London's next skyline already exists on planning drawings. The harder question is how much of it exists on construction sites. Across the City of London, Vauxhall and other major development areas, some of the capital's most prominent approved or redesigned towers remain years away from a rising structural frame. In several cases demolition is underway, in others an existing building is still standing. Elsewhere the original scheme has been materially redesigned before the main construction programme ever began.
That does not make every scheme a failed or stalled project. Demolition, vacant possession, archaeological investigation, planning-condition discharge, contractor procurement and technical design can legitimately take years on a major London tower. The important distinction is between an approved skyscraper, an active pre-construction project and a building that has actually crossed into main structural delivery. That distinction has become increasingly important because older programme dates remain searchable long after the physical project has changed. A tower may still be associated online with a 2024 start or 2027 completion while the site remains at demolition, redesign or pre-construction stage. That can distort how contractors, suppliers, investors and even the wider public read London's construction pipeline.
LCM has already tracked the other side of this market through its analysis of the biggest skyscrapers under construction in London. This review looks instead at the gap between the planning headline and the physical tower. While planning approval is often treated as evidence that a London skyscraper will soon rise, London Construction Magazine analysis shows that demolition, redesign, regulatory evidence, vacant possession and commercial sequencing can leave years between consent and a genuine main-construction start.
Eight Towers Behind the Planning Headlines
The status review below uses information available up to 8 August 2026. Crucially, pre-construction does not mean stalled. The classifications distinguish projects with active demolition or planned sequencing from schemes where previously expected delivery has materially changed or where a main structural start could not be independently verified from the evidence reviewed.
| London Tower | Planning / Programme Signal | Physical Position at 8 Aug 2026 | LCM Classification | What Matters Next |
| 100 Leadenhall Street City of London Approx. 250m+ / 56–57 storeys |
Planning approval dates back to 2018. Earlier programmes associated the scheme with a 2027 completion. | Research sources conflict on whether construction previously started. No main structural start could be independently verified from the evidence reviewed for this article. | Approved / status uncertain | Physical site verification, demolition status and an updated delivery programme are more useful signals than legacy completion dates. |
| One London Formerly 1 Undershaft 309.6m / approx. 74 storeys |
The project has passed through major redesign and planning iterations. Current public programme points to main tower construction from 2028 and completion around 2033. | Demolition and deconstruction of the existing St Helen's Tower is physically underway, with Keltbray involved. The new skyscraper structure itself is not yet rising. | Active pre-construction | Main-contractor appointment, completion of demolition and transition into the new substructure will mark the real change from enabling to tower delivery. |
| 55 Bishopsgate City of London Approx. 63-storey main tower |
Approved development with earlier programme expectations pointing toward works before the end of the decade. | The research reviewed did not establish a confirmed main structural start. Demolition and pre-construction activity remain the relevant near-term stages. | Pre-construction | Vacant possession, demolition progress and a confirmed main-construction mobilisation will determine when the scheme becomes genuine structural workload. |
| 99 Bishopsgate City of London Approx. 238m / 54 storeys |
Planning approval was secured in January 2025. The disclosed sequence places demolition ahead of a later main-build start around 2028. | The existing building remains the immediate construction issue, with tenant exit and demolition sequencing preceding the replacement tower. | Pre-construction — not classified as stalled | Demolition mobilisation and the subsequent transition to basement and foundation works will provide the meaningful delivery milestones. |
| 70 Gracechurch Street City of London Approx. 132m revised scheme |
The earlier full-demolition tower secured consent in 2021 before the development strategy changed. | The scheme has been reworked around greater retention and retrofit rather than simply executing the original approved tower. | Redesign / replanning | The important signal is not delay alone but the decision to change the physical delivery model after consent had already been achieved. |
| Vauxhall Square Lambeth New proposal up to approx. 69–70 storeys |
The site has had a previous major consent for years. A substantially revised and taller development strategy emerged after ownership and design-team changes. | The earlier vision did not translate into full tower delivery. The site is now being advanced through a new design proposition. | Long-delay / redesign | New planning progress and a credible construction start would represent a reset rather than continuation of the original delivery programme. |
| Vauxhall Cross Island Lambeth Twin towers around 53 and 42 storeys |
Permission dates from 2018 and a previously publicised 2023 works start has passed. | Limited clearance activity was recorded in 2023, but the research reviewed did not establish a subsequent main tower construction start. | Paused / uncertain | A verified main works mobilisation is needed before the project can reasonably be treated as active tower construction. |
| 85 Gracechurch Street City of London Approx. 30 storeys after redesign |
Approved with a current programme pointing to construction from 2027 and completion around 2030. | Archaeological discoveries prompted design changes. The scheme remains in demolition / enabling and pre-construction territory rather than structural tower delivery. | Pre-construction | 2027 should establish whether the revised design successfully converts into main construction. |
The table exposes the central problem with the word “pipeline”. A planning pipeline records projects with legal or design momentum. A construction pipeline should describe projects capable of converting that momentum into demolition, piling, basement construction, core work, frame erection, façade procurement and eventually occupation. Those are not the same thing.
