E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Shard, Europe's tallest building will be officially dedicated. The glass paneling and tapered design have already made it one of London's most iconic landmarks. ITV's Lewis Vaughan Jones reports.
LONDON -- Built at a cost of $2.35 billion in tough economic times, Europe's new tallest skyscraper has become a lightning rod for criticism even before it officially opens Thursday.
Rising more than 1,000 feet above London's skyline with floor space equivalent to 31.4 acres -- or close to 15 football fields -- the Shard is Europe’s boldest and most extravagant building. It was funded by Qatar's royal family, who boast pockets as deep as the tower is high.
But it’s more than just sheer size that gives the tower its swagger. The building’s design is already iconic. It’s crafted from 11,000 glass panels, which resemble shards of glass (hence, its name). They incline inwards as they rise to the top culminating in a sharp-angled jagged spire. The shards never touch and there are fissures along the way, which allow the entire structure to “breathe.”
'A vertical city'
It has has been compared to an "iceberg jutting out of the Thames River" -- not so much scraping the skyline rather cutting it through like a knife.
PhotoBlog: Tallest building in Europe opened in London
“It’s a vertical city,” said Renzo Piano, the acclaimed Italian architect who designed the building. A city featuring 28 floors of office space, three floors of restaurants, 10 luxury apartments spread out over 12 floors, a five-star hotel with 200 rooms and a viewing gallery on the 72nd floor, which will be open to the public. The finished structure suggests harmony, technical perfection and purity of design in architectural terms.
But try telling that to its detractors -- who say it represents arrogance, power and money as Britain grapples with a double-dip recession and austerity cuts. Critics suspect mega-rich foreigners will be the only people wealthy enough to move in.
Piano squares off with opponents of the project by arguing that he respected London’s history and inched the city’s skyline into the 21st century. “It’s on the south side of the river; it’s where London started from in the 2nd century. We are bringing energy back to this part of the city.”
Laser show
He also shrugged off questions about the scale his creation at a press conference on Wednesday. “Architects shouldn’t say too much, just as singers shouldn’t explain their song before they sing,” Piano said.
As the world's 59th tallest building, there is plenty to boast about. It features 44 elevators, 306 flights of stairs and 72 occupiable floors. A further 15 levels make up its spire. The project was 12 years in the making and will be inaugurated Thursday night with great fanfare -- a spectacular light and laser show beaming across the tower to light up London’s night skies, all to the music of the London Philharmonic Orchestra.
From ITV News: Shard set for dramatic opening
Piano put it this way: “You will feel the building, it has a soul. It’s never the same; it’s almost like a kaleidoscope, a mirror of London.”
But will Londoners share his passion? Piano hopes people will learn to love his glass tower and adopt it as their own primarily because the building will be open to the public and won’t shut down at 6 p.m. “It will be full of life,” he said.
Critics allege that the Shard has destroyed London’s historic skyline. It dwarfs views of the Tower of London, Parliament Square and St. Paul’s Cathedral, they say.
PhotoBlog: London's tallest building takes shape amid recession fears
Reuters reported that it will open with 26 floors of vacant office space.
Sheik Abdullah al Thani, governor of Qatar’s central bank, was not worried. He said the Shard project is part of Qatar’s portfolio of London investments. Recouping their investment is not the oil-rich royal family's first priority.
“This is part of our relationship and our confidence about the London market," he explained. "To recover our investment is a minus thing for us at this moment and we look forward to recoup sometime in the future but it’s not important.”
Just one tenant
The building’s backers expect the tower to be fully rented by the end of 2014 but there is still only one committed tenant, the Shangri-La Hotel.
With stakes so high, the developers are counting on the Shard becoming a major tourist attraction like the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower. It’s no accident that the tower was completed just in time for the opening of Olympic Games.
Piano is confident he got the project right. The Shard’s backers agree. They are convinced it is the right building at the right time in the right city.
Londoners will hope they are right. As Piano points out: ”When you do something like this wrong, you are wrong for centuries.”
