# Why doesn't London have many skyscrapers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 2, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690 "2004-12-02T14:21:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/41 "2004-12-03T09:41:05Z")
> [@Ignatz](#): > > /hijack to your response/ Being a streetnamebuff, can you or another (?) Brit (Gorilla Man?) please explain the history of the name, St. Mary AXE, assuming that’s the street name. That was a hefty Google challenge, but I got there! Logically 😉 it comes from a church dedicated to St Andrew … > [@](#): > > _REMARKS ON LONDON, being an Exact Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, Borough of Southwark. By W. Stow., London, 1722._ > > St. Andrew Undershaft … is also called St. Mary Axe, or Nax, because of the Sign of an Axe which did hang over against the end thereof; and under this Appellation it’s dedicated to the Honour of the Virgin Mary, as is the other to the Apostle St. Andrew. [http://www.londonancestor.com/stow/stow-church-10.htm](http://www.londonancestor.com/stow/stow-church-10.htm) ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/42 "2004-12-03T09:42:38Z")
Oh, and here’s the church: [http://www.cityoflondonchurches.com/standrewundershaft.htm](http://www.cityoflondonchurches.com/standrewundershaft.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Ice\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@Ice\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ice_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/43 "2004-12-03T09:45:32Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > …or [New Zealand House](http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/immigration/nzhouse.htm), say (Note to Kiwis: you have one of the most beautiful countries in the world, so why in God’s name did you visit this monstrosity on central London?). Well, it was [designed by a British architect](http://www.listener.co.nz/default,2894.sm) in 1951, and much of the design was influenced by the London Council of the time, and the imperative that no building should “block the royal views”. If there’s a problem with New Zealand House’s design, it’s due to where it’s located. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/44 "2004-12-03T10:14:38Z")
> [@gouda](#): > > Frankfurt is the only major western european city I can think of which has a bunch of tall buildings in the city centre. Yeah, I can’t really think of any other European city with skyscrapers in the city centre other than Frankfurt, either. It’s by far the most American-looking skyline of any European city I’ve visited. Looks quite out of place on the continent, really. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/45 "2004-12-03T10:22:03Z")
Yep, Frankfurt, Moscow and the docklands development in London dominate [this list](http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/tp/ct/?id=100001). ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/46 "2004-12-03T10:43:43Z")
> [@ccwaterback](#): > > John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, approved the Shard of Glass development scheme following an earlier public enquiry. The proposed development, located at Tooley Street, London, SE1, is proposed for a site immediately adjacent to London Bridge Station. > > The proposed scheme would comprise new retail, office, hotel and residential accommodation, and amount to over 60,000 sq m. If built, the scheme at 66 stories, would be Europe’s highest building. Jesus wept. Quite apart from the fact that central London doesn’t need the additional office space and nobody’ll be able to afford the flats, London Bridge is already at breaking point for public transport capacity – the last thing you need is another several thousand people commuting there. That said, it might obscure the ugliness that is Guy’s Hospital, so there’s a potential upside there. Ideally there should be more development out by Clapham Junction instead, which is reachable by pretty much everywhere in the south of England. I suppose the ground isn’t suitable, though; south London has a lot of underground rivers (as mentioned above) that make major building works impracticable. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/47 "2004-12-03T10:48:47Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Quite apart from the fact that central London doesn’t need the additional office space and nobody’ll be able to afford the flats, London Bridge is already at breaking point for public transport capacity – the last thing you need is another several thousand people commuting there. That masterplan is supposedly complemented by massive redevelopment of London Bridge station to improve capacity - as part of that ever-timely Thameslink 2000 project. Agreed, though, that the office space just isn’t needed, and that it’s the result of various politicians’ Freudian fascinations with big buildings. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/48 "2004-12-03T10:57:22Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > That masterplan is supposedly complemented by massive redevelopment of London Bridge station to improve capacity - as part of that ever-timely Thameslink 2000 project. Heh. I used to work at the SRA and have seen some of the (various) specs for TL2K. 24 trains an hour through Blackfriars? You’ll be lucky. And that’s assuming they ever get permission to build over Borough Market, one of the biggest issues holding up the scheme. While I’m digressing, I’m working in Stratford at the moment and if London gets the Olympics I hope the plans include major station renovation, because it’s hell to get around the station as is. Major concourse gridlock will undoubtedly ensue if a a few tens or hundreds of thousands of people are added to the commuting throngs Oh London – you’d be such a nice place if it weren’t for all the people… ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/49 "2004-12-03T12:25:21Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > Without getting into IMHO territory too much, I like that building. Better that than another[Centre Point](http://www.urban75.org/london/images/centrepoint3.jpg) or [New Zealand House](http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/immigration/nzhouse.htm), ( Hey, I work at CP (mostly in Bristol but we have a London office) - ugly from the outside but it has incredible views. Best of all, when you check in at reception, they give you a card for the lift that knows which floor you need and calls the lift for you. What more do you want from a building? (Yes, beats me why pushing a button is suddenly deemed so difficult!) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Llama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@The\_Llama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Llama)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/50 "2004-12-03T12:45:23Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > The reason for skyscrapers at the southern end is because New York started there and grew northward, so it has always been the commercial center of the area. Sorry, but not true. The WTC Complex was put in that particular area to revitalize it in the 1970’s. Before the WTC went up, it was a very seedy area full of electronics stores and industrial warehouses. While it was almost always a center of commerce in the past, it was a port, not a financial center. As downtown was hitting its peak frenzy in port commerce in the 1840’s, wall street was already the center of financial commerce. It was the Rockefellers who dreamed of making it a financial center, and sold the project as a revitalization. The Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building were built in the 1930’s so there was no northward march of tall buildings. Tall buildings are built around taller buildings. The cluster of skyscrapers to the south are a direct result of the WTC complex, not some already rich commerce tradition. ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/51 "2004-12-03T12:45:40Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Heh. I used to work at the SRA and have seen some of the (various) specs for TL2K. 24 trains an hour through Blackfriars? You’ll be lucky. And that’s assuming they ever get permission to build over Borough Market, one of the biggest issues holding up the scheme. > > While I’m digressing, I’m working in Stratford at the moment and if London gets the Olympics I hope the plans include major station renovation, because it’s hell to get around the station as is. Major concourse gridlock will undoubtedly ensue if a a few tens or hundreds of thousands of people are added to the commuting throngs > > Oh London – you’d be such a nice place if it weren’t for all the people… There’s also the huge development at white city (aka chav city) and the ongoing stuff at Kings Cross. Stratford eh? Get in the Two Puddings much? ---
**Author:** ![seosamh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@seosamh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seosamh)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/52 "2004-12-03T13:12:58Z")
[Another ex-SRA employee checking in! B\*strds made me redundant in March; I am hoping and praying that all the senior management get the boot when the SRA is wound up next year.] In addition to the other rail-related developments previously mentioned, there is also a vast one proposed at Cricklewood in north-west London, which would include a monster 40-storey job. [Described in the Edgware Times last year](http://www.edgwaretimes.co.uk/rebuildingbarnet/) Cricklewood station is in the way and would therefore have to be moved a few hundred metres north. I think I’m right in saying that the Transport & Works Act Enquiry into Thameslink 2000 was not at all happy with the plans and have sent them back to be redrawn. That will may mean that the tedious railway closure procedures carried out in 2000 might have to be held again, unless the new designs, particularly the network ones, can be shoe-horned into the definition of “minor closure” in section 39 of the Railways Act 1993, as amended by section 237 the Transport Act 2000… ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/53 "2004-12-03T13:37:54Z")
> [@owlstretchingtime](#): > > There’s also the huge development at white city (aka chav city) and the ongoing stuff at Kings Cross. Is this the BBC development at White City or are there other works? I don’t recall the Beeb planning any skyscrapers, although I haven’t seen much of the planned development beyond the Music Centre. > [@](#): > > Stratford eh? Get in the Two Puddings much? Nope, as I don’t tend to linger. Apart from a brief browse of the shopping centre, I haven’t felt the urge to sightsee. > [@seosamh](#): > > Another ex-SRA employee checking in! Suddenly your screenname parses. 🙂 > [@](#): > > there is also a vast one proposed at Cricklewood in north-west London, which would include a monster 40-storey job. Described in the Edgware Times last year Cricklewood station is in the way and would therefore have to be moved a few hundred metres north. And of course there’ll be “minimal” disruption to services. Maybe they should just build the station into the building? > [@](#): > > I think I’m right in saying that the Transport & Works Act Enquiry into Thameslink 2000 was not at all happy with the plans and have sent them back to be redrawn. IIRC, that’s right, although the Borough crowd had legitimate objections (there’s new build in the market area for starters, and they’d actually have to take a whole story off at least one building to run a new rail line through). [quote] That will may mean that the tedious railway closure procedures carried out in 2000 might have to be held again, unless the new designs, particularly the network ones, can be shoe-horned into the definition of “minor closure” in section 39 of the Railways Act 1993, as amended by section 237 the Transport Act 2000… [quote] Pah. You’d think they could at least start running more trains via Elephant & Castle (another prime site for building, especially if you take down that hideous shopping centre) and build a new station at Camberwell. But then something might get done… ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690/54 "2004-12-29T18:29:16Z")
When did the Crimson Permanent Assurance building sail over the edge of the Earth? An incident like that might make _anybody_ a bit skeptical about the practicality of skyscrapers (particularly if they had any doubts about the loyalty of their employees). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-london-have-many-skyscrapers/277690.md?page=2)