The Approval-to-Start Gap Is the Real Story
The most striking case in the research is 100 Leadenhall Street. The scheme dates back to a 2018 consent and was associated with an original completion ambition around 2027. Eight years later, the research assembled for this review produced contradictory construction-start information rather than a clean, verifiable main-structure milestone. That contradiction is itself significant. LCM is therefore not describing 100 Leadenhall as cancelled, failed or abandoned. The evidence does not justify any of those terms. The more defensible finding is narrower and more useful: an approved landmark tower can remain present in London's development pipeline for many years without the public record providing a clear picture of when the main structural build has genuinely begun.
That is the same underlying market problem examined in LCM's earlier analysis of why approved London construction projects are still not starting. Planning permission clears one major hurdle. It does not simultaneously resolve vacant possession, funding, design maturity, regulatory evidence, demolition, procurement, utilities, contractor risk appetite and buildability. For anyone assessing future construction workload, this matters more than the number of planning approvals. The useful question is not “How many towers have consent?” It is “Which tower has reached the next irreversible delivery milestone?” A signed demolition package is stronger evidence than a rendering. A completed demolition is stronger than a target date. Piling and substructure mobilisation are stronger again. Once the core begins to rise, the project has finally crossed a threshold that planning data alone cannot prove.
Demolition Is Not the Same as a Tower Start
One London demonstrates why the distinction matters. There is unquestionably construction-related activity at 1 Undershaft: the existing St Helen's Tower is being deconstructed and Keltbray's involvement provides a visible, physical delivery signal. But describing that as construction of the new 309.6m tower would collapse two very different programme stages into one. The current programme places main construction of the new tower from 2028, with completion around 2033. The site is therefore active, but the skyscraper itself remains in pre-construction. That is not semantics. For a concrete-frame contractor, structural-steel specialist, façade manufacturer, MEP installer or vertical-transport supplier, the difference between demolition and main build can represent years of procurement separation.
99 Bishopsgate requires the same discipline. Its programme involves clearing and demolishing the existing building before the replacement 54-storey structure progresses. A long demolition period does not automatically mean the project has stalled. If that sequence has been deliberately programmed and the project continues to hit its intermediate milestones, it should remain classified as pre-construction rather than delayed simply because there is no new tower frame yet. This creates a useful test for the entire London skyscraper market: visible site activity should be classified by what it actually represents. Strip-out is strip-out. Demolition is demolition. Enabling works are enabling works. Piling is substructure. A rising core is main structural construction. When those stages are blended together, an apparently large “under construction” pipeline can become much less informative for companies trying to understand when work packages will genuinely reach the market.
Redesign Can Reset a Project by Years
Some of London's longest delays are not simply periods of inactivity. They are evidence that the original development proposition has changed. At 70 Gracechurch Street, the important development signal is a move away from the original full-demolition concept towards a revised approach incorporating greater retention. That decision effectively resets parts of the design, engineering, planning and procurement sequence. A planning permission that once represented one physical building strategy can no longer be treated as a straightforward indicator of the construction programme for the revised scheme.
Vauxhall Square is an even stronger example. The site has carried major development ambition for years without the earlier approved scheme translating into full delivery. The latest proposition is materially different, with a substantially taller development concept emerging following ownership and design-team changes. This is not evidence that high-rise development at the site has disappeared. It is evidence that the project has been rebaselined.
Vauxhall Cross Island presents another variation. Planning approval was secured in 2018 and limited site-clearance activity was recorded later, but the research reviewed for this article could not verify the transition into sustained main tower construction. The responsible classification is therefore paused or uncertain, not abandoned. Possible land and interface issues have been identified in the project history, but LCM has not attributed the delay to a single commercial cause because the evidence does not support doing so.
85 Gracechurch shows why redesign should not automatically be read negatively. Archaeological discoveries beneath the site required the proposed tower to respond to significant Roman remains, leading to changes in the scheme. The current programme points towards construction in 2027. In that case, redesign is part of resolving a real site condition before the main build rather than evidence that the development has failed.
