Personally I like the unusual designs, the policy to protect St. Paul’s actually encourages designers to think outside the box.

There’s a story that a Parisian hated the Eiffel Tower, yet he had his lunch in the restaurant everyday. A friend asked him why, to which he said, ‘it’s the only place in Paris I can have my lunch and not see it’

Love how these big building companies say they need laws relaxed due to the housing crisis but oddly enough at the end of the project the extra affordable homes seem to almost disappear.

Also, a majority of central London is built on soft clay and it’s been the advancement in building techniques over the last 20 years that has allowed skyscrapers to be built

Being British and having been in the shard I think we can have both modern and old architecture. It's not albout the past otherwise we'd be protecting medieval cottages and nothing else. It's about balance and moving with the times.

I like how each one of them is unique. No copypasted blocks, but actual creative design.

I can't believe you didn't discuss the "walkie-talkie". The weirdest shaped building probably anywhere.

Two thoughts on tall buildings in London. Prior to the Natwest building, the tallest building in London was the 600-odd feet tall GPO Tower (now BT Tower). And in the Victorian period it was proposed to build a necropolis on Primrose Hill over London which would have been similar height as the Shard but nearly as wide as it was tall. Nicknamed the Pyramid of Death, it could have taken 5 million "burials".

London skyline is so unique compared to the majority of big cities. I hope that the unique designs continue whether or not all the corridors remain.

I literally work on this (Creating CGI images for planning purposes in London) And indeed, we always use the corridors as viewpoints to check St. Pauls. The intented design of all buildings in London tends to be "as tall and wide as you possibly can within the normative". So, thanks to the normative, we get these cool shapes!

I love the mix of old and new in London. I drive around The City and Westminster a lot in the course of my work and it's a whole lot nicer than Canary Wharf (the former Docklands area redeveloped in the 80s and 90s) which is horrible and inorganic. However, to keep the mix of old and new from becoming a total junble, there has to be management and I genuinely think that by and large, they get it right most of the time.

One iconic building you left out was The Post Office Tower completed in 1964 and is approx 190m tall and was the most visible building in London for many years

We know you really wanted to make this video because it gives you an excuse to talk about cheese graters, isn't that right Cheddar?

London is such an extraordinary city, since skyscrapers will conquer it in the next few years anyway they should at least have attractive shapes and offer something interesting to honor the city. It's always been special, and hopefully always will be.

Thank you for a very informative video. I am all for preservation. You can build new cities from scratch but you should respect and maintain old cities’ architecture. The new towers seem to be of phallic proportions and I don’t think they gel well together.

The shard is my personal favorite…. It basically has double skin so it can breathe and white glass so it can project the weather. And the fact that it’s useable 24-7 is amazing. Renzo Piano did an amazing job with that building.

One of the benefits of uninterrupted view corridors and uniquely shaped buildings, is that you can navigate the streets more easily without technology. Sometimes walking in busy city streets with your head in your phone is pretty bloody dangerous. Whereas if you know you’re aiming for “roughly near the spire” you can use the landmarks to make most of your way there.

As somebody who is majoring in architectural design, this video was incredibly well put together. It’s interesting to see how people outside of the profession report/create educational content on it.

I like the Gherkin. At least it looks like something nature would produce.

It's a shame that londons already nice skyline from 3/4 years ago is unrecognizable today - the rate at which these scrapers are being built (north of the thames) doesn't allow for them to become iconic anymore

As a Londoner I love learning where the shapes of these building came from! Also I’d love to find out what the proposal is for these skyscrapers post pandemic, when working from home will be a new preference for many people, and coming into the City to work in one fo these building may not be needed as much.

A really strange thing with architects are how they only see one single building, while I, as a non-architect see all the buildings in my vicinity at the same time, and I see either, a mess, or something nice, usually I see the opposite of what an architect see I think

Australia’s the opera house was considered ugly when it was finished and was hated by a lot of people. Now it’s an iconic symbol to reflect boats sails at sea, and when you see it in person it’s a stunning bit of architecture that will forever by iconic to Sydney

This makes me love my city so much more, everything is designed to not obstruct our oldest landmarks 😍

Surprised that you didn’t mention the car-melting ‘Walkie-Talkie’.

