Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in London

Featured listList of tallest buildings and structures in London is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 23, 2007Featured list candidatePromoted
July 8, 2008Featured list removal candidateKept
Current status: Featured list

Opening Paragraphs

"London has limits to building heights because of protected views of certain buildings from particular locations (notably St Paul's). Until the early 1960s buildings in London were restricted to 100 feet (30 metres) in height, although there were some exceptions to this rule. This restriction was put in place in order to keep every floor of a building in reach of the fire brigade's ladders [citation needed]. The lifting of the height restriction caused a boom in the building of tall buildings during the 1960s. Most prominent of these was the Post Office (now BT) Tower, built as a microwave relay station.

London's first skyscraper was the NatWest Tower (now Tower 42), completed in 1980 and standing 182m tall. It was followed in 1991 by One Canada Square which was 235m and formed the centrepiece of the Canary Wharf development. Following another 10 year gap, several new skyscrapers appeared on London's skyline - 8 Canada Square, 25 Canada Square, the Heron Quays buildings, the Barclays headquarters and the award-winning 30 St Mary Axe."


The point made in the first paragraph needs to be referenced: eveything I've read suggests that it was aesthetic considerations, specifically the reaction against the fourteen-floor Queen Anne Mansions (where Basil Spence's 50 Queen Anne's Gate now stands) that prompted the 100ft height limit. The second is flagrant nonsense; what about Centrepoint, the Barbican towers and any number of 1960's and 1970's housing and office blocks? FrFintonStack 18:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're the one who's talking "flagrant nonsense". A skyscraper is widely acknowledged as being a minimum of 150m. Ask any of the 60,000 members of [http://www.skyscrapercity.com SkyscraperCity.com], the biggest forum on the Internet for skyscraper enthusiasts. Centrepoint and the Barbican Towers are not skyscrapers - they are just midrises by comparison - and to suggest that 60's and 70's housing blocks are "skyscrapers" is frankly ludicrous. The NatWest Tower was an absolutely MASSIVE advance in terms of height for London, and it completely redefined the City skyline. It was the first building in London to be considered tall by international standards, and it was 25 years before anything in Central London even came close to challenging it. Wjfox2005 10:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opening personal insult. I am aware that the minumum for a skyscraper is currently regarded as 150m. However, this has not always been the case, and the buildings listed above did meet the conventions of what was regarded as a skyscraper at the time at which they were constructed. By architectural convention, Centrepoint is regarded as London's first skyscraper; ask the ghost of Nicklaus Pevsner. Ask 100 people if Centrepoint or the Barbican towers are skyscrapers and I wonder what answer you'll receive. And why is the idea that housings blocks can be skyscrapers ludricous? The idea that goalpost shifting causes previous tall buildings to cease being "the first" skyscrapers is absurd: will NatWest cease to be London's first skyscraper as buildings rise higher and higher? FrFintonStack 02:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC) it has flats in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.157.139 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can't help noticing this error.. "Few skyscrapers were built in London before the end of the last century, owing to restrictions on building heights originally imposed by the London Building Act of 1894" I presume this refers to the 19th century. The 'last' century was the 20th. 2.100.222.35 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Few skyscrapers were built in London before the end of the twentieth century. Paravane (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skylon

Should probably mention the Skylon (can't remember how tall that was) and the Millennium Dome, which is about 300m I think.

100m

Both the Skylon and Millennium Dome were/are apparently under 100m (300ft, not metres), which seemed like a good cut-off point - I also avoided buildings that no-longer exist (one could count the old st pauls at 168m). If you feel the dome deserves a mention I think the height is 95m (according to skyscrapers.com, from where the other information came for consistency). Ed g2s 22:47, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Let's not make 100m a rule for other cities, though. Chigago would end up with 219 and New York some 450 entries. Rmhermen 02:57, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Er..the masts of the millennium dome are 300 ft tall (yes silly of me to put metres, earlier). BTW a limit of 100m cuts of the Lloyd's building. Mintguy 08:25, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Palace of Westminster

