London SE1 community website

'Baby Shard' proposed for London Bridge

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 Next
Current: 2 of 3
Friday 20 January 2006 6.52pm
Plans for the 'baby Shard' will be on display in the foyer of the existing building at the end of this month:
Tuesday 31 January: 12 noon-8pm
Wednesday 1 February: 10am-6pm

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Monday 30 January 2006 3.24pm
I think we know what its going to look like.
Monday 30 January 2006 4.07pm
Do 'we'? Where's the info regarding the baby shard, then, mickysalt? A quick search did not reveal any images even on Renzo Pianos own web site [except of the mummy shard].

Irvine Sellar has imaginatively renamed the area the 'London Bridge Quarter' [groan...]
Monday 30 January 2006 8.15pm
Well found, Lang R. Not so much a 'baby' shard, it will be significantly higher than the existing building. Computer generated images are so seductive aren't they. The potential view from my window gets more Manhattan-like with each planning application and hopefully the aspect at ground level will be a less hostile environment than at present.
Monday 30 January 2006 8.40pm
I would say judging by the photo that the "baby shard" looks smaller than the existing 22 story London Bridge House?
Monday 30 January 2006 8.54pm
It's 'three quarters the size of Canary Wharf tower' - which is 50 floors / 800 ft high.
Tuesday 31 January 2006 9.49pm
chrismingay wrote:
I would say judging by the photo that the "baby shard" looks smaller than the existing 22 story London Bridge House?

It would be a few storeys lower than the current tower, but it will be massively bulkier, as it covers a much larger floor area. The image provided to the press is the narrow eastern facade of a wedge shaped building. The north and south facades are twice as long. The taller northern facade will be visible across the river as a wall of glass, roughly half as tall again as the tower of Southwark Cathedral.

After seeing the exhibition I'm very disappointed. It looks very much as though Sellar and his co-investors are using Renzo Piano just to give a speculative block some credibility.

The transport "benefits" just don't seem to justify this bulky structure. Indeed IMHO some proposals actually could make interchange worse for many travellers.
- Large parts of the new bus station appear to be more exposed to the elements than the current one, although there are a few more stops.
- The walk from the station concourse to the cab rank appears to be a ridiculous distance for anyone who is elderly or has poor mobility.

And (of course) there are no drawings of how any of it would relate to a rebuilt London Bridge Station.
Tuesday 31 January 2006 11.01pm
I seem to remember (but someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that part of the reason Railtrack (as it then was) gave for why Thames 2000's railway viaduct could not avoid Borough Market and the surrounding listed buildings was that the viaduct's precise curve was necessary to avoid London Bridge House, the very building to be replaced by the proposed 'Baby Shard'. So perhaps Network Rail can now rethink the line of their viaduct, and destroy a few fewer listed buildings?
Thursday 2 February 2006 5.54pm
Interesting articles on page 3 of today's FT (prompted by John Prescott's approval of two more residential towers next to Lott's Road Power Station in Chelsea). The comment piece by their architecture critic, Edwin Heathcote, refers to the Shard and mentions Renzo Piano as "overrated".
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 Next
Current: 2 of 3
Related news & features

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions