Could london have as much towers and as tall towers as new york if it wanted to, because all i know is that london wants to keep it a beautifil city instead of havin lots of towers?
''Could london have as much towers and as tall towers as new york''
No... there is a ''your tower is too tall and American looking'' tax being implemented... a group of men armed with tape measures will be checking all proposed new tower specs from the beginning of next year...
I was in Universal Studios about 5 years ago. Having queued for a ride, that consisted of two tower type rides , someone said to the ride operator, why is the queue so long today ?
The chap says , one of the Towers is down sir , but the other is ok.
I said "Whooooo....ain't that they said in New York to the people in the other Twin tower ?"
If looks could kill ...oh well ...It's my North London gutter humour I suppose.
The view from The Gherkin and Tower42 (The NatWest Tower) are pretty good so why not haver a lot more?
I would put half a dozen at the big rail termini like Victoria and Kings Cross rather than Docklands. London does not need more pressurew on the Underground.
Manhattan Island, which is pretty much the "heart" of New York City, has a predominance of skyscrapers simply because it is sort of plopped right in the middle of the Hudson River; therefore, developments had to go upwards rather than outwards because of lack of land. London does not have the same geographical limitations.
sara3 - I used to live in Edmonton ...then in 1993 moved to Newbury and now live in a village between Andover and Basingstoke. So a North London country boy now :-)
SIRandy, I was in Wood Green today.. it's pretty grim! I live in St Albans now. we have fields nearby but I wouldn't call it "country".. there are way too many people!