The Palace of Westminster (or St. Stephen's Tower) should really be here. It's probably the most famous building in London, and it's 99m tall. - Efghij 03:01, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Be bold ;-) Fantasy 08:00, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The Palace of Westminster includes Victoria Tower at the other end which is over 100m (and seeing it every day - I'd have to say more impressive), one could however add a separate section for other famous tall buildings for cases such as the Millennium Dome, St. Stephen's Tower and any other cases you can think of.
Ed g2s 15:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
well the palace of westminster heights for this site are wrong. the ones on emporis are wrong. i know this because i actually checked with the seargant of arms office. the victoria tower is 98.5m to roof and 120.8m to the flag pole. that makes it UNDER 100m.
The Victoria Tower of the Palace of Westminster seems to be 98.5m(323ft) with a 22.3m flagstaff. This is from Factsheet G11;General Series;Revised May 2009;House of Commons Information Office;The Palace of Westminster: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/G11.pdf Is this not more authoritative than skyscraperpage.com? I have cited this in the timeline notes, but would ask for opinions here as it would relegate the tower below 100m, and as such a hugely important historical/engineering feat should it not remain in the list, perhaps including the flagstaff to bring it to 120.8m, making it taller than Millbank and Centre point!(After all, if Crystal Palace counts as a structure, why doesn't the flag on the Victoria Tower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebluenick (talk • contribs) 00:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trellick Tower

I removed trellick tower (98m) from other famous buildings, and the section is for buildings just under 100m that warrant a mention due to their significant (often international) fame, which Trellick Tower doesn't have (IMHO). Ed g2s 16:47, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think YHO is wrong. Trellick tower does have significant fame. It is a listed building after all. It was designed by the internationally famous architect by Erno Goldfinger. It is held in high regard by fans of modern architecture. It is probably the most famous tall building outside of the centre of London. It is certainly the most famous residential tall building in Britain. Mintguy 17:52, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I still think its fame is not comparable to the others in the list - but I suppose it doesn't hurt to be there if you insist. Ed g2s 12:56, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Post Office Tower

Why is the tallest building in London (and Grade 2 listed) not on here? (619 feet, according to our friends at the BBC. Completed 1965.)

And why is all this in a table with the numbers hard-coded? Vicki Rosenzweig 13:26, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Er... The BT Tower (as it is now known) is on the list (although the date is wrong (maybe a bit was added to its height in 1980). Not quite sure what you mean about hard-coded numbers. Mintguy 16:30, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
...and at 619ft it is not the tallest building :) (again... hard-coded??) Ed g2s 23:00, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If, by hard-coded, you mean the rankings in the tables, well, there's no other way of doing it (in HTML, at least); the table element is not compatable with being muxed with an ordered list element...
BTW, Google seems to think that "619 feet = 188.6712 meters"...
James F. 13:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The OXO Tower is not very tall by modern standards, but was once considered tall - in the early 1900s. Does anyone know its height? David Martland 17:28, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

About 67m / 200ft, so not really tall but fairly famous.
Ed g2s 17:59, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I see Drapers Gardens is listed but not the nearby 1 Angel Court which is about the same height.

One Angel Court is 94m which is less than the 100m limit (we have to draw the line somewhere!)
Ed g2s 14:32, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What is tall? What is London? What is a building?

Under the heading "Other Famous Tall Buildings" the Old Bailey and the OXO tower (both at 67m) are mentioned. I can understand the OXO tower being there, as, regardless of its measured height, being a thin tower in a fairly flat area, it appears tall. The Central Criminal Court at Old Bailey is surrounded by taller buildings, and is mostly the same height all over. Would we list every famous building >6 storeys here?

Clearly this is not just a list of tall buildings in the City of London, Millbank Tower, Euston Tower, Post Office Tower and others are all outside The City. Both Battersea and Bankside Power stations are taller than 100m (I think). Are they excluded because their height comes from an uninhabited part of the structure? If so, what is the limit on this? The Post Office tower is essentially a radio mast full of switching equipment, and the top 40m of 1 Canada Square is uninhabited, making it shorter than its two neighbours.

H and B

What do the letters 'H' and 'B' in square brackets in the list represent? Shouldn't there be a key somewhere if things like this are included?