Twelve years after its conception, London's tallest building officially opens Thursday. Msnbc.com's Richard Lui reports.
More world news from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Syrian groups come to blows while seeking peace
- 'Catastrophe': Journalist behind the lines in Syria sees no end to war
- From soft power to drone attacks: What the world thinks of US
- Kids cross border alone, fleeing drugs and gangs
- East London: From gangland haven to Olympic showcase
Leave a Comment:
I cant actually say that this is the single ugliest building I've seen, but It has to be close...
it should be called The Shart
Give em a break, they are British...not even the Queen is allowed to wave with vigor...this is a real step forward
Construction jobs! Woot!
Good for them!
London appears hellbent to accumulate Europe's greatest collection of truly awful architecture. Considering that the buildings built in London which preceded the 20th Century include some of the world's most remarkable, it seems such an odd turn to build mostly crap for the following 112 years. Why, London, why? (Sir Christopher Wren is tossing in his grave!)
Apparently none of these critics are connected, otherwise they could have had building codes in place to protect the "historic skyline". Some people have just got to bitch!
Tally Ho! and all that @!$%#. Oh, I think I just shat myself!
Perhaps they should call it the "Fart." Humans reach for architectural grandeur while hundreds of millions go hungry. How many children could have been educated and saved from a life of poverty and hunger with the money that went into that monstrosity?
I must agree with Robert in Oregon:
I can't say that The Shard is a very goodlooking building - it's rather crappy looking. But most of all , I was surprised at the surrounding area, which looks like a mad, tacky, scramble of architectural oddities all huddled together. London could use some competent urban planning.
Hobbes,
Many children were educated and fed with the money. The construction worker's children, or should they starve?
Hobbes' Notes,
"How many children could have been educated and saved from a life of poverty and hunger with the money that went into that monstrosity?"
At an assumed cost of $3000/yr for 12 yrs, $2.35 B would cover the cost to 65,278. On the other hand, most of this expenditure, as I understand it, was made by Qatar, and I will presume some of that impacted the local economy, including, very importantly, employment and local businesses who provided services while the work was ongoing.
And just think, all those evil rich who (hopefully) will be parting with their money when they live in, rent, or otherwise utilize the facility.
Quit your whining. This time the shoe is on the right foot. Kudos for the Qatar royal family for employing Architects, Engineers, Contractors, Consultants and Material supplers to build the tower. Highrise construction is critical for real estate efficiency in crowded cities. It turns 1 acre of land into 100 acres of land.
I am sooo tired of political Islam coming out of the middle east, this sort of secular real estate investment will make for a much brighter future.
Qatar should ignore the trolls, stay away from ancient suppresive superstitions, and keep up the good investments.
That wasn't the choice. You can ask that question anytime a new building is erected, a bridge constructed, etc.... But, it is never "build the bridge or feed the children." If the bridge wasn't built, perhaps taxes would be lower or something else would be built. The money would not have been spent somewhere around the world. If the elimination of hunger and poverty was the requirement for building something, we'd still be living in caves.
In this case, the building was publicly funded by foreigners. It was either the building or nothing.
Just as an FYI, the building DID NOT cost $2.35 billion to build, that is the estimated value once it is completely occupied. The actual cost was ~$700 million, not cheap but not as outrageous as the previous figure.
I don't know - that birds nest in China is a hot mess
Hobbs, just quit with the liberal stupidity.....how about saving that for the 10's of billions Obama is throwing away on wasteful useless projects in support of his big campaign contributors.
Facts are you could spend all the worlds wealth of feeding the hungry and when you are all out of money there would still be hungry people.
We are living at a time when we are providing the most ever to those less privaledged.....to the point it is getting rediculous.....multiple cell phones...cable tv, high speed internet, cigarettes and alcohol.
700 million is still outrageous.
Better Question
How many starving children could Hobbs help if he weren't busy posting on the internet?
I am a big fan of growth. I am not usually given to paranoia or blanket condemnations. But does anyone else see giant modern minaret in this thing?
Money aside, the people of Paris said similar things about the Eifel tower when it was being built. They called it a monstrosity and said it ruined the city skyline.
But damn this Shard is ugly. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder I won't be asking this guy to design my home.
faylcon: The first line says "Built at a COST of $2.35 billion" It is possible that the actual value of the building could be more or less than that.
The Skylines of great cities cannot be "designed." They evolve and grow on their own like any other living system.
& IMHO
"Art" has no place in architecture. If you want design for the beauty and simple sake of design, then go make me a vase or paint a freakin' picture, don't waste money and time or compromise the utility of space or structure trying to make the outside of a building into a "statement of art."
The Shart may appear funny now, but if it works it will be there for hundreds of years and soon people will forget what the skyline looked like before it was there.
Construction workers can be put to work of far less grand structures, such as the building of schools and hospitals. Many thousands more could be put to work improving the lives of millions around the world. I really didn't expect much agreement, as this tends to be a me society and not a we society. We do tend to be selfish and pompous in our world view.
Hobbes,
Shouldn't you be educating children and saving them from a life of poverty and hunger? Posting on the internet is not getting that done...
Hobbes' Notes -- You're looking at this all wrong. All those people employed on this project will have money to spend and taxes to pay. From these taxes and with the additional spending money, schools can be built, roads can be improved, etc. etc. Since I live in earthquake country, I'm not big on tall buildings, but otherwise, could luck with. I certainly wouldn't mind taking a look at it.
When you look at London Bridge in the foreground and see how beautiful it looks compared to this "thing" and a few of the other nearby modern structures, it seems architecture has regressed...
Hobbes -
You have a very naive world view. Should all construction be centered around structures that facilitate only operations you deem worthy? Should those who wish to build be restricted to only schools, hospitals or other similarly charitable or altruistic activities? Should opulent aechitecture be banned? Do you want everything to be square or rectangular? Philanthropy is great but it doesn't produce, it doesn't create and most of the time it cannot finance itself. I wish it did but I also wish that rainbows were actually made of skittles. It's time for you to grow up and put childish fantasy behind you. This is the real world; if you cannot handle it then I'm very sorry. I hope you are able to mature into a productive adult someday.
That is the Tower Bridge. The current London Bridge is just a regular looking big bridge. The London Bridge you are think of was moved to Arizona (of all places). I prefer the old architecture too.
Hobbes,
There are schools and hospitals all over the world. Are there enough of them to make everyone happy? Probably not. But there are not enough Ferrari's to make everyone happy either; that doesn't mean we should stop building one to work on the other.
Hospitals make you happy; Ferrari's make me happy. Is one more "right" than the other? Who's to say?.... Oh yeah, the person with the wallet open who's ready to pay for it.
If you want to build another hospital, get off yer'arse and go raise money to build a freakin' hospital already.
To those worried about feeding the hungry. The owners of this building will pay boatloads of property taxes, which will help fund city services. Office workers will eventually be employed in this building. They will stop for coffee and scones in the morning and have a spot of lunch at noon. This building has already generated a ton of construction jobs and will be an economic force for many decades.
The issue with hunger is not money and it is not food. The issue is corruption, politics, and war. Thousands of tons of food rot in warehouses in Africa every year because warlords use food as a weapon.
I think the folks arguing over how much it cost or how the money could have been better spent, are missing the big picture.
The single purpose of this structure is to spread islam. It may not be covered in islamic symbols now, but give it a while.
It's no mistake that they built it in the poorer side of London either. That is how islam operates, they target the poorest most vulnerable segment of a population and grow from there. They will make sure the lower middle class and poor of London see all their luxury and tell them this is the reward of a life serving allah. Just look at countries in Africa and Asia that have been or are undergoing conversion.
Someone earlier called this secular construction. If it is funded by an islamic royal family, there is nothing secular about it. Secularism is a western ideal and probably the main reason they hate us.
I'm very curious too. Did British companies do most of the construction or did they fly in their own islamic companies?
