London Bridge Tower

I think that this tower is a great idea and it lots brilliant.
I do not live in london though, I live in haverfordwest in Pembrokeshire. I agree that the tower would be a stunning thing to look at but I also feel that it should be located with other sky scrapers as it looks silly to have them dotted all over the place. but having read all the messages i think that if it was relocated elsewhere then all the people who work in the original building would also move and this would cause a drain of affluent people and increase unemployment. In a few years this tower will be contributing to the history of Southwark and people will be complaining about other towers being built impeding their view of the LBT. bye then and you can write to me!

I live about two miles south of London Bridge. Every day I can see the ugly tower of Guys hospital. What a pleasure it will be when, in a couple of years time, to have the inspirational London Bridge Tower to look at.

I find some of the remarks I've read on this board regarding the lack of opportunities for local people in the tower quite strange. Why do people think that local people are only good enough to be cleaners in the building? Do you really have such a low opinion of the people of Southwark? Opportunities will appear at all levels for local people, and the tower will be a catalyst for new businesses such as retail and restaurants.

I can see no downside to this development.

I just thought it might be useful to point out that 70% of Southwark residents questionned about the LBT by the developers were in favour - only 8% were against and the rest were unsure.

Like all great buildings, opposition is bound to come at first, but once it is up everyone will be admiring it and wondering what they were so worried about.

It will be listed in 20 years time and future planners will be protecting views of LBT from Hapmstead Heath! That is the way it works... the same has happened with St. Paul's Cathedral, the London Eye and Tower Bridge.

No one is trying to turn London into Manhattan - far from it. Buildings like LBT are about high density in good locations - they make sense spatially perhaps more than they do visually, but I think we should not be afraid of architecture that dares to be different. How can we expect London to have a good skyline if we resist every effort to change it? London is built on change and contrast... by resisting developments like this, you're actually going against the very essence upon which London is built. The same goes for anyone claiming this is being built purely as a symbol of commercial might... rubbish! Churches and cathedrals were built purely to show the power of God, and I find that a far less admirable reason to build tall than the creation of jobs and wealth. London is built on wealth... it is one of the world's centres of capitalism... there is no more appropriate place for a building like this, and if you still think London is a peaceful hamlet with sweeping vistas like Florence or Venice, you haven't been looking at your own city very closely!

Most of the arguments 'against' that I've heard so far are based on false information or sheer lack of knowledge about what is actually proposed. At ground level, for example, the developers have been working very closely with CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) to improve the public environment at the base, and they are still doing so. The end result will be a building that integrates well with it's surroundings... far better than the current building, Southwark Towers.

I think that if the LBT is refused planning permission, Southwark as a borough will come to regret it several years down the line. It now has the opportunity to build on the success of the Tate Modern, Globe Theatre etc. and bring tourists deeper in to the borough... and I can guarantee that if this proposal is rejected, what we'll get instead won't be of the same quality because the money available for public improvements through Section 106 agreements won't be anywhere near as much, and the architectural quality won't be anything like as good. Renzo Piano is one of the world's top 5 architects - he is virtually unrivalled! And this would be his best work yet... you couldn't possibly expect to get anything better if this was refused. You'd get the same basics but without the extra prestige and touches of quality that come with such a major landmark, and that would be a real shame. A missed opportunity.

how many did they ask James?...thats a genuine question, I'm not being 'picky'

p.s. I Like the glass 'wobbly' jelly building going up near Tower Bridge, our Kens's new pad!
I think it's the height of l.L.B.T. that most people object to.

I really can't see what there is to be 'proud of' in building a huge glass tower, causing another few years of disruption, dust and building noise. Words like 'iconic' and 'biggest' really don't do it for me. What do those words actually do for local residents.
Phrases such as 'local employment', 'affordable housing' 'provision of community spaces and sports facilities', 'functional, people-friendly buildings' however have a whole different ring to them, don't you think?

Unless of course you like the corporate feel of an area dominated by the likes of Vinopolis, with a Starbucks on every street corner. An area where the arty types, who attracted the luxury appartment dwellers in the first place, have long since departed - forced out by the lack of affordable accommodation, and lack of interest in the corporate world.

If you think that land is going to be used for 'community facilties' if the LBT is not built then I'm afraid you're deluding yourself! It is a prime commercial site, and I don't really see why it should provide any benefit to the community anyway.

It will though, through Section 106 Agreements and a number of retail units that will be given over to small local enterprises. Transport improvements and other benefits to the public realm will be included.

