Reader views (12)

 Add your view

'The trouble with this is skyscrapers can never be beautiful pieces of architecture. They are all ugly dangerous brutes on the face of cities across the world.' I've never heard such a stupid piece of generalisation, have you ever been to Hong Kong?!

Then you go on to contradict yourself by saying that people go to New York to see the skyscrapers..

'London had a beautiful skyline once, now it is being swamped by ever taller blocks. Buildings in London should be no taller than St Pauls or Big Ben.' Seriously, what planet are you actually on? London, along with New York, is the capital of world finance, not to mention home to 8 million people or so!
Maybe you should move to a quaint little village somewhere in the home counties with the tallest thing being the church spire and then maybe you'll be happy, however I get the impression that people like you are never happy. Deary me

- Jono, London

I would not wish to live or work in a building over 10 storeys high. If it isn't yet considered to be a health and safety risk then it should be. Why haven't the EU got their teeth into legislating on this yet? Isn't it time the architects and planners gave serious consideration as to how people would escape quickly in an emergency? I suppose a few lives lost in a disaster is worthwhile as long as those who design, build and run it make enough money from it isn't it? London makes me think of intricate, historical buildings that were built with care and attention to detail where the love (I believe that those who built our fantastic old London buildings loved what they were doing) shines through year upon year. Buildings that really are (and still are after hundreds of years)worthy of study and appreciation. That's one of the reasons that so many people visit London right? Real craftmanship is no more; mostly I guess because it costs too much. That sums up quite a lot in this day and age really. The type of buildings being proposed and built now are the same as we are seeing all over the world. In a few years time, why will people want to come to London when they can see much of the same anywhere else?

- Kiren, Essex. GB

Such a development wouldn't happen in Venice, even Milan. Why does London have to be ruined in the name of 'progress'?

Mark, Milan, Italy

That's like saying such a development wouldn't happen in Canterbury, even Wolverhampton?! London is a major capital city, it should have iconic buildings even if they are taller that St.Pauls (get out of the dark ages, Frankie). As for mentioning Milan, I've been there and it's mostly an ugly, industrial place with hardly any charm (apart from the Duomo) so a large iconic building might be good for it!

- Colin, London

These buildings will not ruin anything. Most people won't even pay any attention to them once they are built.

- Steve Green, London

W R Stevenson - Dont you mean Boris Johnson as Ken Livingston does not live here anymore! Nor in fact does John Prescott!!

As for spoiling views no one says what view is being spoilled as these buildings are at Waterloo is it the view from Lewisham or Croydon being spoilled?

Anyway London has a wibbly wobbly river and so views change all the time and these buildings are not being built at Westminster.

As for talk of limits to building heights London is a world city not a country village and its big very big and its buildings should reflect that.

Without the towers all you have is empty blue sky which is I suppose all the Tory Party has to offer!

- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex

Such a development wouldn't happen in Venice, even Milan. Why does London have to be ruined in the name of 'progress'?

- Mark, Milan, Italy

Such a development wouldn't happen in Venice, even Milan. Why does London have to be ruined in the name of 'progress'?

- Mark, Milan, Italy

EH said “that the proposals could ruin the setting of the place of Westminster...” aren’t EH a bit late or do they not consider the busy roads or the views up Victoria street in the same way...of course not, these are in ‘Westminster’ and EH mat as well be Westminster council....sour grapes as P&O’s QC put it...

- Ade, London

Darren, London "Better, more beautiful pieces of architecture are surely what is paramount in deciding planning permission".

The trouble with this is skyscrapers can never be beautiful pieces of architecture. They are all ugly dangerous brutes on the face of cities across the world. The Gherkin and City skyscrapers have ruined St Pauls and Canary Wharf is no better than the blocks of New York. London had a beautiful skyline once, now it is being swamped by ever taller blocks. Buildings in London should be no taller than St Pauls or Big Ben. These are icons of London that everyone from around the world come to see, they go to New York to see skyscrapers.

- Frankie, London

The height of these towers is not what will ruin the setting of the Palace of Westminster, it is the fact they are badly designed pieces of architecture. We have fantastic skyscrapers proposed for London such as the Shard and the Leadenhall Tower, and we already have the iconic Gherkin, yet these triplets add nothing to the skyline in terms of their presence. Better, more beautiful pieces of architecture are surely what is paramount in deciding planning permission, not the fact they are a certain height or appear behind other buildings.

- Darren, London

The more floors per plot the more money the developers can make. Easy-peasy. A planning ban on anything over 20 floors/60 metres would let everyone know where they stand right from the start. To overcome such restrictions would require special approval. That approval would require more than the personal whim of John Prescott or Ken Livingstone.

- W R Stevenson, London SE26

as in P&O the ship-builder? Throw their plans out the window straight away!

- Marianne, SW France

Add your comment