All I see is one big ugly monument to religious extremism!
Mr.PheaNiques, if you think the building in this article is the ugliest in London, you've apparently never laid eyes on the current office housing Lloyd's of London:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:6414A_1_copy.jpg
and yes that is the completed version not some under construction picture. To make matters worse, that was built within the City surrounded by century old buildings.
Europe waste money on an ugly building such as this and they are deep in debt.
WTF is wrong with people when they waste money on tall and ugly buildings and ignore their debts.
PAY UP Europe and start taking care of your gd people for a change.
That has got to be the single greatest example of the mindset that is destroying this country and the western world in general.
Comparing ferraris to hospitals and schools!?!? That is apples and oranges. Ferrari's are over priced, over engineered status symbols with no practical value, that private citizens purchase for themselves with there own money. Most schools and some hospitals are publicly funded services to serve the public.
Of course, judging from the tone of your post, I'm going to assume, that you couldn't care less about anything publicly funded through taxes. Am I right? Or, are you just another typical conservative that uses public roads and services everyday and only hate public services that do not benefit yourself because you don't need them, you know, welfare, foodstamps, stuff like that?
The stupidest part about that mindset, is that when the poor finally take to the streets in desperation, the greedy conservatives that destroyed the safteynets under the banner of "smaller government" will be screaming for increased police protection from said government!
Wealth does not equal right!
Hobbes is getting beat up pretty good but we need to respect the validity of some of the statements made. The world isn't Vegas, so why are we building Vegas style buildings?
Yes this is the real world, the decadent vanity driven real world. We've gone from comparing the size of our johnsons to comparing our building heights and designs. It's like my feelings about my car, I don't care how the outside of it looks, I spend all my time inside of it. When they show off this building to potential tenants will they sit outside the entire time admiring it or will they show of the amenities inside?
NYC is rebuilding and all the designs are being touted as being a memorial to the events of 9/11. An excuse for decadence. Probably could have built a very good looking usable space for 30% less but what would there be to brag about? Knock off 300,000 dollars for every million spent.
Overall though where would that money saved be put to good use? Nowhere. It isn't going to save starving children, it isn't going to build schools or hospitals and I don't want it to. In the area I am from they are closing schools so why add to this? Hospitals have also been closing too. Health care costs have skyrocketed so they have enough money in their own system to build hospitals.
What I would like to see, communities making sure we build over old sites. The eyesores all across this country of borded up buildings, closed mini malls, vacant properties all over this country yet everyone wants to build on virgin land. This isn't vacant property in the slums I am talking about, these properties are everywhere.
Other than that it is one ugly building.
Why would they allow middle east's proclavity for vulgar and ostentatious display of ill-gotten wealth to mar the skyline of this quintessential understated European city is beyond my understanding.
Screw the shard ..it is a freaking eyesore rising above the majestic London Bridge and the stately towers of London.
I hate it with all my heart.
The location of the building is atrocious. It is an affront to the historical skyline of London. At least, the French had the good sense to locate their modern buildings to the outskirts of Paris.
Apparently judging by your comment, America is wasting money on education as you appear to have failed to grasp the fact that Qatar's Royal family funded it.
Steven, really? Or do you think I.M.Pei's glass pyramid outside the Louvre is fitting to its surroundings?
Livinginthewoods,
Ferrari employs several thousand ARTISANS and CRAFTSMAN and engineers that are pushing the very edge of their technology.
You called them, "over priced, over engineered status symbols with no practical value"
The point I was trying to convey is, That if the world limited itself to only creating things and building structures with, "practical value" we would be living in a very grey drab and sad world.
Did the Pieta or the Statue of David have any "practical value"???
No, but I am sure glad someone paid Michelangelo a ton of money 500 years ago to carve them.
