous policy. No, they are asking for £50 to get £10.

Two words summerise my feelings toward them:

Fuck em'.

The TfL let is as good as gold. I work for the company. All the office workers at TfL know that TfL Streets are moving to Palestra and TfL Corporate and the other divisions are moving into the bottom 10 floors of the Shard. It is posted all around the intranet.

I know you are worried Jef. But this scheme has two tenants and should make money. Hence, I expect it to be built.

Congrat. for getting the role at TfL, dom! btw I thought TfL was taking 7 floors (4-10),tbc(?).

Which one are you moving to Dom? Palestra or Shard?

Why is there such panic regarding whether LBT will be built? UNESCO is not a threat to LBT despite some press reports. LBT went through the full planning permission process, is popular, very well designed and works are due to start relatively soon. LBT does not threaten the heritage values of the Tower of London at all, or views of the Tower from the river, or the immediate surroundings/buffer zone of the Tower!

The reporting regarding cost sharing of the LBT project by the partners may be acrimonious, but no-one has an interest in a failed project which would profit no-one, least of all the financial stakeholders. This project is moving forward, finance and occupants are lined up and I look forward to seeing the demolition works start this year.

Got a bit to much for me at the time-your right. Not something you let go of easy like an exstention to your house or a garden shed:)

http://i14.tinypic.com/4i6hvkm.jpg

SOUTHWARK TOWERS 1974 - 2007

I've heard from a reliable source that it will be built.

Why does the poxy UN, and its numerous and uneccessary subsiduaries, always stick its fat, bloated nose where its not wanted or needed? Why not concentrate on trying to feed starving people and give them life saving drugs!!
Trust me, I've seen first hand the UN in a humanitarian crisis, and they are a joke, shipping in brand new $30,000 jeeps to cruise about in, staying in 5* hotels, and taking forever to implement projects.

TfL Streets, (2000 staff) are moving into Palestra in December 2007/January 2008. I work for TfL Streets, just started the Graduate Programme - fascinating work. I get to look at maps all day! Heaven!

Anyway, Streets are moving to Palestra and they are drawing up the flooring plans. TfL Corporate and other divisions are apparantly moving to the Shard in 2010/11 but we are keeping some of Windsor House. I imagine that is the case as Windsor House is very close to national government.

I truly believe this is just Halabi grandstanding - they squabbled before.

We all know on SSC that contracts have been signed with TfL's 'estate agents,' what are they called again... Drivers Jonas who secured them the building.

The leases on most of the buildings in Victoria expire around 2010/11 and there's no way that TfL will want to renegotiate them I think they got the leases for really cheap in the early 1990s when there was a property crash and there is no way a public sector body is going to pay £40-60 per sq ft when they can get it in Southwark for £30-45 slap bang right next to the GLA, LDA, London Climate Change Agency and all of the accountants in More London. Southwark is becoming THE location for London Government.

I don't know what all this fuss is about. The break fees that TfL and Drivers Jonas would charge would be huge to the consortium. Same with for Shangri La.

This has to be grandstanding by Halabi. I mean, things can change, but the moves to Palestra and the Shard are known by almost all office staff at TfL and lots of people are looking forward to the moves! Worry not - the LBT is more of a dead cert than pretty much any other tower in London unless there is a sustained series of terrorist attacks on high rise buildings in the UK.

Nobody today can say whether it will be built or not. This is because:

1. Halabi which owns a one third interest in the scheme wants to sell its stake. The price tag is estimated to be around 100 million pounds.

2. Halabi, Mortstedt and Sellar PG are preparing for a legal battle about the fees.

3. Unesco has required in its preliminary report to cancel the construction of the Shard.

As a consequence, the consortium has not yet indicated when they plan to start construction.

Well they better hurry up with (1) and (2) given (3) is playing in the background. They would not want to give TfL or Shangri-la a reason to pull out. Nobody could be so stupid to destroy a very profitable scheme because of partnership issues... so I remain hopeful.

