From Building Design magazine

UNESCO proposes tough new rules that could
ban tall towers near world heritage sites

By Charlie Gates

The United Nations is this week arming itself for a confrontation with modern architecture as it moves to protect the world's most important historic sites from "iconic" skyscrapers.

The head of Unesco world heritage centres, Francesco Bandarin, has proposed tough rules that could see tall buildings in historic cities such as London and Liverpool refused permission because of their impact on heritage sites. Foster & Partners' Swiss Re tower would have been blocked under the rules.

Bandarin told BD: "There must be a limit to designing whatever you want when you are in a city with a long history.

A lot of these iconic buildings are designed with no sense of context. They are just pure design. Architecture should be a human activity. It is not for magazines, it is for people.

"We are looking at what is happening in the 200 cities around the world with World Heritage Sites and we are very worried. In confronting modern architecture we find we do not have the tools to stop them."

Bandarin cited Foster's Swiss Re headquarters (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=93867&page=1) as an example of a modern building that had an impact on the nearby Tower of London, but had not broken any rules concerning building near a listed site. In a move that will reignite last year's debate about iconic buildings versus "place-making", the UN is empowering itself to prevent such developments, using a series of proposed regulations that are being discussed at a special conference in Vienna this week.

They propose that cities with world heritage sites should have to enshrine a conservation plan in supplementary planning guidance. This would give the regulations more teeth as they would automatically become a statutory consideration for any planning decision near the site.

Bandarin is also proposing the first new UN guidelines on the management of sites in nearly 30 years to tackle the phenomenon of iconic architecture. These would include measures such as protected views, similar to the viewing corridors that protect St Paul's Cathedral in London, and could prevent towers such as the Shard or Allford Hall Monaghan Morris's Unity building in Liverpool being granted planning permission in the future, if they affect a world heritage site.

After the Vienna conference, the proposals will go for approval to the Unesco world heritage committee in July and will then be considered by UN member states for adoption. They were prompted by the Wien-Mitte project in Vienna, which comprises three high-rise towers, designed by Ortner & Ortner, in the buffer zone surrounding the world heritage site, just 800m from St Stephen's Cathedral.

The proposed regime has already caused ructions in Westminster, where the council has been preparing a management strategy for Westminster Abbey in anticipation. London mayor Ken Livingstone has opposed the draft strategy because it conflicts with his tall buildings policy.

Leading architects and planners lined up against Unesco. CZWG's Piers Gough warned: "[Bandarin] is trying to rewrite history. The lift was invented 150 years ago, so we are capable of making high buildings. The point of progress is not to suck up to the sensibilities of the boss of Unesco. Many of us see a sublime relationship between modern and existing buildings. Over-legislation could see cities reduced to blandness."

Peter Rees, city planning officer for the Corporation of London, also criticised the plans. "I think each country should protect its own heritage. It is not for someone from some anally retentive European country to come along and tell people they can't touch [a heritage site]," Rees said.



http://tinypic.com/4tlfzp



http://tinypic.com/4tlg8w



http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/4213shot1.jpg

While i generally think the concept is OK, i disagree with the move. A city is a dynamic, evolving environment, that people shape and develop as they move forward. Todays development is just the next chapter in cities history, and are as important as times past in many circumstances. If handled correctly, it only enhances the city and adds a new, unique character in conjunction with heritage sites.

If the skyscrapers don't destroy the monuments, I don't think it's a good idea :( Cities and of course monuments are not things that change in the history. Skyscrapers and modern buildings can life together with monuments and give new perspectives to the cities, and became more interesting.

plus, you can't believe how popular the Gherkin is in its current position. Cities should blend new with the old, and Swiss Re's proximity to Tower Bridge and the Tower of London is a great example of how it should be done.

Yeah, rules and maybe even limitations are ok...but it would be good to blend in both old and new. Swiss Re is a very fine example indeed how it should be done IMHO! :)

The UN has no business in how we develop our cities - unless they contribute significant money towards maintaining them, which I don't think they do.

