The View From The Shard

[Spotty Dog]

Anyone done it? I have just been in London for a few days and my wife and I went up to the top of the Shard. Cost was £50, expensive, but what you might expect to pay in London. On the way up, however, they took a photo of us, saying it would be a nice keepsake, and we could collect it on the way out. "Nice touch" I thought, until they tried to charge us £30 for it! Guess what I told them to do with the picture.

[jno]

that's normal, it happens on cruise ships, tourist attractions, everything. You're right, tourist sights in London are very expensive, except for the public galleries and museums, which are free (unlike the Louvre, say).

[Elina]

Flipping heck Spotty!! I love the look of the shard I think it's an interesting building. That's a bit much though isn't it!

[jno]

that's for two, Elina.

Compare prices: http://www.thenational.ae/uae/tourism/burj-khalifas-new-viewing-deck-is-the-highest-in-the-world

[Tilly2]

Someone I know stayed at the Shangri-La Hotel, in the Shard. The room was £400 per night. They had a lovely time.

[Elina]

The pic or the trip to the top of the shard jno? I was thinking thirty pound for a photo was over the top.

[Zacs-Master]

You can go to the bar called Aqua on the 32nd floor for free and the views are still spectacular. You are expected to buy a drink of course.

[grasscarp]

I took 2 visitors to London up the Shard. To be honest for the price I didnt think it was worth it. I was very unimpressed by the so called telescopes to look at views. They are recorded and show you a typical night and day on demand. I was looking at a boat on river and on scope it wasnt there. Dare I say it an expensive con.

[Answerprancer]

Hmm, when you consider the fact that is is a mere 14.50 Euros to go up to the top of (probably) the most iconic tower in Europe.
That price is enough to make you 'shart'!

[jno]

oh yes, that's a lot for a photo, Elina. One of Answerprancer's photos would be worth it (his are really good), but not a happy snap at the Shard.

[Answerprancer]

Thanks jno - I have been tempted to go up there a few times (despite the inappropriately high price) but I'd only do it there if there is a guaranteed unrestricted view ie. no reflections, no jostling, no smears on the glass and no security nazis moving people on.

[jno]

it's pretty hopeless for good photography, AP. The lower (enclosed) floor has double glass walls most of the way round - not double glazing, just two separate sheets of glass a foot or two part; plus there are pillars everywhere, painted white. So there's a reflection nightmare. There are one or two spots with just a single pane and if it's clean you can get the odd decent shot through it.

Upstairs is openish, on the corners at least, and partly single glazed, as I recall. But there's hardly anywhere to take a photo with no obstruction at all. On the outside bits you could have your camera on a pole reaching above the glass (which is a good six feet high), and there are a couple of gaps between sheets where you could squeeze the lens of a compact.

But that's about it. The building wasn't actually intended to be camera-friendly (even though everyone who goes up there will have one); I suspect the public gallery was an afterthought.

Nice views though. But much of the view to the south will be a mix of sun and haze/cloud... which a skilled photograopher might be able to make something out of.

[mikey4444]

About ten years ago, I spent a small fortune taking my friends two teenage boys up on the London Eye. I was a little worried beforehand, in case they might be bored. But all three of us were bored ! I think the Eye looks marvelous as a spectacle and it has livened up the riverside at that point.

But in my humble opinion, it isn't worth queuing up for hours and wasting any money on.

Now the tour of Tower Bridge was a different thing altogether ! Although you may not now be allowed along the walkway between the two sides any longer, due to security.

[Suetheramble]

I did not think it worth it although there were window cleaners on the outside when I went I found that interesting - people sitting on "swings" - on the outside - that far up- Respect!!
Why do people pay all that money to see what things look like far off and then spend all their time looking through telescopes to see what they look like close up!!
I suppose i am glad I did it but…...

[jno]

because it's a new way of seeing things, suetheramble? People have never been able to look down on St Paul's like that before (for instance).