The UN (with much regret) is unable to do anything of very much consequence...again, I would not worry too much.

They are stepping well outside their positive remit..maybe its because it fails elsewhere so ofeten and this appears to be a new easy target...its not.

I've got a feeling everyone's being way too pessimistic on this one. Everyone has gone through way too much to give this up easily. I would bet tfl and shangra la are being assured behind the scenes. Ken and the government will not be pushed around by the UN and the investors are grandstanding. I know it's tough but it's just a matter of hanging in there. I am worried about Bishopsgate becoming the sacrificial lamb to appease the UN though.....but I am keeping the faith on both projects.

I've got a feeling everyone's being way too pessimistic on this one. Everyone has gone through way too much to give this up easily. I would bet tfl and shangra la are being assured behind the scenes. Ken and the government will not be pushed around by the UN and the investors are grandstanding. I know it's tough but it's just a matter of hanging in there. I am worried about Bishopsgate becoming the sacrificial lamb to appease the UN though.....but I am keeping the faith on both projects.

There is so much London can do to appease the Unesco that none of these towers should become a victim. For instance, if the outcome is a CPO on Tower Thistle I believe most of us would be happy. Anyway, I really fail to understand why Unesco would have a problem with these skyscraper proposals. I know it is the word going around in the press, but when I browse through Unesco's reports, also on other sites, they always seem to be primarily concerned about developments in the close proximity of the world heritage sites. Skylines are only mentioned in the context of cathedrals, rightly so as they take away the soar, but it would be hard to argue the Tower falls into this category.

London SE1 > News

Shard consortium insists scheme is on track

Monday 15 January 2007 London SE1 website team

The consortium behind the planned Shard of Glass at London Bridge insists that it "remains committed" to the scheme despite reports of a dispute between the firms.

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/2522

There you have it. From the horses mouth itself!

Thanks AquaBlue

Very good news.

London SE1 > News

Shard consortium insists scheme is on track
Monday 15 January 2007 London SE1 website team
The consortium behind the planned Shard of Glass at London Bridge insists that it "remains committed" to the scheme despite reports of a dispute between the firms.
Would you mind just quoting a paragraph and giving a link to the original article, instead of pasting the whole thing?

yeah, always link to articles guys. they deserve the google ranking to go up and the extra hits :)

Fixed.

Much ado about nothing - this is what I think:

UNESCO are impotent.
The FT report has probably got a reporter a dressing-down from their editor.
The Shard has got some more publicity and will go ahead as planned.

It's irritating to get these wobbles. I am also not too worried about UNESCO. They often object to development near heritage sites but they never seem to get anywhere. It just seems too much of a stretch for them to be able to cancel LBT at this late stage. And under what authority? Legally it would be difficult or even impossible for Ruth Kelly to reverse Prescott's decisions so, short of an Act of Parliament, how can they revoke the LBT plans now? It's surely too late for that. And I think it's extremely unlikely that UNESCO would ever remove the Tower of London from their world heritage list over the construction of a tower so far away. The internal squabble is more worrying but will hopefully be resolved. Halabi made trouble before and with luck he is just playing hardball in the negotiations.

London SE1 > News

Shard consortium insists scheme is on track

Bad reporting. CLS and SPG remains committed. Not the consortium.
Read carefully the regulatory news. ;)

but its well known that halabi has been playing a different tune to CLS and SPG. frankly im not surprised, just look at his previous busines rep. if he fouled it up theyd both sue him for loss of earnings and at the same time he'd lose all those profits. the guy is just playing a simple business game that many people play - its called hardball. you adopt an extreme position for negotiations and then move towards the centre between yourself and your opponent.
my guess is the FT reporter was a bit of a mug and badly briefed by a PR, probably deliberately. it happens all the time, the media runs things without being critical of them accepting what they are told as fact. a classic example was the saddam execution where none of the media twigged that it was propaganda until the real phone footage came out unedited. if the press cannot detect bullshit from a distance of 6 feet then they arent doing their job properly and most of the whispers against LBT are bullshit.