I can't believe they cited Swiss RE as an example. That building has revolutionized London's skyline and atmosphere for the better.

Meh. Is the UN even trying to get the Anglosphere back on its side or has it totally given up?

I can't believe they cited Swiss RE as an example. That building has revolutionized London's skyline and atmosphere for the better.
Yep. This plan from the UN is absurd. Here in London, we already have incredibly strict rules/regulations for tall buildings near world heritage sites. This UN plan would take things to the extreme, and ban them on principle.

Good subject.

Since the UN cant really do anything I guess this is their way of trying to show they still have power.

What good is the UN anymore? Honestly.

What a stupid rule, if this happened tons of cities would not be able to build skyscrapers, and when new cities get older, than they won't be allowed to build them either I assume?

This is absurd.

How was this even on the UN agenda? Shouldn't this be up to the city planners to decide if they want a building or not.

This has no business being on any agenda other than that of individual citys' . In principle it's not a bad idea but in practice it's overkill. Cities today have no interest in tearing down landmarks for a multitude of reasons. If London wants to put up a building as impressive as Swiss Re then it shouldn't have to go through some international channel to do it. Hell, just look at the building; in a hundred years Swiss Re will be considered a world landmark (if it isn't already) that nobody will allow to be torn down. Besides, cities don't have the luxury of building and planning based on nostalgia.

While I am generally supportive of most that the U.N. does, this is the type of thing that opponents of the U.N. will use to make their case. As was said earlier, cities are evolving beasts. I believe the Eiffel Tower had much opposition before its construction because many thought it would destroy the history of Paris; look what's happened, the Tower has become a part of Parisian history itself!

"They were prompted by the Wien-Mitte project in Vienna, which comprises three high-rise towers, designed by Ortner & Ortner, in the buffer zone surrounding the world heritage site, just 800m from St Stephen's Cathedral."

Wow, 800 meters...that's close. :|

The UN and all its various bodies have absolutely no power to control what is built where and when.

They are just a bunch of overpaid academics writing whitepapers. The only affect they can have is to influence thought amongst citizens and to lobby those with the real power.

So then we can only see that in our future, all the city centers will be very old and ruin-like while the skyscrapers go up around the city center in the suburbs.

Too bad for u guys, Londoners.

What good is the UN anymore? Honestly.

What a stupid rule, if this happened tons of cities would not be able to build skyscrapers, and when new cities get older, than they won't be allowed to build them either I assume?

This is absurd.

I tend to agree.

It is absurd esp when their skyscraper headquarters graces the hudson river -I bet they don't want to move to a business park groundscraper in some far flug suburb or NYC.

the UN has less and less relevance today and this shows they are clutching at straws in attempting to assert a power that is not there.

I'm totally against such move by the UN. The history has not ended, it's an ongoing process. The UN or UNESCO has no business making such rules. It seems to me the overpaid officials just seek justification for their existence by proposing such rules.

I am pretty sure that they can find more important things to do.

They interfere very seriously in the life of the cities. If Riga would obey to these requirements, the city would have less economical success and less financing to sustain its historical heritage (which requires billions over the coming decades).
The planned highrise district in Riga is well defined and well divided from historical centre but according to UNESCO this is still too near. But we do not have other options to locate it. And without such district we do not have hope to develop as international business centre.
If such UNESCO decision would be accepted, Riga most likely will withdraw from WH list. Attraction of financing for preservation of historical heritage is more important than being on World Heritage list.

I tend to agree.

It is absurd esp when their skyscraper headquarters graces the hudson river -I bet they don't want to move to a business park groundscraper in some far flug suburb or NYC.

the UN has less and less relevance today and this shows they are clutching at straws in attempting to assert a power that is not there.


They need to be given ALOT of power.
For a step towards a world govt of sorts.

lol.