Must remember to sign in if I'm not at home... sheridan 08:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the list of current tallest buildings, there is a key underneath.
"[U] Under construction.
[C] Part of the Canary Wharf Complex.
[B] Part of the Barbican Estate.
[H] Part of the Heron Quays Complex." Marky-Son 11:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde Park Barracks

According to the Wiki article, this building is just short of 100m, but it dominates the skyline south of Hyde Park. Is it worth a mention in other buildings?

187 Green Bird

We have to have a mention of 187 Green Bird.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/187GreenBird_pic1.jpg

London must have this building!!

--Kalmia 07:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Building

This is now externally complete, it should be added to the diagram.

Merge from List of future tallest buildings in London

Since this article already contains information on proposed buildings and buildings under construction, there doesn't seem to be a real need for the separate, newly created article. Any additional information could be merged into this article.--Boson (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this would be a very wise merge. No other city (at least not one that I know of) has a separate list for future projects. Cheers, Rai-me 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the list again, it appears that the lead was entirely copied from portions of this list's lead, and that every building on the other list is also on this one. So, as the other does comply with WP:CRYSTAL and has no encyclopedic value that this list doesn't already have, I have decided to be bold and "merge" the two, or more simply redirect List of future tallest buildings in London to this one. Cheers, Rai-me 02:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my proposal, but unless the issues mentioned in the proposal are dealt with, it is likely that this list will lose its featured status. Kbthompson (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLCR calling Earth: nothing done in all of this time. Doesn't anyone care about this featured list? TONY (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Tallest structures" with "Tallest buildings"?

I really don't think it is appropriate to have to separate sections, as there is no clear distinction between a "building" and a "structure" in some of the cases. The heading states that "A structure differs from a high-rise by its lack of floors and habitability", but this definition does not fit for several of the entries: the BT Tower is the most prominent example, as it has several floors of buildings. The churches and the stadium are also habitable at their lower levels; how can such habitable buildings be labeled "non-building structures"? There is the same problem with the two timelines; several of the structures are clearly habitable buildings. In my opinion, these sections should be merged into "Tallest buildings and structures" and "Timeline of tallest buildings and structures". Cheers, Rai•me 01:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had originally decided to have a timeline of tallest structures (that would list the tallest man-made structures in London regardless of use or structure type). After I had put it together I noticed that the list maily included structures and did not include buildings, so I decided to create one list for buildings and another for structures. But, I actually do not understand the difference between a structure and a building. According to me, buildings are places where there are offices, residences and hotels while structures are places where people cannot live in (such as telecommunication towers, observation wheels, and churches). I am not sure how correct this is, and I find the differences confusing. So, according to what you said above, the London Eye and the CN Tower would be considered buildings because they can be inhabited, right? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the difference is vague and certainly confusing. I guess I should have been clearer; in my opinion, at least, churches are buildings because they are mostly inhabitable; I see the steeples as architectural elements similar to the spires of skyscrapers. A stadium is also a building, as it is mostly habitable. I have heard the term "continuously inhabitable" used often, but that doesn't make sense in all cases; for example, does the Taipei 101 stop being a building and start being a structure at its roof? I guess perhaps a better definition, at least in my opinion, is that a building is a structure that is mostly, although not always entirely, inhabitable. The CN Tower, therefore, would not be a building, as it is inhabitable on only a few levels; the uninhabitable portion is far larger than the habitable portion. However, since the tower has often been deemed the "tallest building in the world", it is obvious that not all agree. The London Eye is in a similar situation; it is partially inhabitable, but not mostly inhabitable, so I would consider it a “non-building structure”. In the "Tallest structures" list, I see the Crystal Palace Transmitter, the Croydon Transmitter, the London Eye, the Battersea Power Station, and the SELCHP as non-building structures, and all of the rest as buildings. But the difference is so vague; that is why I feel it would be best to combine the sections into one. A building is always a structure to begin with, so perhaps the sections are even misnamed… What do you think? Cheers, Rai•me 02:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merging tallest buildings and tallest structures is the best thing to do in order to avoid the confusion. I will go ahead and merge both the lists and the timelines in the coming hours. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this a tower has to have less than 50% usable space.[1] If we went by this it would take off Crystal Palace Transmitter, Croydon Transmitter, London Eye, Wembley Stadium, Battersea Power Station, and SELCHP. I think we should use this because stuff like the London Eye and Crystal Palace Transmitter are obviously not buildings. Alaskan assassin (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this article is for buildings and structures. Therefore, including structures which have less than 50% usable space is okay for this list. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xth tallest building

