As they also say if it ain’t broke don’t fix it….so it seems the banking system is due for a little fixing(of the type unlike match fixing). Fixing the banking system could be the silver lining from the GFC.

The UK’s trading and industrial power followed the decline of Venice as a mercantile state.
[ http://www.slideshare.net/khooky/venice-decline ]

In the old days going to football matches was a working class recreation. Ticket prices were low, toilets were few and men used to stand on the terraces and drink loads of beer. Then, when nature followed its course, they used to pee there they stood and what they were up to was less obvious when the rain was pouring, as often happened. It’s a bit like that with money laundering. There is so much money sloshing through London’s foreign exchange markets that a few extra zillions do not appear on the radar. I heard that many London apartments are bought by petty officials, from Russian government offices. They have very good incomes from corruption and like the idea of it being invested in a safe place where asset prices are zooming etc etc. So they have bought a lot of property in the Shard and elsewhere. Cyprus used to be a favoured place because there is even more sun than in London but things went wrong when the government swiped Russian deposits. http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef017c37f5c3bb970b-800wi London seems safer but, with luck, we will learn from Cyprus!

Are Russians thinking of buying the Shard?

Why is London a good place to launder money? [ http://www.lawstudentatlast.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Money-Laundering.jpg ]

What does the Archbishop have to say about acts of atonement for the ‘wrong use of money?’
It is not a concept that is very familiar to me.[ http://www.betemunah.org/atonemen.html ]

The cross idea only came to mind because the spire with a cross is so very traditional in London.
I have not seen an account from Renzo Piano of the precise meaning he attached to shard but guess it is ‘A fragment of broken earthenware. spec. in Archaeol., a piece of broken pottery. Phrase: to break, etc. into sherds : to reduce to fragments, break beyond repair.’ ( as in for example E. B. Tylor Early Hist. Mankind viii. 217 1865 ‘ The mutilation of the priests of Cybele was done with a sherd of Samian ware’.) I hope I am wrong about this because it seems a rather-cruel thing to do to old city. But if I am right then there could be a case for placing a religious symbol on top – as an act of atonement.
There are some Arab atheists and some Arab Christians. The majority are Muslim. However Russians are buying up masses of London property (more for money laundering than because they want to live here). Christianity is doing pretty well in Russia these days. Perhaps the buyers would like to atone for their sins. If so, this would be another reason for a religious symbol on the Shard. Although they are not traditional on top of secular buildings in Christian societies, the times they are a-changin.
Lots of views from the Shard have been published. It has no need to be beside the Thames, for views, and indeed has views of the English Channel on a good day. Nor would trees do much to interrupt views!

The view of St Pauls with the Shard is to be preferred to either the square block or the pepperpot.

I am not sure that there would be any reason to put a Christian cross on the top of the Shard unless there was some proposal for using it for a Cathedral or buildings related to the a banking function run by the Church of England ie like the Vatican Bank.

Are all Arabs Islamic? Do all buildings owned by arabs have islamic crescents. It is not something that was noticeable on the buildings at Harrods?

Yes, it would be great to know more about the roof top wintergarden proposals for the Walkie Talkie (hopefully not so scorchie up there).

The second pic from the left is ‘REALITY’ as photographed on a rainy day last week. I agree about the Shard in this position being a better choice. But should it have a Christian cross on top? Or should it have an Islamic crescent (given that it is Arab-owned)?
Re the Walkie Talkie, I think there was a lack of forward-thinking and a severe lack of visual impact analysis and ‘comprehensive’ is not a word which should be used in this context! The one really great thing about the Walkie Talkie is the roof-top ‘Winter Garden’. I do not know if it can be opened to the sky in good weather and if it can’t they are going to have to spend a lot on aircon.
I am in basic agreement with your compositional judgements.
Re the future of the City of London’s skyline, I am working on a montage which may not be worthy of publication. We’ll see! It is more of a hypothesis (or wild notion) than a proposal.

Which is the real view of St Paul’s from Fleet Street? The first view is preferred and the last view has perhaps the least visual impact on St Pauls(possibly because of it slender form and symmetry)and twinning with the existing spire.

Perhaps the issue is that the massing study needs to be done first – and perhaps site specific planning principles developed – before any building is designed for the site?

I am not sure whether there was full consideration of the impact of the Walkie Talkie for example on the Tower of London. Or whether its impact was inadvertent because the planners were trying to protect views of St Pauls?

Were there concessions given on site coverage and development of greater bulk to reduce its initial height?

The top Thames view of the Cheesegrater is fine: even though it partly obscures the Swiss Re building, it is complementary as a group of buildings. The front on view beside the Walkie Talkie is much less inspiring – as is the whole view of Thameside development – from this perspective (in your last photo). The Walkie Talkie seen from these perspectives is not as problematic.

So, the assessment process of views has to be comprehensive.