The Shard


London has always had a love-hate relationship with skyscrapers. Prince Charles and his fellow conservatives have always argued that St Paul's Cathedral should never be out-done by coarse concrete or (more modern) glass edifices.

The result of this architectural conflict is that London has perhaps ended up with the worst of both worlds. New York, Dallas, Paris and Frankfurt have most of their tall buildings in one sector, whereas in London there are spread out randomly with no sense of sensitivity to traditional architecture.

See pictures of the 'The Shard' to see what I am saying.



In Geostationary Orbit
You should see Washington D.C. Since it is built on an old swap fill when the USA founding fathers begged neutral land from Virginia & Maryland, it is very unstable ground. Both States decided the tidal swap was no productive land to give to the new Capital. This with the Washington Monument & modern "not in my backyard" politicians means you will never see a skyscraper in my closet city. :eek:
Last edited:


Chmod 760
Staff member
Or you should see any US city where there's a tiny bit of center and where the suburbs continue for miles and miles. Where you can't really walk anywhere.
Take any modern US city (built since the cars have established themselves - or just take any city outside San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and perhaps Portland) and observe it. The distances are insane for walking - people don't usually walk. And in most places the public transport is a joke.

I'd gladly take the not so defined center with skyscrapers all around over the cities that don't seem cities, where there's no properly working public transport, where you're stuck in a car hell, where the cities are low, and where most of the time you spend seeing any city is inside a car.


Yuck. It really doesn't seem to fit in very well at all, although that can be said for other, recent constructions too.

Then again, this article suggests the Shard might fit quite well... ;)