I have just altered entry for 30 St Mary Axe, which claimed building was 7th tallest building/structure in London, but 5th tallest building in UK. With Crystal Palace Tranmission Tower labelled a structure, that means the Gerkin must be 6th tallest building in London, therefore can only be 6th tallest (at most) in UK. It was only then that I noticed that most subsequent buildings are listed following the same (eroneous) count. Is there a way that this list can be altered/linked to update automatically, or does it mean that someone has to go through and alter every item individually - and repeat the task every time a new tall building is erected? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in main list of buildings still under construction

A difference of opinion has emerged as to whether or not the Shard London Bridge should be added at the top of the main list, similarly to the insertion of the Tokyo Sky Tree on the List of tallest structures in Tokyo page. I have removed it to restore the status quo established over the last 2-3 months, pending the outcome of any discussion. Three arguments for removal are:

As there is a separate list for structures under construction, inclusion of the Shard on the main list entails making an exception for the Shard, and entails duplicate entries on 2 lists. The height of the Shard is already referred to in the first paragraph of the article, in the last paragraph before the main list, in the header before the first item on the main list, in the entry in the under construction list, and at the end under the timeline.Paravane (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cityoflondonatnight10.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cityoflondonatnight10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Cityoflondonatnight10.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shard update needed

this needs to be updated now the Shard is complete Siuenti (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for height ranking

I have noticed that in the article Heron Tower is ranked as 3rd tallest at 230m, but this is based on its roof height of 202m + the 28m spire. Whereas the BT tower is only ranked as 10th tallest at a height of 177m without the inclusion of its 12m antenna which is mentioned in the notes, and would put it at 189m tall if included and would be ranked as 7th tallest. So why can the spire of Heron Tower be included and the antenna of the BT Tower not. Also when 122 Leadenhall is completed it will be 225m at roof height, so is it fair for Heron Tower to be placed above it with a roof height of just 202m, based on the fact that it has a 28m spire ?QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The convention is for buildings to be listed by 'architectural height', which includes spires such as that of the Heron Tower, but excludes 'non-architectural' antennas. If you look at the List of tallest buildings in New York City, the Bank of America Tower is listed as second tallest on account of its spire, whilst further down the page is a separate listing of 'Tallest buildings by pinnacle height'. Paravane (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Height Ranking Discrepancies

In the main table two towers are ranked joint fifth, yet both of their comments state that they're joint fourth in the whole UK. How is this possible? 109.158.249.60 (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible because the towers are ranked as joint fifth-tallest structures and described as fourth-tallest buildings, and not all structures are considered to be buildings. Paravane (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. 109.158.249.60 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Urbanest King's Cross to the list.

Could anyone please add Urbanest King's Cross to the list of tallest structures and buildings please. It is a student accommodation building completed this year. It has a height of 100 metres and has 27 floors. Thanks

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=6433

My recollection is that the SkyscraperNews information is incorrect, and that the height of 100m is AOD not AGL. I removed this building from the list several months ago for that reason. Paravane (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date images

This article is full of out of date images. Particularly the panoramic view of the City which does not even include the Leadenhall Building or the Walkie Talkie on Fenchurch Street. I think a view of the City as taken from the top of St Paul's Cathedral would be ideal for this article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I count 62 images. How many of them do you think are out of date? Paravane (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The images listed in the table that lists the tallest buildings are ok. It's mainly the skyline photos that I think could be better. There are certainly better images that show the Shard and City together than the one at the top of the article. Also as already mentioned the panoramic view of the City is well out of date as it does not even include the Leadenhall Building or the Fenchurch St Walkie Talkie building, both of which are topped out.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a skyline of the same or better quality that is up to date on commons, I don't think anyone would object to a replacement. CMD (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical highrises of London

Hi, this is a great list. But I was rather disappointed to see it didn't include marvels like the 1937 Senate House of the University. How about we include a section for historical highrises, that were built before the lifting of height restrictions in the 1960s? Which could be included? Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