Gothic is bang on. I'd be amazed if this tower isn't built for the reasons I posted before. Isn't it obvious - our pathetic press is just making a story out of nothing. Face it Daily Mail scum and Evening Standard - this tower IS happening! And there is nothing you can do about it. UNESCO can get stuffed... they might end up truncating skyscrapers that are proposed in the future in the City of London but, for the reasons Monkey stated Bishopsgate, Heron et al are safe - they are through the planning process legally.

There is no way that this New Labour gov't will put a bill through parliament to reject them! There, are, to be honest, far more pressing issues!

Mira Bar Hillel can go to hell :)

I would not say that a project that still needs around
100 million of fundings will be built. But maybe I am
just biased because I am banker and as you know bankers
have a prudent bias. In any cases, it is good to share opinions on this. Especially as we have different professional backgrounds

agreed jef :) i deal with guys in work sometimes and youre always the prudent ones!

I would not say that a project that still needs around
100 million of fundings will be built. But maybe I am
just biased because I am banker and as you know bankers
have a prudent bias. In any cases, it is good to share opinions on this. Especially as we have different professional backgrounds

I agree completely for caution and not jumping the gun - but at this late stage surely the only reasons that could stop it would be financial - and at that they would have to unforeseen ones otherwise all parties involved will jump through hoops to make sure it happens to avoid being sued/fined/in loss of potential profits. It would have to be a very unfortunate set of circumstaces and I'm pretty sure that UNESCO could have nothing to do with that if it happens. (touch wood).

[EMAIL="http://i18.tinypic.com/2gy5186.jpg"]http://i18.tinypic.com/2gy5186.jpg[/EMAIL


This is more about buildings in the city of London but you may want to read it
FROM TODAYS LONDON EVENING STANDARD

ABC News:

UNESCO Says Tower of London Threatened
United Nations' World Heritage Center Says Tower of London Threatened by Skyscrapers

LONDON Jan 8, 2007 (AP)— The 900-year-old Tower of London, one of Britain's top tourist attractions, will be added to the list of endangered world heritage sites unless the threat from encroaching skyscrapers is resolved, the U.N.'s cultural body said Monday.

Local planners had not done enough to ensure that views of and from the fortress would not be obstructed by surrounding development, including a 1,016-foot building known as the "Shard of Glass" that would be Britain's tallest when completed in 2010, according to a UNESCO interim report.

"It's a question of visual integrity and that's a problem in all major cities," World Heritage Center spokeswoman Gina Doubleday said.

Although being listed as an endangered heritage site can help secure additional funding and support, citing the Tower would be an embarrassment for Britain. The only site in the developed world currently listed as endangered is Everglades National Park in Florida, which made the list in 1993.

But the government's Department of Culture, Media, and Sport dismissed the concerns, saying it was confident the Tower would not be placed on the list.

"In this country, we have a development control commission that demands very extensive consultations on public matters," department spokesman Toby Sargent said. "In the developments they've had their attention drawn to, the role of the Tower and its place was properly taken into consideration."

The department would be submitting its own report to UNESCO detailing the efforts made to protect the fortress's turreted skyline, he said.

The Tower, built by William the Conqueror in the 11th century, was made a World Heritage site in 1988, one of 830 such sites throughout the world

someone is trying very hard to stop london developing, any guesses who this is really down to, or what 'other' groups may be involved? this amount of coverage on the issue is leading me to paranoia now! its like london is almost a lost cause, after following many of these towers for a decade, im giving up hope that london will ever change. its sad when you see everywhere else in the world they just bloody well get on with it.

I honestly think this is the biggest threat to skyscrapers in the City we have ever seen.

Now this has all kicked off, I doubt any developer will propose a further tower in the square mile, and you can say goodbye to all the ones we've been discussing at Bishopsgate Goodsyard.

