When I moved here the Gherkin was an iconic building in the skyline. Now I can rarely see it, surrounded by other generic skyscrapers. I find it really sad they obscured it from vision.
True. The Gherkin even just ten years or so ago was in all the b-roll footage whenever there was a documentary or segment about London, alongside Big Ben images.
Now, there are a whole bunch of skyscrapers, few with character (e.g., Shard), and many pretty basic (alongside Bishopsgate).
Overall, London keeps on building in so many of its areas (Kings Cross, City, Nine Elms, Victoria), and it's nice to see. I just hope these won't sit empty...
I have similar feeling about the LLoyds of London building, which is within the same few blocks. In the late '80s/early '90s it was iconic as a newly different building. Now it is practically lost between other huge (and IMO completely soulless) buildings.
I've enjoyed looking at these photos, but it also kinda makes me sad that there is such a massive drive to increase density in the city. I think I may be at a time of my life where I'm over being in or close to the capital.
As another former Londoner reading this thread, I think the confusion is that we were told increasing density will increase the viability and availability of local services, but the opposite turns out to be true. The London of today has more per sq mile than twenty years ago in terms of floor space but in level of interesting activity it doesn't compare.
I will admit the Shard is cool, but you are absolutely right about Lloyd's. Those of us of a certain age consider anything designed by Richard Rogers to look like the future we aspired to.
I remember when the NatWest Tower (Tower 42) was the tallest building, but yes I think it's sad that the Gherkin is now hidden behind a bunch of boring box shaped skyscrapers.