From where I live in London, I get a pretty good view of the city of London's buildings. During the construction of one building, I believed for the longest time that they had arranged the glass on it to look like a giant play button. It was 6 months before I found out that it's actually two buildings and just because of the angle of my view in New Cross, the roof of one building perfectly overlays the front of a much larger building to make it look like the button. I like to believe that this was intentional.

I like the Gherkin! 😊 The others, not so much. Now the first skyline you showed was outlined. I noticed the outline looked very much like a normal EKG. But with each addition of a skyscraper, that "heartbeat" looked rather arrhythmic like the heart was a very irregular heartbeat with unusual "beats" around the newer buildings. Perhaps there is a harmonic consideration builders need to follow? I know, sounds kind of woo-woo, but still... maybe?

Love the aerial views. Really puts the layout of London into perspective.

Fun fact: the form of the Empire States building is almost entirely decided by the NYC building code (setbacks and maximum distance between the building core and the facade etc.)

For several years I cycled over a couple of different bridges (could choose on the way in as I was cycling from Crystal Palace to the City) and my choice was based on what view of St Pauls. I have no view on whether it should be preserved as I don't live in London any more but I can say it's utterly spectacular and would be a shame to see these policies dropped.

Austin, TX has “capitol view corridors” that dictate that no buildings can be built within the direct line of sight of the capitol building from 26 different vantage points within the city of Austin. Pretty cool and results in some uniquely shaped buildings.

One city incredibly effected by protected views is Paris, where strict height restrictions protect the historic centre of the city from skyscrapers and protect the views of the Eiffel Tower.

I love the wild collection of creatively shaped buildings in London - and I also wholeheartedly agree that the view of St. Paul's as a landmark should be preserved. Just clumping together a bunch of skyscrapers in the minimal available space in the city with no regard for iconic historic sites will rob it of its character.

I love how it makes designers think outside the box It makes the sky like unique

Really surprised that BT Tower wasn't mentioned, went up in 1964 and is 620ft so pretty sure it qualifies (also it's pretty iconic.)

Reminds me of my hometown here in Las Cruces, NM. We have sky scraper restrictions to keep the skyline clear to preserve the beautiful view of the organ mountains. Which you can see from any part of the city. Not that we’re a big enough city to have huge sky scrapers, but we have interesting looking buildings that were supposed to be tall so I wonder if they look as interesting as they do because of the restrictions

As a Londoner myself I really like the protected views because it in many ways has led to more innovative building designs

Definitely think the sightlines for St Paul's should continue. I think they should add new protected sightlines for The Gherkin. There are so many other developments in the area that The Gherkin is disappearing from the skyline in some places due to taller buildings over shadowing it.

Being a fan of modern architecture, i really appreciated this information. Thank you.

My favorite thing about London is that mix of history with modern and odd design! It’s so beautiful and a reflection of change 🤩 no other city has the same vibe

London clearly has done a great job with its architecture, I'm sure it will continue to do the same in the future as it has in the past

I've seen the Walkie-Talkie many times in this video (it's close to the Gherkin), but not a single mention. It has the magic power (a concave reflective surface) to lit up cars and doormats around itself when the sun shines from a certain direction.

I love this kind of educational mini-docu content! I also find these single-person home-studio productions much more personal, intimate and authentic somehow. Thanks COVID, I guess? :)

The shard is one good looking skyscraper. I was totally in awe when i first saw it

I love the unique designs. Pure blocks look kinda dumb. The only exception for me personally was the Twin Towers as they were much larger taller than anything else and were doubles of each other. I went to Atlanta a year ago and it had a few interesting skyscrapers with unique tops. But a few were just ugly concrete rectangles.

Did you know the the first steel re-enforced concrete and glass building was erected in Swansea, south Wales by a company called Weaver? It was the pre-cursor of all skyscrapers. Unfortunately it was pulled down a few decades ago but a blue plaque is there to mark the site. Many construction companies from all over the world came to see it when it was first built. Pity that no one in the UK itself took advantage of the innovation.

