Why does does it say on wikipedia that the st davids shopping center extension cost £675 million and then on one canada square now the second tallest skyscraper in the uk cost £621 million pounds to build?.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_David%27s_Centre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Canada_Square

Could it be the credit crunch?

Inflation?

They were built 20 years apart.

The tower of London probably cost a quid.

Maybe it's because ST2 was built outwards, whereas One Canada Square was built vertically? Perhaps land is at a premium?

if god doesn't know what chance do the rest us of mere mortals have?

Like it!

Well you have a distinct advantage by actually existing and not being a fairy tale.

not only that the shard cost £435 million by contract cost only ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shard
and this was during the economic apocalypse ?

If you follow that logic, we should have a VERY different skyline.

By the way, one thing that I was wondering about is building height. What is the legal limit that you can build within the city limits?

I have read somewhere in London there is a limit on building heights due to flight paths. The flight paths are at 2000ft so maximum building height is 1000ft. The reason The Shard is 1017ft is coz it's built on land below sea level.

I think there was height reductions made on canary wharf, canada sq due to it's proximity to City airport.