There is simply no way the Government or the Mayor or London's planning commitee can just brush this under the carpet. To have the Tower placed on the endangered list, especially for a city about to embark on an Olympic Games, is probably the ultimate humiliation in terms of looking after its historical architecture. There is no way Ken would stand a chance of being re-elected if he put two fingers up at UNESCO, and the fall out if he did would probably cause ructions around the world and within the IOC that London isn't capable of playing to the rules.

It's stalemate I'm afraid. We can't ignore UNESCO.

That's actually qute a good article by Rowan Moore.

If the UN judge the tower's setting by a similar criteria as he has (the view from the south) then Minerva (and maybe Broadgate Tower) was the only guilty party and Fenchurch St, the Shard and the rest don't have a case to answer.

The only view that LBT infringes on the tower is from outside the Royal Mint. I believe this was considered at the public inquiry and the viewing point itself was deemed not important enough to stop the development.

bringing LBT into any arguement about the 'setting' of the Tower of London is absurd full stop. Whoever is making the connection, bad journalism or from some office at UNESCO (EH did hate this building afterall so it would suprise me if they slipped the name into some document and passed on just to get people connecting the two) is stupid as surely their arguement will lose all credibility. People will just ignore their perhaps more valid points, the semi ring road for example and the grass moat. It does seem suspicious to me that EH were the first to use the 'view from a courtyard' arguement against LBT and now journalists and perhaps UNESCO have cottoned onto it. It maybe journalists just doing some research and digging up EHs old arguement.... talk about voices from the dead!

They can't overture the aproved projects so more than half will still go ahead-shard being one of them. Unesco are not going to stop London being a great city in the future as we have some great lowrise projects and Canary Wharf/Docklands.

I have just read the report of Unesco (" " stands for citation)

- Unesco requests to cancel the construction of the following towers:
1. "Bishopsgate Tower",
2. "Shard of Glass Tower"
3. "20 Fenchurch Street".

Neither the Leadenhall Building nor the Heron Tower are mentioned.

Motivation:
"regardless of the high quality of the design, the new architecture constitutes an alteration of the historic urban landscape of the World Heritage site".

"The planning approvals are not in line with policies within the agreed London Plan."

"If built, these buildings could confuse what remains of the Tower's silhouette".

Unesco also requests London to revise planning policies in order to prevent any new high-rise developments that could impact on the Tower of London property and its setting. They also deeply regret the construction of "The Gherkin".

[Sorry, please ignore]

We all know our opinion on this so it's not even a debate...........the question is what will happen now. The Shard will be built - "In this country, we have a development control commission that demands very extensive consultations on public matters," department spokesman Toby Sargent said. "In the developments they've had their attention drawn to, the role of the Tower and its place was properly taken into consideration."
That really says it all..........don't panic people!!!

UNESCO can shout and flail its arms around like a madman and say 'cancel this, cancel that!' but I bet you UNESCO will not reimburse the developers and tenants for development costs and loss of revenue that was supposed to be achieved by the tenants in the cancelled building's lifespan (30-40yrs) All talk no action.

*cries*

So Jef, if what you are saying is correct...that's the prrof that this isn't just a media hoo-haa. And they've actually named the Shard and Bishopsgate.

I refused to let this get to me, I ignored it thinking it wasn't actually genuine.

Well...we know what we have to do. Lets demolish the Tower of London! :)

right here's a question for you guys so i can get to the bottom of this EH/UNESCO conspiracy theory. are EH covered by the freedom of information act? they are the statutory heritage body thanks to the act of parliament in 1983 so id be correct in thinking this.

secondly if the view from the south of the tower is threatened then why does a building behind the viewer get affected? there have always been tall buildings around the tower of london. one of the originals, ten trinity square was done in 1922 and another, ibex house in 1937. these are two of the oldest tall office buildings in the city of london.

how does the tower of london have a silohette and how can it be confused. its surrounded by bloody trees!

the bishopsgate tower ... this is the offending view for unesco of the building. how can they even include the bishopsgate tower?

