Even a skyscraper sceptic like me accepts that If the Shard (London Bridge Tower) is going to take place, it is good news that there is going to be some co-ordination with the adjacent site owners. I suspect this deal was necessary as without their agreement Sellar would have been unable to deliver the promised bus interchange.
IMO it is essential that the design of the new London Bridge station is part of the same masterplan design. The scheme inherited from Railtrack, which is currenly proposed on the timescale as "Thameslink 2000" was an interesting bit of architecture, but distinctly second rate compared with what Piano could do with it. It would be much better if the various landholders got together and swapped some of their air rights etc, to reduce the amount of office building directly over the concourse so that passengers get to see daylight.
I have mixed feelings about tall buildings
But I agree about coordinating the two towers,but its not necessary to homogenize evrything,the London bridge area has its own characteristic which is important as well .
It always irritates me when architects say how well the new and old can look together when they are trying to get there building approved .but refuse to incorporate existing structures into there designs ,not because it cant be done but just because they think that would violate the purity of there own design.
I always remember Norman foster saying the twin Towes at wembly wouldn't be in keeping with his new stadium building.
strange how he changes his tune when talking about one of these new sky scrapers in relation to St. Paul's for example .
That proves how opportunistic these architects opinion's can be.
The truth is the new wembly would look infinitely more interesting with the twin towers siting next to it.
And the new London bridge would look infinitely better with the Britain at war museum next to it.