The Shard, London Bridge: Viewing Gallery revealed


The developers of the Shard - the 310m skyscraper at London Bridge Station - have released an image showing the triple-deck viewing gallery, which will be open to the public.

Piling work on the foundations of the tower is currently underway. The building will be complete by 2011. The project includes the rennovation of part of London Bridge Station and the creation of a new bus interchange.

56 comments:

Hugh said...

I hear Blondie again.

To be fair the Shard looks ace.

Richard Elliot said...

I have to agree with Hugh(!) it does look amazing.

Do you think they will be genuinely public viewing galaries or extortionately priced bars and restaurants?

max said...

On the contrary, all will be free, except the lift of course.

Tamsin said...

Maybe, but it's a pity it blocks the view I was hoping to regain sometime of St. Pauls when the Guy's Tower comes to the end of its useful life.

Also concerned that like the Canary Wharf first block it will look very unbalanced until it acquires companions of a similar size.

Anonymous said...

Nonsense. It looks magnificent.

Tamsin said...

Yes, it might be OK because it is such an innovative shape and concept, but don't you remember how ugly the HSBC building looked until the others were bult around it - like someting out of duplo in with a whole lot of lego.

Hugh said...

The HSBC building is the finest thing at Canary Wharf by a mile.

Tamsin said...

Yes, its roof shape is certainly better and more interesting than the others and it is wonderful the way the light sometimes plays off it, but I do contend that until the surrounding buildings were built it did look terribly out of scale and was a definite blot on the cityscape. Now the whole grouping is OK.

Hugh said...

What roof shape? The top is flat, isn't it?

Tyrwhitt Michael said...

We are talking at cross purposes here.

The original tower which is in multiple occupancy is One Canada Square. It has a pyramid shaped roof although this is actually louvres enclosing plant. You can see this steaming on a cold winter's day.

The HSBC tower was part of the second phase of building on the Estate and is designated 8 Canada Square and it does indeed have a flat roof.

The latest proposals for Guy's Hospital is to reclad it not redevelop it.

Tamsin said...

True - I was getting my towers in a twist!

Anonymous said...

I much prefer 1 Canada Square (i.e. THE canary wharf building) - for such a simple design I think you'd be able to recognise it as a silhouette.

Mind you I think the three largest towers could be seen as a sight in their own right.

Anonymous said...

My son, when he was much younger, was fascinated by tall buildings, building sites, cranes etc.

He grew out of it.

Wren Hater said...

Guy's tower is an abomination - in needs to be torn down.

Mind you so does St Paul's. The most over-rated church in history, and that's saying something.

The Noddy Badge Adjudicator said...

well, I think that secures you the prize for the most interesting post of the day anon 14:29

Tamsin said...

No - it's a "pune" or play on words.

Ho ho.

Anonymous said...

For those mystified by the use of the word 'pune':


pune:

short for pun-tang, often used interchangeably with tang. use in place of pussy, slang for female genitalia

George said...

Pune is a city in India. I is living there 4 year before I get transfer to Mumbai to work in BT call centre

Anonymous said...

that as well - I used the other meaning for effect...

George said...

Sorry, I learn new Engrish word today so thanking you.

I try Puntang with BT customer to get broadband sign up. She get very mad and now I going back to Pune.

Headhunter said...

George - Is your character Chinese or Indian?!

Anonymous said...

or Catford?

fred vest said...

"use in place of pussy"

for those lonely nights?

Anonymous said...

"I was just cleaning it, and it went off by accident."

fred vest said...

"i fell on it, honestly"

Anonymous said...

I often think that tamsin takes a negative and puritanical view of all new developments. In this case she is complaining that she will miss a view that currently does not exist. Still, as long as she is happy complaining about life, I am happy to read about it

Tamsin said...

Glad to keep you amused - and that part of my posting was not entirely serious. I also acknowledged that the Shard is possibly special enough not to look out of proportion.
A more worrying disproportionate building closer to home is the massive residential tower block that Sainsbury's are having to build on the New Cross Gate site to make up for buying the land at a vastly over-inflated price.

welcome to 2009 said...

Disproportionate to what tamsin? The massive sainsbury? There's nothing else there - it's all going to be rebuilt.

Tamsin said...

Well the store is staying - with a smaller amount of parking - and the rest is being re-built (after a bare 20 years - what does that say about modern developments?) at, thankfully, a fairly low level. Except for a huge residential block which is admittedly set back a bit from the road but is still regrettable.

welcome to 2009 said...

Why is it regrettable?

Anonymous said...

It's regrettable because you can rest assured that it will be an ugly building and an ugly building anywhere is regrettable.

Tamsin said...

