I've never really bought into the "seeing buildings from Hyde Park is bad" line of thinking, myself. I don't know any Londoner who goes to Hyde Park to pretend they've escaped the city: if you want to pretend you're in the country you go to Richmond Park, Epping Forest or Hampstead Heath. If you want a beautiful park in zone 1/2 you go to St James, Regent's, Battersea ot Victoria. (More likely, when you want to go to the park, you go to your local one in zone 17 where you've been forced out due to ridiculous rents but that's another story.)
Hyde Park is neither remotely convincingly rural nor particularly beautiful, regardless of what is or isnt visible on the horizon; as far as I can tell, it's there for Rod Stewart concerts and commercialised Christmas theme parks. And tourists, of course, who definitely don't want to pretend they're not in London, since they've paid through to the nose precisely to come to London. For them, seeing a bit of the city skyline would surely add to the London-ness of this urban park.
Obviously a ridiculously subjective and biased post but hey, I get weary of hearing politicians etc cry about the impact on the magical country retreat of Hyde Park, if it's so magically peaceful and pastoral then how about you tell Rod Stewart and ilk to gig somewhere else...