Once a year, pretty much every year of my life, i have stood where this camera is roughly 9:00 and looked at the city skyline, first of all this park (greenwich park) is one of my favorite places in the world so going there is no chore for me, but every couple of years the view changed, and I love watching it develop.

London is also sitting on clay, which posed a problem for decades as far as constructing very tall buildings is concerned. Here in Europe there is also a slight hesitation as our cities are much older and many people don't want the skylines to end up a sea of towers like some US & many Asian cities.

Sounds like the policy continues to be a good thing as it protects views of an historic site while making the rest of the surrounding cityscape more interesting to look at. Sounds like a win win to me! Hope to visit London someday to see these intriguing buildings and sites!

I think London is a marvellous example how you can mix old and new in a tasteful way. Tall doesn't have to be boring. For instance, Stockholm is very much afraid to build tall buildings close to its absolute center.

Austin is another city that has legally protected 'vistas' or avenues of sight to the state Capitol. Also no tall buildings can be too close to each other, and many have to have a stair step design to allow more sunlight to hit the city streets. This is also something they say in San Francisco, but it keeps many private home owners from adding to their homes, which is a point of huge contention.

The city of Anaheim CA has a agreement with Disneyland called the Disney Cone. It's something that very few people know about, yet it has a major influence on how the Disneyland Resort, and surrounding city of Anaheim is built. No buildings or other structures can't be built that can be seen from inside of Disneyland. The "cone" radiates outward from Disneyland so that the closer to the park the shorter the structure has to be, the further out from the park the taller the structure can be. Funny but true.

The Dutch ambassy in Berlin (designed by OMA/Rem Koolhaas) has a very specific point in the inside, where you stand at the bottom of a stairs and look up (looking over the stairs), there's a window that perfectly frames the Berliner Fernsehturm. Koolhaas managed to get the municipality to rule that nothing would be built that would obstruct that view, for the next 100 years or something.

I love London. I feel like it sets itself apart from all other major cities that just give way to skyscrapers. Tall buildings really just swallow up everything around them and take away from that "home" feeling you get from smaller structures. I love the views of St. Paul's and I think it should be preserved.

They should built modern buildings far apart from older buildings because it overshadow their historical areas that were there way before them. It wouldn't be nice to have that type of skyline, it's not simply not balance by time or style.

I would critique the buildings all the time when I lived there, they’re so ugly! It makes London feel so weird, but it blew my mind to see them cause I genuinely did not think London had sky scrapers. They really managed to have incredibly old architecture, as well as 7yr old towers, and blend them together. It’s remarkable

London’s first skyscrapers were constructed in 1925 and 1929 respectively. Adelaide House, which sits on the river next to London Bridge and 55 Broadway, the former offices of the London Transport Board. The NatWest tower was London’s first modern glass skyscraper, but not its first.

I live by the Thames and I personally love having that view of St Pauls. London has for me one of the best skylines in the world.

As a Londoner - (i) I like the fact I can see St Pauls from so many places (including King Henry's mound - 10 miles away); (ii) I love the eclectic set of sky scrapers (mini - by New York standards - but big for us!) we have created - they all have individual character. I think we are at our best when we combine the old and embrace the new together; so I would rather see the protected views of St Paul's continue - and use that to force us to innovate new and exciting designs to provide the spaces we need. Finally - after COVID - the fact is the pressure on office space seems to be considerably less - a much higher proportion of office workers are working from home at least 2 days a week, so there is a lot of potential "use of space" requirements that could be reassigned to help create many new and spacious living places.

Great video! Any thoughts on the new Bishopsgate? Originally it would be “the spiral” and have a dragon coming around it 🐉 now it’s... mostly tall and super thick!

Great article about architecture, art, and engineering! She always makes interesting reports I have noticed! Thx Chris!