The broader lesson is that an old planning approval can describe a building that is no longer the building ultimately intended to be constructed. For search engines, market databases and supply-chain teams, that creates a difficult information problem: historic approvals remain easy to find while the operationally relevant design may have moved on significantly.
Where the Supply Chain Feels the Delay
For contractors, the approval-to-start gap is not an abstract planning statistic. It affects labour allocation, estimating resource, plant availability, specialist design, temporary works, procurement and manufacturing capacity.
A demolition contractor can be fully mobilised years before the replacement tower's façade or MEP packages are required. A main contractor may spend months developing logistics, basement sequencing, crane strategy, buildability and risk pricing before a full construction commitment is reached. Piling contractors have to protect specialist rig availability. Façade businesses work around engineering, testing and manufacturing slots that cannot be moved indefinitely without consequence. MEP contractors face even longer exposure where switchgear, transformers and specialist equipment must be procured well ahead of installation.
On higher-risk residential buildings, the regulatory sequence adds another layer. LCM's BSR and Gateway guidance for London projects tracks how technical evidence, coordinated design information and approval readiness now affect mobilisation. Gateway 2 should not be used as a generic explanation for every delayed tower (many commercial office schemes sit in a different regulatory context) but where the regime applies, the project cannot simply treat planning consent as permission to begin the main building work.
The commercial tension therefore sits between pipeline visibility and pipeline certainty. Developers need enough market confidence to progress design and procurement. Contractors need enough certainty to commit people and price. Specialist trades need enough programme confidence to protect manufacturing or labour capacity. Funders and regulators require evidence before risk can move forward. A project can consequently remain very busy at consultant and pre-construction level while producing relatively little visible structural activity on site.
That is why the phrase “not started” needs context. It may mean a project is dormant. It may also mean hundreds of people are working through demolition, design, planning conditions, technical assurance and procurement before the first new foundation is installed. The job of construction intelligence is to distinguish those conditions rather than merge them into one headline number.
What 2027 Should Prove
The next 12 to 18 months should make the distinction between London planning momentum and London construction momentum much clearer. One London should continue through the huge task of removing the existing tower ahead of its scheduled 2028 main-build start. 99 Bishopsgate should provide visible evidence through vacancy, demolition and site preparation. 85 Gracechurch Street is expected to move towards its stated 2027 construction window. Other City schemes will reveal whether their current pre-construction programmes convert into demolition, foundations and rising structure or move further into the longer-range pipeline.
The most interesting projects will be those where the internet and the physical site begin to disagree. If an old completion date remains widely repeated while the existing building is still standing, that date has little operational value. If a site is described as under construction but only strip-out has occurred, the stage needs to be corrected. If an approved scheme has been fundamentally redesigned, the old approval should not continue to define the construction outlook.
This is where original site observation becomes particularly valuable. Hoardings, demolition plant, piling rigs, crane bases, cores, contractor branding and the continued occupation of an existing building can answer questions that years of recycled project descriptions cannot. For the London tower market, physical evidence remains one of the clearest ways to distinguish intention from execution. The full contractor implications, sequencing risks and mitigation strategies are included in today’s London Construction Magazine briefing.
Evidence-Based Summary
London's skyscraper pipeline remains substantial, but approval, demolition and main construction are increasingly different milestones rather than one continuous event. The eight schemes reviewed here show several distinct conditions: genuine long-delay cases, redesigned projects, uncertain starts and legitimate pre-construction programmes that should not be mislabelled as stalled. For contractors and developers, the most reliable indicators are therefore shifting away from planning headlines and towards physical mobilisation, demolition completion, main-contractor commitment, substructure progress and the first irreversible stages of structural delivery. The skyline may be planned years in advance, but only site evidence shows when it has actually begun to rise.
Why These Projects Matter Together
London's tower market now depends on a chain of decisions that extends far beyond the planning committee. Developers have to keep schemes commercially viable while consultants resolve design, archaeology, structure and compliance; landowners and occupiers influence vacant-possession timing; demolition contractors create the physical route into redevelopment; regulators determine whether applicable technical evidence is sufficient; main contractors decide whether the residual programme and risk allocation are buildable; and specialist contractors commit capacity only when the sequence becomes credible. When one part of that chain moves more slowly than the others, the skyline does not disappear, but the date on which it becomes real construction moves with it.
This article reflects project-status evidence reviewed up to 8 August 2026. Status classifications are intended to distinguish planning, redesign, demolition, enabling and main structural construction. Where current delivery information could not be independently established, the project has been marked uncertain rather than assigned an unverified cause or construction date.
| Expert Verification & Authorship: Mihai Chelmus Founder, London Construction Magazine | Construction Testing & Investigation Specialist |
