LONDON | London Bridge Tower - "The Shard" | 1,017 FT / 310 M | 87 FLOORS

[JOH]

pics from Tuesday morning (poor quality)

The view from leaving the London Bridge Station


Close up inspection

[Travis007]

Looks great so far. The Shard is going to be a true modern icon for London.

[jd3189]

This somewhat looks like a modern day Eiffel Tower. It stands alone and even has the triangle shape. First Big Ben,then the Eye,and now this.London becoming better than everyone else again.

[The Imster]

First of all what a truly splendid icon this building will be when completed I don't know if it will have the same status as nyc Empire states building. London needs more stunning buildings like this. Does anyone know how tall it is at the moment? And when it will be topped off? By the way Guys hospital next to.this buiding is an eye sore and looks out of place from a different era next to this building

[chest]

the final concrete floor - 69 has been poured today, the final part of the structure will be completed in steel

[Roadcruiser1]

I agree with some critics that mention this building is sort of weak for post 9/11 standards. The top part of the building is made out of steel and would be weaker then the rest of the building. I have a feeling that it won't fare well if a plane either struck it, or if an explosion happens on the top floors.

[animatedmartian]

And on the internet it's called trolling! I don't understand this idea that every building can somehow experience a 9/11 scenario in the same way WTC did. The shard is basically a triangle with a thick core. You'd need more than planes to take it out and not from the top. It's common physics, really.



Towards the City by gawatt.

The Shard Guys SE1 by Jamie Barras


London by _lika_

[Traynor]

Originally Posted by animatedmartian

And on the internet it's called trolling! I don't understand this idea that every building can somehow experience a 9/11 scenario in the same way WTC did. The shard is basically a triangle with a thick core. You'd need more than planes to take it out and not from the top. It's common physics, really.

What an immature and child-like viewpoint.

Fortunately Architects, Security Planners, Police and Engineers are not so naive (or rude) and don't stick their heads in the sand. Thinking about ALL possibilities is their job. This is a different world we are living in and denial makes buildings safe for no one.

Not speaking about it is an old fashioned philosophy akin to the days when superstiscious people would not even say the word Cancer out loud.

Grow up and learn to talk politely and with consideration of others.

[Greavsie]

not at all! why the constant need for violent imagery.Its irrelevant.

[Roadcruiser1]

All architects and civil engineers plan for all unlikely scenarios like me who have had taken courses in it. It is supposed to be taken as a significant factor in any design including fires, and anything else that might effect the building's structural integrity. So yes I was allowed to ask that question unless if you guys hate that idea or something.

[animatedmartian]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

All architects and civil engineers plan for all unlikely scenarios like me who have had taken courses in it. It is supposed to be taken as a significant factor in any design including fires, and anything else that might effect the building's structural integrity. So yes I was allowed to ask that question unless if you guys hate that idea or something.

You didn't really ask a question. You said if the building's pretty weak for post 9/11 standards.

I understand that buildings are designed for things like bombs or airplane hits or whatever else happens, but I don't like the idea that suddenly every skyscraper is a potential 9/11 considering that the particular buildings destroyed had a unique variable(s) to their design.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'm saying look at the weakest flaw in the buildings that we suddenly have to compare every single one to before calling a design weak. If it is weak, then what is the suggestion that could be made to make it stronger? I think critics should offer suggestions rather than just criticizing something to make themselves feel better.

[chest]

skies cleared today at last, the second part of the development an 88m building is now up to around 10 / 11 floors

[chest]

spot the Shard...

[animatedmartian]

Untitled by phillip kalantzis-cope

[nito]

An interesting juxtaposition of Southwark Cathedral (1220) and the Shard (2012) picture taken by potto over at skyscrapercity.com.

[Dave84]

Stunning pics on this page. The taller she get's, the better she looks!

[alleystreetindustry]

what a beautiful building! and i just love that it stands alone.

[photoLith]

Such an awesome city and tower, cant wait to see it completed!

[Davis137]

London is truely getting a fantastic skyline with all of these new towers going up in the last 5-10 years!

[Pizzuti]

So strange, as an American, to see a super-tall skyscraper standing by its lonesome in the middle of a massive city.

I'm sure that before a century's out, London will look like modern-day New York. That seems to be unpopular with people I've talked to from the region, but still preferential to losing land from the greenbelts.

There are about 7 billion humans and estimates are that we'll get to 10; still got another 3 or so billion people to pack into this planet...

Anyway I think it's a beautiful building and yet still quite small against one of top cities in the word in terms of size, and total amount of urban development. This building is nothing to be upset about at all!