Washington DC always has building-height regulations. It’s probably one of the most significant cities to have that... I think they a,so have it in France and Italy It would seem « the tulip » did more for the city’s skyline as they already have a « cheese grater », not sure why they need two; « the tulip » looked absolutely amazing. I hope to see it constructed somewhere one day

I hope they continue to protect their historic skyline, because it's already become so dominated by skyscrapers and building cranes. See the skyline from Primrose Hill - nearly all the historic buildings have been drowned out by skyscrapers or works in progress. I'm surprised London didn't do what Paris did by having a separate section of the city outside the historical center that's dedicated to building skyscrapers that won't obstruct historic views

another reason for the oddly shaped buildings is to effect how the winds influences the buildings. if a standard tower building is involved in a vortex wind it could cause swaying and the pressure could not break as it is locked in place by the flat sides of the building where as a cone shaped building could allow the vortex winds to fully engulf the building like as if the building was in the eye of a tornado.

What's hardly shown in this video is Canary Wharf and Nine Elms. The development of skyscrapers in those parts of London the last 10 years has been phenomenal. There has also been complaints over a skyscraper in Stratford than appears to infringe on the protected view to St Pauls. I always thought the views were law, rather than a policy.

As to buildings’ height limitations, Milan gives another interesting example. Until the late 50s, it was forbidden to erect buildings that would stretch beyond the height of the golden Madonna statue that’s on top of Milan cathedral’s spire (108 metres or 354 feet). When the permission for the first building taller than this was given, in the 50s (for the Pirelli Tower, 127 metres or 417 feet tall), a replica of the “Madonnina” statue was put atop the building’s roof, as a sign of continuity and respect. Ever since, all of Milan’s skyscrapers bear a replica of the statue on the rooftop, as a symbol and a form of respect for traditions.

Amazing video-thanks-I'm embarrassed to say I never realized London had this modern skyline.

This reminds me of the 2nd St corridor in Seattle. You have a stunning view from the top of historic Smith Tower (first "skyscraper" in the city) through the canyon of modern skyscrapers in Downtown to the Space Needle in Olympic Park. I don't know if the viewing corridor was by happy accident, by design, or building regulations, but it's a beautiful urban landscape to behold at night. Edit: google search for photos of it, it's worth the few seconds search for a nice view.

I think the corridors are good, not only because they let you see big sights better, but the also make architects tink of new ways for buildings, and make them come up with more, new and funny shapes for scyscrapers

Gosh, the London skyline has certainly changed since I was last there. The only one of the new buildings I’ve seen in person is the Gherkin. I wish my hometown, New York, had more such “interesting” buildings. The rank of super-tall slivers on “Billionaire's Row” overlooking Central Park is an aesthetic disaster.

Tapered buildings like this also do not block as much sun (they cast narrower shadows on the streets and parks below) and they create less of a wind tunnel effect. Some New York streets with boxy high rises on both sides have a terrible wind tunnel effect.

Really informative interesting video! Thank you for putting this together!

Soon after completion, 30 St Mary’s Axe also had other nicknames such as Towering Innuendo and Crystal Phallus (a pun on Crystal Palace in South London). Thankfully “The Gherkin” stuck as the nickname. When I was studying for my architecture degree, I heard a rumour from some of the tutors at the uni that one of the original concepts was supposed to have an dome-shaped observation deck at the top with a glass floor, a bit like the CN Tower in Toronto. The observation deck was scrapped mostly because of 9/11 but also really it just looked too much like a penis.

I like preserving historic views, skyline looks and think the policies should stay and be enforced. As one person said, the policy encourages designers to think out of the box and that's good.

i like the unique skyscrapers! i’ve never liked how traditional ones look, so boring. i agree that too many of these could cause a hectic and chaotic skyline, but the ones they have right now are cool?

I love the Gherkin. It gives me a sense of orientation and as someone who's mostly lived in East or North East London it helps me know when I'm near home.

i loved the gherkin when it was clearly visible, it added real character to the skyline. But now it's surrounded by ego sized glass box skyscrapers so you can barely see it anymore - and render that cool idea about letting the wind flow around it, little chance of that helping now.

i like the idea of one building distinguish building being seen miles away in all direction. will certainly help people find their way easier.

londoner; i love that a lot of our tall buildings look weird and aren't just big rectangles. i think the st pauls laws can be a bit over the top sometimes but i do support protecting some views, especially from king henry viii's mound. i also wish there would be some effort from modern designers to kind of blend the aesthetics of modern glass structures and old stone buildings as a lot of the city is very much one extreme or the other

Having watched the sun set over the city from Greenwich Observatory, it’s such an amazing view, and wonderful that you can still see St Paul’s from the observatory.