Livinginthewoods -
I don't know many conservatives in favor of shutting down police and fire departments so your attack is absurd. Yes, we conservatives do tend to prefer smaller government as opposed to an ineffective bloated large centralized government but we are not for anarchy. It seems reasonable to conclude that municipalities are more in tune with their constituencies than some Federal bureaucrat living a thousand miles away. The same can be said with regards to states and the more intimate knowledge they have of the needs of their citizens. Taking it one step further, our Federal government is more suitable to determine the needs and to act upon the opinions of its people than some UN board made up third world dictators. Yes, we like smaller government, we are shackled to our ways by commonsense.
Also, I'm not sure what "Wealth does not equal right" means but, at least in the US, the right to how, when and where accumulated wealth is spent is indeed bequeathed to the accumulator of said wealth; that is how private property rights work and I for one am thankful for that. I am very far from being wealthy but I love the fact that the possibility of accumulating wealth exists and that we have laws in place that protect the assets people earn during their lifetimes. We're a great country and western philosophy based on the individual has done wonders for our way of life. Hate all you want but I love my country.
Nice try but it's my country too and I don't love it any less that you do!
Unregulated capitalism is not a Constitutionally protected ideal like the freedom of speech or the freedom of/from religion or the right to keep and bear arms so, to hate it is not to hate my country, not by a long shot!
As far as I am concerned those people are American citizens first and foremost well before they are citizens of the state they live in. A person living in Arizona is entitled to the same rights, privileges, and benefits as someone living in California, or New York.
We settled the whole state vs fed thing long before any of us were born with a little conflict called the American Civil War! Please stop trying to start a new one!
Wow, how did a discussion about a new building in London digress to Right v Left BS???
Hey Lininginthewoods and Hobbes,
This was a privately funded construction project that employed thousands of construction workers, designers, and project managers. I am assuming they complied with the local zoning requirements, obtained the required permits, and paid the local government very handsomely for them. Until you can get a law passed in England that requires all new buildings to be either schools or hospitals, your arguments are ridiculous and totally nonsensical.
JQ, your opinions on the separations of governmental power are very debatable, and have been fiercely debated since the time of Adams and Jefferson. The idea that YOUR opinions are thoroughly based in commonsense is about as nonsensical as Hobbes' and nevertheless have absolutely no place here within the comments about a new building in London, England.
Matt,
Well, when you are right, you are right!
I bounce around a lot of different articles on the vine so, it is basically always conservative vs, liberal or secular vs. religious for me.
I post here for one reason and one reason only, to provoke thought in the minds of those that are reading and not commenting.
Most of us here already have our minds made up. I will jump at just about any comment I deem overly conservative or fascist in nature. I don't really want to waste my time arguing with someone who already feels they know everything, I just want to make sure the opposing ideal is presented with equal vigor, so that these rants don't turn into propaganda for the people that read them.
Chitown -
Your use of the word nonsensical is nonsensical. Of course it is commonsense that those closest to one another are more aware of the wants and needs of one another; that is not a difficult conclusion to draw. Also, when I see someone attack my point of view, I often feel compelled to defend it. So, while the article itself is apolitical, this thread was tarnished well before my rumblings and now I have offered my point of view.
livinginthewoods -
I would be more inclined to accept the premise that regardless of what state we live in, we should all be entitled to the same rights and benefits if we could agree on the definitions of rights, privileges and benefits. First, semantics prevent individuals from being entitled to a privilege. Next, unfortunately there are varying opinions as to what constitutes a right as opposed to privilege and those opinions will often vary geographically. Why should citizens of Charlotte, NC be subject to the bizarre whims of those residing in Berkley, CA who may feel it is their right to defecate on a public sidewalk? What some may view as a right others may view as coercion or conversely, earned privilege. That's right, I think you should have to earn the right to poop on the paved walkways. :) Similarly, what may benefit some may be detrimental to others. We have a right to free "fill in the blank" and it will not adversely affect anyone. Well, I suppose the only people that it harms are those who deserve it; perhaps those with the nerve to use their own money to purchase Ferraris. That just seems like a childish point of view. Whatever dude; good luck.
Sorry this is the United States of America not the Loosely Affiliated Republics of America.
