The depiction of London in In to Darkness.

The depiction of London in In to Darkness.
They should have done more research before they visualize London the way they did.
What with the protected view status of St Pauls Cathedral, the Various world heritage sites, listed buildings and the fact that the City of Westminster doesnt allow high rise building at all.

All of this means that London could and will never look the way they visualize it.

In fact most of the west end will look much as it doeas now in 100 + years time.

 

Yes but Star Trek Into Darkness is in 250 years time, and after wars involving genetically engineered super-solders and nuclear weapons. A lot can change.

 

I thought it was pretty believable to be honest. Look at London's skyline now compared to even 20 years ago and you'll see what I mean.

 

250 years is REALLY long time, it's obviously going to be wrong, but I just found the depiction of London to be very plausible considering the skylines expansion in the last few decades. There's tall buildings going up all the time there now and the pace is so much faster than in other UK cities.

 

Just look at how different today's London is from London in 1768. A lot can change in 250 years.

 

Three words: World War 3.

 

It's kind of like how every shot of San Francisco has the bridge.

Or how in Grey's Anatomy, no matter where in town they go, you can always see the Space Needle behind them.

 

It is someone's fantasy conjecture of what a city might look like 250 years from now. Heck, London may not even exist 250 years from now, or could undergo some kind of major population/ideological/cultural shift, like the majority of the population being Muslim, that would render some of the laws now obsolete.

 

Even 100 years ago...

 

London doesn't really change that much.

They missed the opportunity for a more intelligent and interesting visualization.

 

No they didn't. The made the visualization they wanted based upon an idea that Earth had changed a bunch in 250 years, at least one more World War, and several million people dead, depending on the source.

But, no, London shouldn't change? I don't get that.

 

10. Maybe 20.
Not 100. In those photos.
The second photo set has very little change, it’s just taken at a very different angle.
This is not to suppose that London will not change some more...it will...but those photos are...not the best example. Any degree of luck it will change less in the next 250 years. We need less gleaming glass edifices to money, and a few thousand more decent homes. And the one in a billion chance that some actual Londoners will live in them. (I do t care about there race, creed or colour, just that people who were born and grew up in this city can’t afford to live here anymore, while the houses are investment for rich folk from all over the planet.)

 

Yeah, I should have checked that website more closely

Regardless, my point stands. London could change for any number of reasons in 250 years, contrary to the OP's assertion.

 

The Thames, they are a-changin'.

 

If anything I thought STID did a pretty good job combining historic buildings with fancy futuristic ones. It's certainly more realistic than the typical "futuristic city" which is just futuristic looking architecture built around a recognizable landmark like the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, or whatever.

 

If the brave new world of the mid-2200s feels the need to build vast arcologies in the middle of Iowan cornfields, then the modest degree of construction seen in London must be taken as indication that this cute little town of former historical significance has been left to basically fallow, preserved as a monument or theme park. Or perhaps a luxury residential area for those able to afford the extra space and wasteful small-scale construction?

Nobody really lives or works there anyway, it seems. A huge fireball rising halfway to the level of St Paul's leaves no casualties to speak of: just 47 are quoted dead, and supposedly that already includes the apparent dozens of Section 31 workers (even if the authorities don't call them that) killed underground.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Section 31 is there because the federation knows how well we brits do spies.
Cambridge is full of Romulans though.

 

It's a long time since anyone lived in London - it's 2016 population was less than 9,500. (ETA: honestly, I'm surprised the modern population is that high. I've always presumed that with the passage of time it would become increasingly depopulated and be left to become purely a commercial, finance, and tourism centre.)

Perhaps The City is a particularly safe place for disasters to occur: The 1664 Great Fire of London razed there quarters of the Square Mile to the ground, but there were no official fatalities!!

dJE