SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Mayor of London Discussion Thread | Sadiq Khan

1M views 12K replies 361 participants last post by  Modernlife 
#1 · (Edited)
I thought it makes sense to discuss the implications of having Boris Johnson as new mayor (with his vastly different views on skyscrapers compared to Kens) on current and future skyscraper development in London. I think that more can be said about it than the predictions of doom voiced in the election thread up to now.

To start off with a more positive view here comes my attempt (I try to be optimistic and the following logic is a bit different to what I read up to now on the topic): I think the implications might be that it might actually help the current projects (ok, with the exception of the shard which is threatened by Boris taking away the TFL prelet but that prelet wasn't that big anyways and I think even for that one this would be overcompensated by the effect described in the following) in the city and that it will also help future projects in CW.

Here's why: Obviously the consensus is that we will not see new skyscraper projects in the city approved anytime soon (more or less as long as he's mayor). But if you look at current skyscraper projects in the center (LBT, Pinnacle, Leadenhall, Heron & 20 Fenchurch) they face the credit crunch and fear of a real crash in the office market. For those projects it is actually quite a boost to know that they will not face further nearby competition by new skyscrapers any time soon. Especially not for those years after 2012 when they will all be finished if things are going according to plan and when the current downturn in the markets should long be over. The earliest for new competition to even get planning permission (and we know how long it takes from then to have a finished building entering the market) is 2012 (if Boris is not reelected) so they will have quite some time where they can divide the office market between them without a threat of new competition. That is worth a lot for investors and should put the projects on safer ground which was definitely shaken because of the credit crunch.

On the other hand even the now mayor-backed EH is not against skyscraper development in CW - so new projects simply gonna be forced to move there instead of the city (which will have plenty new skyscrapers to marvel on already from the current projects at the verge of starting construction now). This might help to move on a mega project (for european standards) like wood wharf which will bring CW to a whole new level..
 
See less See more
#9,242 ·
Whilst everyone's distracted by a new cable car...

London Sees A 43% Rise In Rough Sleeping
http://londonist.com/2012/07/london-sees-a-43-rise-in-rough-sleeping.php
To be fair people migrate to cities that are good for rough sleeping. Cambridge has a lot of homeless but was chatting to a guy one day and he told me that he and most other people there came to the city because there was a good community of homeless and it was just a great place to sleep rough. Not condoning it but really shouldn't necessarily blame the 'host' city ... it's everyone's problem.
 
#9,244 ·
It's been a good start to his second term IMO. Delivering the cable car and the new routemaster in time for the Olympics is a real achievement.

He is pushing ahead with his electric car scheme now and hinted on the radio that he might be open to considering the future of the congestion zone once it is in place.
What does he mean by 'considering the further of the congestion zone'?
 
#9,247 ·
What does he mean by 'considering the further of the congestion zone'?
He had mentioned a number of times in the past that the original congestion zone shouldnt be considered permantent but would remain until a solution to the congestion problem was found. This was brought up by the interviewer and boris said that nothing was off the table and he was putting together a package of congestion busting transport options including bikes, cycle lanes, new buses, better integrated rail network and electric hire cars. He has at least opened the door to finally getting this stupid tax for people just getting to work removed.
 
#9,252 ·
The congestion zone is a tax on people going to work and should be removed at the first opportunity.
The charge fairly reflects the marginal cost to the roads from a private car in central London actually, because roadspace is at a premium just for the essential users like delivery vehicles and buses. Removal of the charge will send more cars onto the roads which will worsen congestion. Green vehicles are nice, but they don't solve the problem of congestion. The charge is first and foremost a congestion one and not an environmental one.
 
#9,253 ·
Looking at the roads only a small fraction of the traffic is private vehicles. They are already hugely taxed with VAT on purchase, road tax, huge taxes on fuel, extortionate parking fees. I strongly doubt anyone drives into central london for the fun of it. They are being taxed simply to drive to work.
 
#9,254 ·
In many cases - as I have stated countless times before - Public Transport is NOT SUITABLE. Some people need to carry large toolboxes or similar with them to work, not suitable on a Tube, some need to carry huge marketing portfolios, not suitable on a Tube. Don't forget, these are the kind of people who used to 'drive' into Central London before Cars were invented in Carriages and the like.
 
#9,259 ·
Looking at the roads only a small fraction of the traffic is private vehicles.
That's precisely becasue the charge is working. Traffic is actually at its worst either side of the congestion charging window and at weekends. Sundays are made even worse due to the relaxations in parking restrictions.
 
Top