Because it is so big and chunky and because it does not have any parking for the residents. Agreed that Londoners should be discouraged from having cars but many, even students or young dinkys, still regard them as a necessity and so those in adjacent residential streets are worried about the overspill. And that the council will then take the opportunity to press again for a CPZ.

Headhunter said...

I have to agree with you there Tamsin, that this trend for developers not to provide parking under the guise that they are somehow being environmentally aware is regrettable.

Inevitably the lack of parking will just mean people with cars will clog up local streets rather than get rid of their vehicles. It's the same for the development that got the go ahead on Geoffrey Rd at the end of Manor Ave (the developer doesn't seem to have made any start on it yet though), they got planning permission despite the fact that the whole building has a tiny number of parking spaces which basically means that residents of the new building will just street park along Manor Ave and Geoffrey Rd, 2 roads which are already clogged to death with parked cars. The fact that there is currently no control on parking in Telegraph Hill or Brockley will mean that anyone with a car looking to buy in these developments will not be put off by the lack of dedicated parking.

The cynical side of me wonders if the council approves residential developments like these simply so that they can later push through CPZ, which of course brings in it large revenues.

Brockley Nick said...

Anon 14:29, in a time where we will need engineers to help us meet the challenges of a world where resources are ever-more-scarce and in a country with a well-documented shortage of engineers, it's a shame you seem so pleased your son lost interest in building.

I'd be as sad to say my son lost interest in how things get built as I would to say he'd grown out of reading books.

Anonymous said...

It was a statement of fact, but it's OK, he's a Doctor now.

patrick1971 said...

The solution is to keep building developments without car parking spaces, make these new buildings ineligible for parking permits and introduce CPZs. Restrict existing CPZs to one per household. Job done.

patrick1971 said...

I meant "reduce existing parking permit schemes to one per household".

patrick1971 said...

And to all those who moan about CPZs being a money-raising scheme: GOOD. You SHOULD pay through the nose for having a car in a city like London. It's virtually anti-social behaviour in my opinion.

As for all the "oh but I need it to go shopping", etc., either join a car club or organise delivery.

The above doesn't apply to the disabled and infirm, obviously.

Anonymous said...

A car is an important part of the dogging experience patrick - and it doesn't discriminate against disabled people either.

Many are the nights I've had my 3-wheeled disability car rocking...

F9 said...

Visions of a raspberry ripple in a Robin Reliant spring to mind.

Headhunter said...

I guess you're right Patrick, I haven't got a car so it doesn't really affect me either way...

patrick1971 said...

I had forgotten about the doggers! ("Won't somebody please think of the doggers?")

Ian said...

Oh what joy this will be for all my fellow acrophobics. I can't use half the bloody 'trendy' railway stations as it is.

Hugh said...

What is an acrophobic? Someone who fears trapezes?

Anonymous said...

jfgi

Anonymous said...

on car parking - a few weeks back i led a fairly interesting public consultation for a football related property project. Best comment of the week?
"match days round here are terrible, the streets are just clogged. I mean, we've got three cars and there's just *nowhere* to park them".

I resisted gnashing my teeth too loudly...

oh and p.s it's not often the developer who sets the car parking/space numbers in new builds; it's normally a planning condition laid out by el council.

A said...

What are the Shard's environmental credentials, out of interest? Does anyone know?

Hugh said...

I believe the interior will contain notices asking people not to leave lights on.

Brockley Nick said...

@A Very good - compact, uses a lot of steel (rather than energy-greedy cement), situated on a public transport interchange, lots of nifty features:

http://bit.ly/CxJv8

Headhunter said...

I betcha once it's built it'll be illuminated like a Christmas tree 24/7. I don't think anyone in commercial or office buildings ever turns a light off....

The Cat Man said...

You dont need to nowadays - I work at More London Place, a pretty new development - if you remain stationary for something like 2 minutes the lights turn off.

Can be quite frustrating actually as the sensors do not always detect you franticalloy waving your arms in the air.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the sensors are ignoring you on purpose

F9 said...

Sensors are clever these days; the only development missing is the ability to shoot bolts of lightening at the ones franticalloy waving at them.

DAVID said...

Yes it is a wonderful looking building my only fear is as with all skyscrapers what will happen if it should catch fire.

Tamsin said...

Interesting thread to pull up from the archive. I think that ever since Towering Inferno damage limitation in the event of fire is engineered into such buildings. (And even in that fictional episode it was deliberate departure from the engineering specs that caused the problems.)

Tamsin said...

Feel a bit hard done by as a South Londoner. The papers promised a spectacular light show on the building at 10pm last night as part of the grand opening.

There were slowly changing configurations of the white light on on the windows, but in no discernible pattern. However something was obviously happening to be viewed from the north as one could see bits of coloured light from time to time spilling round the sides.

Brockley Central Label Cloud