It's as if the Mayor's been schmoozed

He came to power proclaiming that, although he had nothing against tall buildings, they should be in appropriate locations, such as the City, Canary Wharf and Croydon. There was no mention then of Waterloo.  

He has also stated his opposition to two towers in Blackfriars Road, on the grounds they would impinge on historic views, in this case from St James's Park.

The Three Sisters, being bulkier and closer, would have a much greater impact on the Palace of Westminster, yet this is now dismissed as a "kinetic" view, which "will vary from different viewpoints". 

It looks very much as if the Mayor has been efficiently schmoozed by the property business, and fed the argument that allowing developments like this is essential to London's future prosperity.

This is as specious as banks' arguments against regulation: there is ample scope to increase the density and quantity of commercial space without building towers.  

Tall buildings, being more difficult and expensive to build, also have a way of hanging about for years before they are realised, which helps nobody.  

It might also be that officials have told him that he can't reverse Ken Livingstone's London Plan overnight, and has to stand by the Plan's support for higher buildings near railway stations. If so, they are wrong. The Plan identifies "important views" where greater care should be taken in designing buildings. The Three Sisters sit in one of these views and could be opposed on those grounds.  

If these lumpen and intrusive objects are waved through by the Mayor, his policy on the London skyline will be almost identical to his predecessor's.