The states are just a part of the whole, we all have to play by the same rules.
As I said the whole "States Rights" issue was decided long ago, the Fed won.
A house divided DID NOT stand!
Voter-in-LA
Apparently judging by your comment, America is wasting money on education as you appear to have failed to grasp the fact that Qatar's Royal family funded it.
^^^^^^
blablabla- These people have robbed the people of their money, and this building didn't come for free either. Some strings were pulled, and there will be payback somewhere down the line.
Just as in America, the government as the royals in Europe all live and feed off of the people like the 1%ers have been doing for far too long.. LEARN IT!
So should we do away with all state and local laws? Does every statute or code need to originate within the US Congress or some Federal Bureaucracy? I suppose they would have to in order to prevent us from devolving into the Loosely Affiliated Republics of America. Right now it doesn't seem as though we all do play by the same rules. Acts that are legal in one city or state are often illegal in an adjacent location. Based upon what I've read so far, this appears to be contrary to your interpretation of Civil War results. Should states then be allowed to tax income and if so should taxation occur at a uniform level across state lines? Pssssst, don't tell nobody but we may have a divided house on this issue.
That would be fine with me but, does not seem very likely to happen any time soon.
Many state and local laws are in fact completely unconstitutional. Trying to use inconsistencies in the law against me only proves my point. The Constitution of the United States overrules any state or local laws and we do in fact all play by the same rules. Folks just get together and decide to break the rules because there is enough of them in an area to trample on the rights of everyone outside there circle be it, religious, racial, or economic.
When I hear someone in favor of "states rights" it almost always boils down to them wanting to carve out there own little piece of America where they can keep out those they don't like by forcing them out with discriminatory laws. Bull@!$%#!
JQ
"Of course it is commonsense that those closest to one another are more aware of the wants and needs of one another;"
You mean that it is "Commonsense" that surely Governor Wallace knew more than President Kennedy what was best for the University of Alabama back in 1961???
Hmmmm, seems a bit more convoluted now... doesn't it?
Matt, we definitely would not agree on a lot of things but, like I said before when you are right you are right and in #1.48 you are sure right!
Given that this thing was financed by Qatar, an Arab state which is an absolute monarchy and is hated by the adherents to al-Qaeda, I sure hope this tower is designed to withstand the impact of a few commercial airliners with full fuel loads.
I wouldn't take space in that big, hulking 'target' if you gave me a free lifetime lease ("lifetime" being the operative word).
livinginthewoods,
"As I said the whole "States Rights" issue was decided long ago, the Fed won."
I think that's quite a simplistic view of the Civil War.
"When I hear someone in favor of "states rights" it almost always boils down to them wanting to carve out there own little piece of America where they can keep out those they don't like by forcing them out with discriminatory laws. Bull@!$%#!"
And that sounds like a very narrow view of the principle of states' rights.
I was always under the impression that, at least in the beginning, the powers granted to the Federal government were only those specifically allowed to it. I think you're delving into the 10th (?) amendment, the 'necessary and proper' (I think of it as weasel words) clause, and the difference between strict and loose constructionists. But then, it's been a while since I had kept up with this stuff. In the end, we're entitled to our opinions.
Voter-in-LA, please mind rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Chitown -
I'm not saying that some Federal regulations aren't necessary. Contrary to what you may believe, the legalized tormenting of certain segments of the population is not the alluring bait that has reeled me in to the smaller government fold. I understand that as with any civilized society we in America have to take steps to protect minorities that live among us and that the Federal government is best equipped to provide that protection. There are other important rights that the Federal government is best equipped to protect including some heralded by conservatives and decried by liberals. I'm not blinded to this. However, a bloated centralized government insistent that it can provide for the wants and needs (and wants people have redefined as needs) of its entire citizenry is disingenuous and dangerous. The bad thing about our prosperity is that people become spoiled and begin believing that things their parents and their grandparents worked for should be provided as a right. This type of viewpoint is more pervasive in certain areas than others. Regardless, people like free stuff and politicians like votes; seems reasonable to trade the free stuff for votes. So you pile on bureaucracies and federal programs and spending and all types of nonsense until it becomes a writhing uncontrollable mass that burns through assets without regard to logic. If you try to pull back a little, if you even suggest restraint this writhing mass bites you and injects a venom that immediately turns you into a racist bigot who wants to kill old people and hates baby polar bears. So I prefer smaller, more manageable government. I like individual accountability. I can't stand the sentence starter, "We as a society need to...", because it removes blame from those who deserve it and places it on an imaginary scapegoat that cannot be held to account and sometimes results in ill-conceived legislation that usually does more harm than good. I have no hatred for people who are different from me; I just think Big Governement sucks.