Equally, opposing it because it will create noise for a few years is not a very appropriate argument considering you live slap bang in one of the world's biggest, noisiest and dirtiest cities anyway!

Jan - If you're asking me how many they consulted, I'm afraid I don't know. The figures were on the official press release issued by Sellar Properties.

Jonathan - you're just so sympathetic. As to being my deluded - and you believing that 70 per cent of Southwark residents are in favour of the Shard? Obvoiusly you don't live here. Where did you say the figures came from? Ah yes, a Sellar Properties press release, what a surprise! They're hardly going to say everyone thinks it's completely pants idea are they? I think you might find that it was 70 per cent of those who responded - rather different from 70 per cent of Southwark residents I suspect. Or, more likely, only 30 per cent of those responding said no, so it was assumed the remainder were in favour. That's how the Tories used to work out the votes wasn't it?

Regarding the communal spaces issue - are you saying that if it is built then communal spaces will sudenly appear? I suspect not.

Re noisest, dirtiest citiy - you display a remarkable lack of knowledge about the area yet again. I live in what must one of the quietest streets I've ever lived in. The noise and disruption is caused solely by development. I've lived here for 10 years or so and the only benefit of late has been the Jubilee Line extension. We've put up with a lot and the promised benefits of regeneration are all too few. Aside from the Jubilee Line, it's not done much for us, aside from putting up rents to a level where we'll probably have to move out.

South of London Bridge has always been great to live in - until its previously 'deeply unfashionable' jewels were 'discovered' by property developers, the city and the ensuing influx of 'luxury appartment dwellers'.

Re the comment about commercial properties not really having any responsibility towards it local community - well that's fine, but don't then expect the community to have any intererest in supporting it, or be surprised at how many people object.

I'm all for development and investment to improve standards of living, community building and crime reduction - but a huge shard of glass? Just a, probably male, architect's dream really, isn't it? At least it may provide a change of scenery for our resident homeless people.

Why is it that central London residents are somehow seen as temporary, and/or not really worthy of having their concerns taken seriously?

oh what resentment... what do you have against luxury apartment dwellers. they force up your property prices, bring large amounts of investment and spending to the area, and generally it becomes a nicer place to live, or perhaps youd prefer people with money to live elsewhere and let southwark become a shithole with rock bottom property prices where only the poor live. perhaps youd prefer PriceWaterhouseCoopers to move their headquarters to the city or canary wharf along with the thousands of jobs that go with it?
a male archietects dream??? what has being a male got to do with it, or do you detect some sexism in its design???
as for the survey, 70% of respondents wanted it built, and 30% are against. there have been no formal objections registered against the tower, though ironically both the city and greenwich with their own skyscraper plans have since complained.
if you think the area you live in isnt dirty and noisy then youre very misled. the whole of london is dirty and noisy. you go outside and return with grime under your fingernails from all the traffic.
so given the shrinking amount of greenbelt land available, the increasing numbers of people living in london where an extra 1million people will live in the next 10 years or so where do we house them all??? if you want anything left of the precious english countryside youre going to have to do one thing - build up.
of course if you can come up with a better idea, some unthought of solution for urban planning then please tell us... so what would you do?

Kate - If you'd read my initial message, you'd see that only 8% of those questionned were against. No (and I repeat, NO) objections were lodged at the planning committee meeting, so if Southwark residents are so opposed to it, as you say, why did nobody, not a single person, complain?

I don't want to get into an argument - everyone is entitled to have their own views and everyone's views should be heard, but I can't really see what all the fuss is about. There is no chance of anyone building a homeless shelter or anything like that on this site, LBT or not. The land is simply too valuable even for affordable homes, so I don't think it is right to expect that.

The LBT is a world-class building. It is architecturally superb. It will bring economic and environmental benefits to Southwark that would not be achieved by a lesser scheme. It's height may put some people off, but how many people actually look up above the first level anyway?

Better to have a beautiful 66-storey tower than an ugly 20-storey tower, which is probably what we'd get if this is refused because the developers will want to pack the same amount of floorspace in. The result? bigger floorplates - a fat, squat box. What an achievement that would be.

Excuse me but when, where and to who were details of who to make objections published? Far too often a small piece of paper is stuck to a lampost or an advert stuck in the back pages of the South London Press inviting comment on such developments. The local authority will only do the least they have to legally in respect of notifications and very often you have to go to the Town Hall in Peckham to see details off the scheme or development.

I know there were a couple of public exhibitions but was anthing held on the site itself; on London Bridge Station or at Guys Hospital where travellers, patients and staff who are the most likely people to be affected by any development offered the opportunity to comment?