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/468320FenchurchStreet_pic5.jpg

the sensitive views of the tower are all looking from immediate west to east. the ONLY building that interupts this view is tower bridge. everything else, even the thistle hotel is below the treeline and not visible.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/3810TheWhiteTower_pic3.jpg

removing the third tree on the left will do more for this view than anything else

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/3810TheWhiteTower_pic2.jpg

EH is indeed numerously referred to in the Unesco report. This is what Potto first suspected and he is was absolutely right.

The point of Unesco is that they do not oppose new modern office blocks as long as they are low-rise (they do not object to More London, etc). At the opposite they do object to high-rises regardless of their architectural quality.

Gothic, Unesco does not explicitly mention specific views as the ES did, they instead refer to "the setting" of the Tower of London. This is a far broader concept. Last point: Unesco request to change planning laws to prevent new high-rises developments that could impact on the setting of the ToL.

Next meeting is due 1 February.

right here's a question for you guys so i can get to the bottom of this EH/UNESCO conspiracy theory. are EH covered by the freedom of information act? they are the statutory heritage body thanks to the act of parliament in 1983 so id be correct in thinking this.




http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1686
Freedom of Information
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires all public authorities to make information available proactively by virtue of the Publication Scheme. The Publication Schemes give details of the classes of information that English Heritage makes available proactively and how they are accessible.

Where is the consistency- They are opposed to LBT & Bishopsgate yet don't seem to mention 122LH & Heron. They are quite happy to see modern low rise blocks but how does this differ from the high rise buildings- Plantation house & buildings of similar height, although not high rise still effect the setting just as much taller buildings would & would be same in much the same views. How does adding a few more buildings to the setting make it any worse than it is today. The tower of London has been surrounded by modern buildings since the end of WWII. How is it any different now. In the 50's & 60's you probably couldn't even see the tower from the river as it would have been full of ships carrying goods to the busy Pool of London.

The views Goth has posted will never be compromised- From the south from which most get a view of the ToL it wont be compromised unless they start blocking the view by building in the river or mooring a bloody great big ship in front of it. From the view looking East as the picture shows nothing will compromise this view as nothing tall is planned & wouldn't be allowed anyway. The view from the West & part of the north however has been compromised by modern developments for at least 20 years so to say adding a couple of tall buildings now will effect the setting yet 20 odd years of development hasn't is rather strange. I would suggest building a more compact tall cluster actually enhances the setting of the Tol as it shows when viewed from say tower bridge looking left there's the Tol in the foreground with the modern 21st century global financial centre in the background rather than ragged tooth skyline that is there presently.

Surely 'the setting' is effected more by the very busy road that passes around it.I recall plans years ago about creating an underpass & grassing over the road so there was a pedestrianised setting from tower hill station to the tower. Nothing came of it

Also the only view LBT can possibly be in with the ToL in the same shot is when viewed from the north of the Tol near tower hill- Most of the city can be seen in that view already. The hidden agenda again looks like EH getting UNESCO to do their dirty work- They seem to have chosen the 2 tallest buildings proposed in London- If EH can get these cancelled these 2 towers will no longer be seen from other contested views from numerous bridges & royal parks which EH have also mentioned before.

Jef- How did you get hold of the UNESCO report & do you know if it has been released into the public domain?

right i will make a FOA request to see what sort of shit EH have been telling UNESCO. this should answer everything. im sure they've been more than a little selective with the truth, we know what these guys are like from their past reputation.

right i will make a FOA request to see what sort of shit EH have been telling UNESCO. this should answer everything. im sure they've been more than a little selective with the truth, we know what these guys are like from their past reputation.

Go for it Goth - seeing as you know a lot about the scene do you think you maybe able to find any crony links between the two institutions aswell? As in reporters married to diplomats etc? That would further undermine their position and show motive AND opportunity. You should be able to piece together meetings aswell from newspaper reports to work out when it may have been proposed.