Nobody will ever read this because I waited too long but this is what I believe and I firmly believe that it is all based on commonsense.
You are seriously kidding me? It's OK for someone to express an opinion and "call out" European nations telling them to take care of the "gd" people yet pointing out that the person expressing that opinion completely overlooked the pertinent fact in the article that Europe didn't spend a dime is wrong?
Newsvine has gone down the toilet. There was a time when the original poster would have had HIS post deleted and been warned.
Sorry I'll stick to my statement. It is a waste of our money educating people when individuals like Areus can't even gd read.
Sign of the times. I guess Newsvine moderators lack the ability to read articles these days too.
"The world's 59th tallest building"...BIG HAIRY DEAL !!!
But, the tallest in Europe. So, it is a big deal. The US no longer has the world's tallest building, but we do make a big deal when we build one that is the "new tallest in the US."
Looks like the "phantom hotel" in Pyongyang, truly hideous. Why would they build something so ugly, and right in front of the tower bridge? I thought is was a photo-shopped joke when I first looked at the picture. Turns out its not photo-shopped...but it is a joke.
those workers have got some balls though.
I must agree. Near the base of this shard is London City Hall (i.e. the great glass testicle).
I sorta like the shard, but next to the great glass testicle? LOL. Is there only one?
Maybe if you are hoping for Bulimia tourist niche...
It's time to confiscate the wealth from arrogant fools interested in constructing useless monuments to themselves and put it into the hands of people who will actually do something useful with it.
Pardon ME??? I suppose that you feel like we should also confiscate money from the architects who built sudh monstrosities as the Eiffel Tower? (or at least from his heirs?)
This building's construction involved countless construction workers, its materials' purchase countless of billions more into the economy of England, ALL of it privately funded, and you want to take the private money away? TRY that. Because the private money was foreign, and if England tried to take it away, it would just LEAVE.
Yes it is. And in this case it's very easy to do. Get rid of your SUV and drive a prius or a leaf or a volt. Support alternative energy and dimwits like this will not have all of the money on the planet.
Confiscate?? Your in the wrong country buddy or possibly the wrong solar system. Those types of views are usally related to the social security victims lying on a couch complaining there is no work because they are too fat to get off it. A country most suited to taking things without asking is probably Isreal or Iran you should move there to be among your people.
This building will become a classic with the passage of time. Give it a break!
Purity of design - yes. It's pure crap. Reminds me of that mountain thing in North Korea.
So, how tall is it?
Sounds beautiful. Looks beautiful. Hope it does not hurt the eyes when it reflects the light. It stands a good chance of making back the money spent on it. Why not? But then life is not only about profit, it is also about beauty and change. So what if it changes the skyline? History has its place. Important. But change also has its place. Good for you, Piano! I hope it joins the ranks of Eiffel tower etc. Come on guys, give it a chance!
It is probably a sign of changing times, not that long ago they were building (Spires was it?) with the revolving part ot the top. There's one in Seattle, Wa and San Antonio, Tx to name a couple off the top of my head.
1.) It's truly ugly.
2.) Someone will find a way to fly a plane into it, creating another terrorist coup.
3.) If they liked it so much, why didn't the Qataris build it in their own backyard? In other words, why crap in someone else's ?