This list is out of date. Both the 'Walkie-talkie' and the Leadenhall Building are structurally complete and need to be included. Catchpole (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of "Tallest Buildings 100m+"

This bit of the page seems entirely redundant as all the buildings listed on this short section appear on the subsequent list. Is there some reason why this list exists at all? I'm having a hard time justifying it's existence because I can't see a reason for it, and for the fact that there is no lead in paragraph explaining the significance of having a list for Tallest Buildings 100m+. 31.52.80.203 (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've removed said list, on the grounds of redundancy and being unsourced. —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of tallest bridges in the world which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Elms Towers

I think both of the Nine Elms Towers are under construction now, aren't they ? So they should really be moved to the table of towers that are under construction.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about (decorative?) colour scheme

Does anyone know what the colours in the tables are supposed to represent? There isn't a single reference to them in the list, or in other versions thereof going back several years. Based on this FLR in 2008 and the state of the list then, I am inclined to think it began as a simple alternation of colours for aesthetic purposes. Unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to easy maintenance, considering that a) every new entry requires the rest of the table below to be adjusted, and b) many editors create a new line simply copying the code of the line above, ignoring the colour scheme. Barring an automated table that will display colours based on the number of lines, or an editor (or bot) willing to watch this page and update the colours every now and then, it's worth considering whether it might be best to do away with the stripes entirely. Waltham, The Duke of 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - let's remove it.Batternut (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and done. Waltham, The Duke of 13:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Bank

Shard and Guy's are not in the South Bank, that stretches no further east than Blackfriars Bridge, so which area are they in, London Bridge? Marky-Son (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southwark would be the correct location I think. It doesn't appear clear if there is a recognised place called 'London Bridge', or whether it is an informal name for the area by London Bridge. There appears to be a place 'London Bridge Quarter'. However, it is unclear to me if this is a recognised place name or one created by the developer of The Shard specifically for the area of their new developments. Guy's and The Shard don't appear to be within a specific area such as South Bank or Bankside, so the district name of Southwark is probably best in my opinion. --LegereScire (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled constructions suggestion

Hi all. I'm not sure what the criteria for adding cancelled constructions is exactly (it might be this already), but can I suggest that only cancelled constructions with no replacement which can be added to the proposed list are placed in cancelled constructions? There are so many schemes replaced by new designs that the list of cancelled schemes is potentially endless and will therefore just keep expanding. Details of the cancelled schemes can be placed within the notes of the new proposal and/or the developments own page, and developments with no replacements can be added to cancelled constructions to ensure they are recorded. This ensures the list of cancelled constructions doesn't endlessly grow and stays nice and trim! Many thanks in advance, --LegereScire (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest buildings and structures in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of tallest buildings and structures in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of tallest buildings and structures in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on List of tallest buildings and structures in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tallest buildings and structures in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland Quay

Given that Newfoundland Quay has topped out at its full height, should it not be added to the main list of buildings ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The images at the top of this article of both the City of London and Canary Wharf are well out of date and need replacing. QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Tallest london" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tallest london. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Tallest london until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Size of article list 100m/150m

The completed list of buildings currently shows 34 buildings that are at least 150m tall, with another 8 that are at least 150m under construction and another 25 that are "approved" that are also at least 150m tall. When all these are done there will be 67 buildings completed that are at least 150m tall. Therefore given that we could have a never ending list we may at some point have to cut the completed list to include only buildings that are at least 150m. Maybe, we could then have a separate article listing "buildings in London between 100m and 150m tall", which although are "tall" buildings probably do not constitute skyscrapers. Although the current article is a "tall buildings" article at some point we may have to draw a line. In the debate over tall buildings in London, the developers apparently see 150m as the benchmark for "tall". On the flip side of this, current projections are that once the current skyscraper boom in London is over there might not be much more to come, which if the case, hypothetically all of the buildings listed at 100m + in the Under construction, Approved and Proposed tables would not make the "Completed" list too large.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption

In the eighth image under the heading of Skylines, the caption suggests that the London Hilton is shown. I do not however believe it is visible in the current image and is too far left to be within it's field of view. Osgod Clapa (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_London