The UNESCO postition has been BS from the start and if you can show the world (i.e. ABC news, the Government etc) that they have been taken for a ride they will react very badly to EH.

Well...we know what we have to do. Lets demolish the Tower of London! :)

Where do you suggest banging up the people behind this then?

I love the fact they regret the construction of the Gherkin, yet fail to mention anything about the construction of Tower 42.

I want desperately UNESCO to be told they can't interfere, but as I've stated they are too big an organisation and too important for London to ignore.

There will be discussion and compromise, and I can easily see UNESCO allowing construction for the Shard in return for 20 Fenchurch Street and Bishosgate cancelled. I expect in the aftermath there will be a change to the City's planning legislation making it even more difficult to build towers in the central core and around the City fringe.

dark days 'scraper fans.

We can't let LBT - the best 'scraper in British history - slip through our fingers. Never!

They complained about construction in Riga's old town once. They also intervened against high rise buildings near Cologne Cathedral.

The thing is, I don't think the public will do something like that here. If anything, they're now more supportive towards skyscrapers than ever after seeing the effect 30 St Mary's Axe has had in giving a new identity to London outside castles and palaces. Once again UNESCO is out of touch with the general public and pandering to a vocal but small minority

I think the majority of average Londoners would support the cancelling of skyscrapers and banning of tall buildings around the Tower rather than it be placed on the endangered list to be honest.

They may like the Gherkin, but I doubt they would appreciate the new ones knowing UNESCO have complained about them.

The Shard is pretty popular on the SE1 website, and 70% of local residents support it.

yeah i find that few people oppose the shard or bishopsgate tower. the divisive one is 20 fenchurch street which splits everyone into love it/hate it. its funny how the negative press is featured on this site but not the positive press. i mean, did anyone see an interview with me in the new york times???
there is a vast amount of positive press with journalists all over the planet waxing lyrically about the gherkin, cheesegrater, walkie-talkie and helter-skelter. people here shouldnt be so negative. most people dont care about skyscrapers per se... they just know a cool design when they see it. the gherkin is one and the cheesegrater, shard and helter-skelter are clearly in the same vein.
the unesco opposition to these buildings is the last stand of the heritage lobby because if these buildings do get built it will show in no uncertain terms the heritage lobby's arguments against tall buildings in the city is the emporers new clothes.

I think the majority of average Londoners would support the cancelling of skyscrapers and banning of tall buildings around the Tower rather than it be placed on the endangered list to be honest.

They may like the Gherkin, but I doubt they would appreciate the new ones knowing UNESCO have complained about them.


I think Dans right most of the public is indifferent to tall buildings in the city & the ones who like the gherkin probably fall into this catergory. The vocal minorty who are anti-skyscrapers will however jump on this & milk it for all its worth.

I honestly think this is the biggest threat to skyscrapers in the City we have ever seen.

Now this has all kicked off, I doubt any developer will propose a further tower in the square mile, and you can say goodbye to all the ones we've been discussing at Bishopsgate Goodsyard.

There is simply no way the Government or the Mayor or London's planning commitee can just brush this under the carpet. To have the Tower placed on the endangered list, especially for a city about to embark on an Olympic Games, is probably the ultimate humiliation in terms of looking after its historical architecture. There is no way Ken would stand a chance of being re-elected if he put two fingers up at UNESCO, and the fall out if he did would probably cause ructions around the world and within the IOC that London isn't capable of playing to the rules.

It's stalemate I'm afraid. We can't ignore UNESCO.I think the majority of average Londoners would support the cancelling of skyscrapers and banning of tall buildings around the Tower rather than it be placed on the endangered list to be honest.

They may like the Gherkin, but I doubt they would appreciate the new ones knowing UNESCO have complained about them.This is just shrill and OTT. You always attach far too much importance to the Olympics. If you were to be believed the Olympics will make hotels viable, high rise developments viable, and will also dictate whether LBT gets built or not. The Olympics are a two week sporting festival for chrissakes. No new hotels or residential developments anywhere aside from the Olympic site itself will be made viable by the Olympics. People will not pay hundreds of £thousands more to get some half view of the stadium, and hotels costing £millions to construct, will not suddenly become viable simply because of two weeks of solid bookings. Indeed if Athens' experiences are anything to go by London may even recieve fewer vistors during the Olympics as tourists stay away from all the disruption. UNESCO listing the Tower as endangered will not be a "humilation" for London nor will it cause "ructions around the world". We're talking about articles on the inside pages of a London evening newspaper suffering from declining circulation. The IOC aren't going to give a damn either way. They didn't select London because of the Tower in the first place. If they were concerned about heritage being destroyed (hardly the case here with the Tower....) then they would have been a lot more concerned about Beijing 2008 than London 2012.

Is this bloody thing ever going to get built? I've been reading about it now for about 6 years quite frankly the length of time this is taking is pathetic.

Well I totally disagree. To the average person the headline that the Tower Of London is being placed on an endangered list sounds to me like London is incapable of looking after its heritage. I know it doesn't, and I know this is all fluff, but ask the average British citizen who reads the tabloids and they would say it's just another British embarrassment.

People don't like the skyscrapers behind the Tower. I do, and I would say a lot of people appreciate the modern juxtaposed with the old that London does so well. But walk along the South Bank, especiallly outside City Hall, and listen in. So, so many people compliment the old buildings, and then ask why they built so much rubbish and 'that giant egg' behind them. A lot of tourists and lot of people can't grasp the concept of modern and old, and simply see it as a mess of buildings. I've heard them, I've even argued with them. So I can perfectly see UNESCO's point, however much I disagree with them. And for a lot of people, they would rather these new buildings not built or demolished rather than the Tower, a very important piece of our heritage, placed on an endangered list, which would be a real humiliation in terms of London looking after its heritage. What kind of message does that send to the world? "London 'destroying' its heritage" "London unable to play by world respected rules" "London would rather build office blocks than look after its tourist history". These aren't good remarks for potential tourists nor cultural organisations looking at London, especially in the run up to an Olympics which is trying to organise sponsorship deals and bring the world to London to celebrate it.

And the Olympics is not simply two weeks of sport. It's the chance for one city to be seen by billions of people round the world and for it to make an impact in terms of it's Olympic Games, it's culture and the city itself. That's why projects that have nothing to do with the Olympic Park need to get off the ground to be finished to reap the benefits of this 'showcase' of the city. Athens saw new parkways, new pedestrian links and transport as extra projects not involving the Olympics, Barcelona saw the whole city completely rejuvinated for a new generation.

It's this reason I want the Shard and Bishopsgate finished for the Games, and not some half finished core with a crane straddling the skyline as the cameras pan across London's opening ceremony and onto the skyline in the distance. At the rate we're going, the cameras won't want to look over the Olympic Park to record a skyline of half finished stubs of buildings filled with cranes.

I think Darjole is correct: "There will be discussion and compromise, and I can easily see UNESCO allowing construction for the Shard in return for 20 Fenchurch Street and Bishosgate cancelled." It's going to come down to political bargaining, the shard will go ahead (too far along), Fenchurch will be blocked, the question is Bishopsgate. Ken will not give in without a fight on this one. The arguement against Bishopgate is very weak. We need to write emails of support to the mayors office. The mayor needs all of our positive comments at the moment, we need to stress the limited impact to the skyline from the tower (as shown by Gothic) and the fact that this and the Shard have already gone through one of the most stringent planning processes. We'll worry about the future once these two towers are up.

The fact they aren't against 122 Leadenhall, which obscures Bishopsgate from the view of the tower, is another plus point in its favour.

That's if 122 Leadenhall is built, now this has all happened and British Land still haven't given a 100% water tight official yes to its construction.