4.) These guys are so rich they aren't worried about recouping their investment of 2.35 BILLION???! Sounds to me like they just insulted Londoners by taking a 2.35 billion crap in their backyard.
Having money does not assure that you have class. This structure proves it.
Have you seen any of the crap they build in their own back yard? This thing would blend in at home, is a bigger eye sore abroad.
1. It isn't that ugly. I like it.
2. Sure, but why let things such as that stop you. We are trying to beat terrorism right?
3. Because it was an investment in London real estate; London is one of the worlds premier cities.
4. No they aren't worried about it, because it will happen eventually. They realize that in a few years they will be making money off this. Why would anyone invest in something and expect an immediate return on investment?
Why do these phalanx just keep getting bigger....and bigger? Seems the wealthy want to show the world that theirs is bigger...
I would rather they get even bigger so people would quit paving over our farmlands and forests, up is better than sideways, as far as I am concerned every city needs like 10 of these, one can only imagine the land saved for our future survival.
For people living downtown its great too, no gas, food right down the hall. It has many benefits economically and agriculturally.
All you haters eat another twinkie,
just plain ugly. as for taking rich peoples money away from them ,mass. that sounds a whole lot like communists.
if nothing else this ugly place has supplied jobs
So who is going to wash the windows???
Someone with a large set of testicles.
Actually I think buildings like this might have automated window washers, but I'm not sure.
Mass anarchist is going to wash the windows then distribute his income to those less fortunate.
soxfan1978
I think I hear Rush and O'Reilly calling. Why don't you run off and play now.
mj finally pulled your head out of Obamas ass long enough to actually post. As for Rush and O'Reilly your off the Marx.
Looks like a lot of local jobs to build it. Good for the Brits.
As for it's beauty? Lets just say that when I see the fly over views of New York City, I think to myself, "I bet that was beautiful country before they ruined it with all those buildings". If I want beauty, I look out my windows at the mountains. Or better yet, drive up into them.
For Renzo Piano, acclaimed Italian architect, he didn't put much thought into that design.
what a truly beautiful building, very imagiative and a far sight better than most modernist buildings in new york chicago or berlin
Cool!
London Olympics the commercial farce like what happened in Greece is a pipe dream. To the Qartari Royal family some $3 billion is peanuts and it can write off the loss with reckless abandon. Plus it just bought more ownership of the British London that the movers and shakers had no problems bribing the British politicians. Amazing that the name of that British so called trade Ambassador Prince Andrew, the Royal Family Arab ass kisser , who has had much too much complicity, all at British Taxpayer's expense is not mentioned by any body.
The real bottom line is as to who will be responsible for the maintenance of this titanic folly, when it starts falling apart due to negligence and nobody willing too come up with rental money. The cheap Royals and the Aristocrats in this murky economic times, will as usual Wait for some Govt hand outs.
May be when London gets hit by another drought, the British can use the monstrosity to suck up the Thames and use the shards to rain on London. And wet the British appetite.
Show a picture of the new $1.5 billion US Embassy being constructed nearby.
So during tough economic times they do not want RICH foreigners bringing their money into the country? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face?
What caught my eye was the Thames river in the photo for the article, it's Brown!
Most rivers are brown that close to the ocean, thanks to sediments.
Sediment? I wouldnt swin in that sh**hole if you paid me. Read up on history how many years did they dump straight into the river?? Sediment excuse is always used after they have used it for a toilet for the last umpteen years.
It's actually much cleaner now than it was in the recent past. It supports a wide variety of species and is widely recognized as the cleanest river running through a major metropolitan area. That's impressive considering that the river was once a major source of disease and the "water" was little more than accumulated raw sewage.
Even with it's massive level of pollution however, it never caught fire and continued to burn uncontrolled as the Cuyahoga River running through Cleveland, Ohio did in 1969.
Does it have a cup holder?
I don't understand all these negative comments. I think the Shard is fantastic--a modern masterpiece! If only Piano had been in charge of that pitiful Olympic tower...
Long live the Shard!