While i generally think the concept is OK, i disagree with the move. A city is a dynamic, evolving environment, that people shape and develop as they move forward. Todays development is just the next chapter in cities history, and are as important as times past in many circumstances. If handled correctly, it only enhances the city and adds a new, unique character in conjunction with heritage sites.


very well said!!!

it is the mix of new and old what makes a city interesting.
with this move the un appears backward to me, sticking to the history and not looking into the future

an agreement has to be made here, how far away shall new towers be built


but i can't agree with this statement:
A lot of these iconic buildings are designed with no sense of context. They are just pure design. Architecture should be a human activity. It is not for magazines, it is for people.

I've always respected UNESCO, and I like the concept of the World Heritage Sites, many of which have benifitted enormously from being listed. However, this policy in question is incredibly problematic.

I can understand why we shouldn't allow anyone to build a skyscraper in the Forbidden City, or in the middle of the Grand Canyon, or in front of the Taj Mahal. However, you can only protect the actual listed areas, not areas near them. Beijing or Agra are free to build scrapers near those landmarks, and indeed they should if that would improve the lives of their citizens. Listing an entire city is obviously overkill, and very unfair if it means no growth is allowed to occur.

I think cities and countries themselves should be free to make their own decisions about these World Heritage Sites. UNESCO could and should make recommendations, but ultimately it's up to local authorities to protect vistas. UNESCO should just focus on protecting the sites themselves, otherwise they will become a joke.

That being said, wouldn't it have been nice if we could have invaded Afghanistan earlier to protect Bamiyan? :)

Liverpool became a World Heritage site last year and now the enitre city centre is a buffer zone. When it was announced people voiced their concerns that the title would limit development but we were told it wouldn't, now look at what they want to do! The city has been getting back on it's feet over the past few years with high rise develoment a sign of a revival but if they ban tall buildings in the city then we would be turning away developers and investment. Liverpool is a city not a museum, if UNESCO introduce these rules I wouldn't be sad to give up the title.

Under these new rules I doubt the tallest building in these pictures would have been given permission. Do you think the view here would be ruined?

http://img24.exs.cx/img24/3849/WT2.jpg

http://www.uniform.net/newsimages/news-image.jpg

These modern buildings could become monuments from our time. These rules talk of a total ban, no chance for us to build our landmarks. I love the historic parts of Liverpool but I think we are over protecting it a little bit. I wonder if the architect of the Liver building thought that it would take 100 years for another building in Liverpool to be taller than it?

Life and society changes and has always done and so are the buildings. But it is important to be careful when designing tall and large modern buildings close to historic monuments.

I dont agree with limiting the building heights. I believe that the monuments or whatever are fine so long as they are not destroyed. I dont believe we should sacrifice development for the sake of not covering up monuments.

There are dozens of armed conflicts the world over. People are dying of disease, pestulence, armed warfare, food shortages, and all sorts of other maladies, and the f**kin' UN is worried about this crap? This is an organization that just doesn't know how to keep their elitest little noses out of anyone's business! Enough!

And just who in the hell is the UN to tell any of us "where" and "how high" our buildings can be? And this isn't under the catagory of "overstepping one's bounds?"

On a scale of importance of 1-10; if you had a micrometer, you couldn't get a reading..

Under such a guideline, the Eiffel Tower in Paris would have never been built because of its close proximity to nearby museums/ historical landmarks. How can the United Nations impose a law to limit people's imagination ?

Is this what they want ??
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/3097pariseiffelview3.jpg

If you ask me, the civilised world should just pull out of the UN.

The UN has no business in how we develop our cities - unless they contribute significant money towards maintaining them, which I don't think they do.

I agree.

If you ask me, the civilised world should just pull out of the UN.


Im surprised that many haven't by this time.

Yep. This plan from the UN is absurd. Here in London, we already have incredibly strict rules/regulations for tall buildings near world heritage sites. This UN plan would take things to the extreme, and ban them on principle.


Agreed. These people need to mind thier own business, and quit trying to push thier personal opinion onto an entire planet.

and what bloody authority does UNESCO have to do this?

all they can do is make recomendations, they have absolutely zero power to dictate how sovereign nations see fit to develop their cities.

the very notion that UNESCO would even say that they would ban tall buildings near world heritage sites is just plain old absurd because they have absolutely no say in the matter. they have no real power of decision.