It’s a shame the Walkie-Talkie wasn’t mentioned as its history meant that it had to be changed as after construction it began to melt cars and the road it was on.

I think that the housing in England is in Great British Pounds £££'s and not $$$ United States Dollars like demonstrated in this otherwise excellent video. The view from King Henry's mound is very impressive as it literally cuts through a gateway of parting trees to see the St. Pauls Cathedral miles away... fascinating stuff !!

London has stricked planning laws dating back to the tudors,so in specific areas mainly west London,high rise buildings cannot be built,that obstruct the view from Hampton court palace to St. Paul’s cathedral,I am sure their might be another relating to windows castle,that’s why they could build Canary Wharf.

I think they look dope, really shows the designers care about the city and it's not just for financial gains.

We Londoners love our city as it is. Skyscrapers and residential blocks can come up in still untapped parts of London. Leave the historic parts aloneness

The Gherkin has the coolest bar at the top, with a glass roof. Part of a business club where you could take your clients. Before the towers were built around it it had the best view in London

I think it is important to keep all the historical building as much as we can and I don't think they should build more tall building to block the view of St. Paul's.

Love the odd shapes of new architecture but also love what was erected in the past. Covering St. Paul's with skyscrapers is like covering the Mona Lisa with a veil. Paris did it right by zoning in La Défense. Why can't more cities mark out areas to be preserved & other areas for new architecture?

I've been here once and honestly, the London skyline was mind blowingly cool to me.

I absolutely love the walkie-talkie building, it's so bizarre looking! 😁

2:17 - Oh hey, it's the "walkie-talkie", aka, the "death-ray building". The worst part about it is that its architect Rafael Viñoly made the exact same sun-focusing-magnifying-glass-like-death-ray mistake when he designed the Vdara in Las Vegas three years earlier but learned nothing. 🤦

I like the idea of the corridors to protect views of st Paul's. After all, if I stand somewhere with a view of London I always instantly go " oh look I can see st pauls from here" and not "oh look I can see *insert random modern building*" (although this may not always be the case for the shard xD) I think it is worth keeping and makes architects think outside the box, thereby increasing the diversity of the skyline

I love St. Paul's its very magnificent and a joy to see in the distance but we need to be a bit more flexible so we can dominate the skyline in the world!! I would much rather have the first gherkin building than the actual gherkin. It's unique but i prefer big majestic buildings alongside big majestic St Paul's. 👍

I hope Londoners retain the policy of keeping vistas of the dome open. It just seems like the right thing to do. Plus, it's resulted in some interesting architecture.

it would be great if this translated to the rest of the country and to private residence/ rented housing. it would be wonderful to see houses of all different colours and designs instead of the same horrible red brick...

When I first moved to London ages ago, I felt like I was ripped off! I was expecting to see a downtown with tall skyscrapers similar to the template adopted by many US cities but I couldn't find many. Canada Square was an embarrassment in front of the Empire State, WTC or the Sears Tower. However, I realised pretty quick that every great city has its own character and a historical city like London was better off without those tall buildings and concrete jungles.

honestly, aside from the gerkins.. the others look weird and dont fit in with london's historic architectural designs.. i think tall buildings should be designed aesthetically and similar so they give a view like the housing buildings of london with similar architectures yet beautiful seen from above or afar

I do love these new London skyscrapers. I watched the 'walkie-talkie' and 'cheese-grater', getting built when I drove the 40 bus down Fenchurch St (circa 2012-2019).

There's a great view of London from the top of the hill in Greenwich park. I was there a couple of years ago when I saw a man and two women sitting on the grass with sketchbooks drawing the view in front of them. I stood behind so I could get a closer look at their artwork and all three of them had decided not to draw any of the skyscrapers and other modern buildings in the distance. They looked like they were in their 50's so maybe they view modern buildings with more negativity than a younger artist. It's their choice of course but something about that pissed me off more than it should have.

Well speaking as a Londoner I can say that the actual nicknames are a little different, and affection has little to do with it. The names were chosen by the PR firms for the corporations that built them.